    [Senate Hearing 108-203]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                         S. Hrg. 108-203

      DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2004
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARINGS

                                    before a

                              SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

                          ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       on

                               H.R. 2691/S. 1391

      AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND
    RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2004, 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

                                     ______

    85-929                  U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
                                 WASHINGTON : 2003
    ________________________________________________________________________
    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone:  toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
    Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001

                          COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

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

        Subcommittee on Department of the Interior and Related Agencies

                        CONRAD BURNS, Montana, Chairman
    TED STEVENS, Alaska                  BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
    THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi            ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
    PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico         PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
    ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah              ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
    JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire            HARRY REID, Nevada
    BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado    DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
    SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas                BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland

                               Professional Staff

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

                             Administrative Support

                                 Larissa Sommer

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                            Thursday, March 20, 2003

                                                                       Page

    Department of Agriculture: Forest Service........................     1

                            Thursday, April 10, 2003

    Department of the Interior: Office of the Secretary..............    57

                             Thursday, May 22, 2003

    Department of Energy: Office of the Secretary....................   107
    Nondepartmental witnesses........................................   163

      DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2004

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, MARCH 20, 2003

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:01 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Conrad Burns (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Burns, Stevens, Domenici, Bennett,
    Campbell, Dorgan, and Feinstein.

                           DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                                 Forest Service

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

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS

        Senator Burns. We will call the committee to order. Senator
    Dorgan is on his way. I will make my opening statement and he
    can make his opening statement when he gets here. It is 10 a.m.
    and we are going to run on time as close as we can, and get you
    out of here. We know you have a lot of work to do, Chief, but
    we welcome you here this morning and we appreciate you coming.
    We are operating on North Dakota time here, see--Byron, thank
    you for coming this morning.
        The Chief was the regional forester in Missoula, MT, and we
    had an opportunity to work together on some of the issues that
    always seem to follow the Forest Service around. It was a
    pleasure working with him then, and it is a pleasure to work
    with him now.
        The President's budget for the Forest Service is $4.058
    billion in discretionary appropriations this time. It
    represents a modest overall increase of 2.7 percent, compared
    to the 2003 level at $3.95 billion. Most of the agency's
    programs are funded at levels similar to last year. However, I
    want to point out some that are not, and some areas that I find
    disappointing.
        There are some significant increases, however, the forest
    stewardship program at $35.5 million and the forest legacy
    program at $22.4 million, and wildfire suppression is $186
    million. I believe the increase in the wildfire suppression is
    particularly important, given the experience you have had for
    the fire seasons of the past few years.
        Last year, the Agency spent $1.3 billion putting out fires,
    and the position of the Forest Service and how they handle
    themselves should be commended. The American people are now
    aware of what we can do to manage our forests in the areas of
    prevention, and to keep small fires small fires, instead of
    having these big ones that we have experienced over the last 10
    years.

                                    DROUGHT

        Last year, and of course starting back in 1988, pointed up
    that we cannot stand drought in our country and prevent these
    fires or keep them under control. The agency was forced to
    borrow $1 billion from nonfire programs, which caused
    significant disruption in many projects, and some had to be
    cancelled altogether. If the Forest Service spends as much
    money in fiscal year 2004 as they did last year, it will still
    need to borrow several million dollars from other accounts
    under the proposed budget. I hope we can work with you, Chief,
    and figure out some long-term solutions to this funding of
    fireighting costs so these disruptions can be minimized in the
    future.

                               FIRE PREPAREDNESS

        There is also a significant decrease in the proposed 2004
    budget which I find troubling. The levels proposed for fire
    preparedness, for example. This would cause a loss of over half
    of our firefighters and engines we had on the ground last year.
    Reducing our readiness capability to this degree will only lead
    to more small fires escaping, and turning into the devastating
    fires that we have seen in the past on the evening news.

                      BURNED AREA EMERGENCY REHABILITATION

        I am also concerned about the elimination of funding for
    rehabilitation and restoring burned-over lands. Two years ago
    this program was funded at the level of $142 million. We have
    had two severe fires since then, which has burned millions of
    additional acres. There are many areas in my State that burned
    in 2000 that have yet to be treated or dealt with. If these
    acres are not restored soon, they may be permanently lost to
    invasive weeds and erosion.
        Funding for backlog maintenance has also been decreased by
    $46 million, compared to the current level. This is unwise.
    However, on the financial management side I want to
    congratulate you. I am very pleased to see the agency finally
    obtained a clean audit. That is a credit to your office and
    your work. I can remember when you came in 2 years ago, looked
    at the books, and said, this is one area we really have to work
    on, otherwise we will always have a credibility problem. So I
    congratulate you on that. That is the first time that has been
    done in a long time.
        The monies--to work with you, though, not only in fire
    suppression, but prevention, stewardship, forest legacy, and
    forest health--all of these programs are necessary, and I
    believe the American people are supportive of what you are
    doing. The fires that were seen on television every evening
    were devastating fires, and hot fires. These fires took
    everything right out of the soil. Management adjustments have
    to be made for future years, if we are to see healthy forests.
        We also need to do some management work in the areas of
    disease and bark beetle infestation. I would like to work with
    you on those areas. We have some forests that need attention,
    not only in Montana, but nationwide. Those areas are being
    identified and need special emphasis.
        I thank you for coming this morning. We look forward to
    your testimony and again, congratulations on your audit. This
    is our first year at this and I look forward to working with
    Senator Dorgan of North Dakota. He is my new ranking member,
    and Peter, it is good to see you back as we start down the
    Interior appropriations. We look forward to working with our
    colleagues on both sides of the aisle as this appropriations
    process moves on.
        Senator Dorgan.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN

        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I, too,
    look forward to working with you. Montana and North Dakota have
    a rather lengthy common border, and I know that you know a lot
    about----
        Senator Burns. Thank God for the Little Missouri, right?
        Senator Dorgan. That is right. You know a fair amount about
    North Dakota and I know a lot about Montana, so I think we will
    get along just fine.
        Chief, thank you for being here. You run a big agency,
    34,000 people and $4 billion, a big responsibility. You and I
    met yesterday and talked a bit.
        Mr. Chairman, I just got notice a few moments ago that
    Senator Daschle has called a meeting of the Democratic
    leadership at 10:30, so I am going to have to leave earlier
    than I expected today, and I regret that is the case, but let
    me begin my opening statement, then, make a couple of points
    with Mr. Bosworth. I am going to submit some questions for the
    record, but I want to make a couple of points.

                                  FIREFIGHTERS

        One, the chairman mentioned the issue of the firefighting
    budget. You and I talked about that yesterday, but firefighters
    have gone from 10,480 in fiscal year 2002 to 4,898 in fiscal
    year 2004, fire engines, 995 to 465 during the same period. I
    mean, it is wrong. This is not good planning. It is not good
    management. It is not an appropriate approach to these issues.
    You and I have talked about that.
        I recognize that this comes from deep in the bowels of the
    Office of Management and Budget, where they know the cost of
    everything and the value of nothing, and I understand you
    probably cannot say much about that because you are a public
    servant who is going to have to support whatever is submitted
    to us as a budget, but I think deep in your heart you know that
    this does not make sense. We have got to adequately fund
    firefighting and fire suppression and preparedness, and this is
    not the case in these budgets. It was not last year.
        We raised the point last year during the hearings and it
    was sort of just dismissed, but the fact is that this has to be
    dealt with, and doing the little tip-toe dance that Mitch
    Daniels is doing on this does not do anybody any favors. That
    is not the way to address these issues. I hope if I do not get
    a chance to tell him, you will tell him that for me.

                                  LEAFY SPURGE

        Let me just--I want to show you--Mr. Bosworth, this is
    leafy spurge.
        Let me tell you something about leafy spurge. We have lands
    that you are in charge of, the Forest Service is in charge of,
    that do not deal with their weeds appropriately. The Forest
    Service is not a good neighbor, and when you have got an
    infestation of 30,000 or 40,000 acres of leafy spurge and you
    do not control them, what happens is, everyone else who is on
    the periphery of the Forest Service land is affected by it.
        The reason I brought this plant today is, I wrote an
    earmark of $200,000 in to have some additional chemicals put on
    the ground and to control leafy spurge on specific grasslands
    in North Dakota, and the fact is, I saw no evidence that that
    was put in the ground to control leafy spurge. Although the
    Forest Service did a little tap dance for me to say, well, here
    is how it happened, the fact is, I think it was subsumed into
    payment for the bureaucracy, and I did not see any evidence
    that there was additional control on the ground of leafy
    spurge, despite the fact that that is what we put the money in
    for, and we have got ranchers out there that are trying to deal
    with this, and leafy spurge is one noxious weed, but in our
    part of the territory it is one that is pretty devastating, and
    we have to control these noxious weeds on our land. This is
    Forest Service land. We have a responsibility. If regular folks
    do not control it, we are after them all the time, and the
    Federal Government has to meet its responsibility, Mr.
    Bosworth. You and I have talked about that. I know you are
    looking into this.
        At any rate, Mr. Bosworth, this is serious business for a
    lot of folks in North Dakota, and I want to work with you on
    that, and I mentioned the fire suppression. As a matter of
    fact, on forest issues we rank 50th among the 50 States in
    native forestlands in North Dakota, so I am a lot less familiar
    with forest issues than many of my colleagues, who have great
    familiarity with them, but I am anxious to work with you on
    many of these issues.

                                GRAZING PERMITS

        If I might mention one additional point we have got with
    respect to our grasslands in the Cheyenne Valley, we need a new
    10-year grazing agreement, and I think on March 23 the current
    one expires, so there is great concern that we would have a
    circumstance were cattle to be taken off of those lands. You
    told me yesterday that would not be the case, and that you
    would do extensions until we reach a new agreement. For that I
    am very appreciative, and I hope we can reach an agreement.
        But Mr. Chairman, thanks for indulging me to be able to do
    this now so that I can go to that leadership meeting later.
        Senator Burns. Yes, and do not let it go to seed. That is
    all I ask.
        He brings up a good point, I also want to bring it up, and
    there is not a better place. He brought up grazing permits. We
    not only have spurge, but we have spotted knap. And now we are
    going to have a little lesson in weeds. I do not know what it
    is in Washington, D.C. Just go to one of these glitzy Grey
    Poupon and white wine receptions, and when they come around and
    they ask what your main interest is in Washington, and you say
    weeds, see how fast you are left standing there by yourself.
        It is not a big thing here. It is like yesterday morning, I
    offered to go down and help the guy get his John Deere tractor
    out of that puddle, because it is just too wet to plow there.

                                 NOXIOUS WEEDS

        The grazing permit--because what he is trying to do, and
    this problem of noxious weeds go hand in hand, Dale. The only
    way you get this weed and spotted knap is sheep. Sheep will do
    it. You can put chemicals out there, you can fight them with
    hoses----
        Senator Dorgan. To explain, sheep eat it.
        Senator Burns. That is right. Sheep will get rid of noxious
    weeds. And it is a problem in Montana, so I appreciate--we are
    going to get along just fine. I found another weed guy. There
    are not very many of us here, Byron.
        Senator Dorgan. That is right.
        Senator Burns. But this is something that has to be dealt
    with. The grazing permits, and the control of noxious weeds go
    hand in hand in our forest management.
        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, we could do a caucus of leafy
    spurge, spotted knap, and creeping Jenny.
        Senator Burns. And Russian thistle.
        Senator Dorgan. And Russian thistle.
        Senator Burns. You bet. We could get them all.
        Senator Campbell.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL

        Senator Campbell. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I sure do like this
    hearing.
        It sure is a lesson. What we really need in your budget is
    something for more sheep, apparently. We probably will not have
    that, but I do know that you recognize the real danger. All of
    us come from western States that are on the committee today,
    and the fire season out there, they tell us, even though we
    have gotten a lot of snow in Colorado in the last few days,
    they say is going to be every bit as bad as it was last year,
    and as I look at the President's budget there is obviously a
    slight increase from $4.7 billion to $4.8 billion. I do not
    think that is nearly enough, and I have to associate my
    comments with Senator Dorgan. I think that maybe the best thing
    we can do is, the next time we have a big fire out there is
    press OMB into service to come out there and help fight the
    thing. Maybe they would recognize the real dangers that we
    face.
        But you know, as I travel around, like my colleagues from
    the West, we are seeing more and more indicators that because
    of insect infestation there is just mile after mile of dead
    timber, which always is going to become worse fuel this summer.
    I was down by Cortez, Colorado about 2 weeks ago, and I was
    just amazed. All the pine in that area, it is almost all dead,
    and you can just pick them out from the junipers and the other
    trees. Whatever that insect is is just attacking pines, and by
    next year there is just going to be a whole dead forest there.
        Well, in any event, you know the devastating fires we had
    in Colorado--last year between the Hayman fire and the
    Missionary Ridge fire, the cost of property. Fortunately we did
    not have many lives lost--I think only one or two, frankly, but
    it is getting worse.

                         GROUNDED FIRE AIR TANKER FLEET

        But there is something else, too, that is really beginning
    to bother me, and hopefully you will address it, or I will ask
    it maybe in a question, but it is my understanding that one-
    half of the whole tanker fleet is grounded now and out West,
    boy, we really rely on those planes, and I do not know how we
    are going to replace the planes or the money for the planes,
    because I imagine they are pretty darned expensive.
        A lot of those old World War II planes, the airframes are
    getting fatigued and they just cannot fly them anymore, and
    after those two tragic accidents last year I certainly
    recognize they have got to be grounded if there is a chance of
    killing some of the pilots, but out where we are, those things
    are the first responders in many cases, and I have been to a
    couple of fires where I have seen them start, seen the planes
    take off, seen them put out, all within a 1-hour period of time
    before people could even get out there, so I would like you to
    address that if you could and just let me tell you that I would
    like you to maybe also give us your prognosis about some of the
    litigation.

                               ANALYSIS PARALYSIS

        I think all the attacks from the environmental community
    every time you want to do a prescribed burn or do a clearing is
    probably on the downside a little bit this year, because they
    are clearly recognizing they are on the wrong side of public
    opinion and most Americans, particularly out West, are saying
    we have got to do a better job of managing the forest, and I
    remember, perhaps it was last year or a year before, we were
    told that about 41 percent of the money that was used in the
    Forest Service program was either--it was called analysis
    paralysis, I think was the word they used. It was used for
    doing studies and preparing to defend yourself and, in fact, in
    defending in the actual lawsuits, and I would like to know a
    little bit more about what you see in that area, too, this
    year.
        But thank you for being here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Burns. Senator Feinstein. Turn your button on,
    Dianne.
        Senator Feinstein. I have only been here for 10 years. I am
    a slow learner.
        Senator Burns. Auctioneers know how to use these things
    pretty rapid.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

        Senator Feinstein. Thanks, Chief. Thank you.
        Mr. Bosworth, in California I do not think we have the
    leafy spurge or the Russian thistle, but we do have the
    Yosemite toad and the fairy shrimp, and I want to talk to you a
    little bit about the Sierra Nevada Framework Agreement.
        I very much appreciate what you have done with respect to
    the framework, particularly because it actually prevented a
    listing of the California spotted owl as threatened and
    endangered, but this past week the Forest Service announced
    that it is planning to proceed with a plan to undo some key
    elements of the framework, and I am very concerned about it,
    because I think it is going to cause a huge problem of conflict
    in the State, and I would like to give you a March 19 letter
    from Mary Nichols, the Director of the Resources Agency, who
    expresses concerns that you have not worked with the State in
    determining this, and she says the outcome is unacceptable to
    the State.

                   COLLABORATIVE ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

        They have proposed an alternative plan offering to bring
    the resources of the State to a collaborative adaptive
    management program in the 2\1/2\ million acres of wildland-
    urban interface, where you have got Class 3 forest problems,
    and my hope would be that you would work with the State. The
    State--and I have had a conversation with Secretary Nichols,
    and they understand, and they are prepared to be supportive of
    the need to clean out the forest for a forest fire. She says
    they want to work more aggressively than you want to work to do
    it, so that is the first issue.

                                 YOSEMITE TOAD

        The second issue is, there is something called the Yosemite
    toad. You know, the fairy shrimp are microscopic little shrimp
    that grow in vernal pools, so if a puddle lasts more than 90
    days, a shrimp can pop up and it can stop whatever is going on
    around it, whether it is a new vineyard or anything else. Well,
    the Yosemite toad apparently comes out of pools at higher
    levels where there are ranchers grazing on public land, and it
    is my understanding that a number of these ranchers are
    essentially going to have to be put out of business, and I
    would like to ask you personally to take a look at that and see
    if there is not any way ranchers can be allowed to graze in
    other areas, rather than be put out of business.
        I think there are anywhere from half a dozen to a dozen
    ranchers who are going to be put out of business, and one of
    the things that I really believe is also important as we do
    these things is to protect the heritage of the State, and
    ranching has been a heritage of the California frontier. I
    would like to see it protected wherever I can, and I think
    there is a way of moving around some of these pools without
    putting the ranchers out of business, so I would be hopeful
    that you would be willing to work with them.

                                  BARK BEETLE

        The third problem is the bark beetle. I think all of us
    have a big problem with the bark beetle. I know I talked to
    Senator Kyl yesterday about Arizona. There is a big infestation
    there, and we have 150,000 acres of forest that are infested,
    particularly in the Lake Arrowhead area, the Idlewild area of
    California.
        The Governor has declared a state of emergency, and we need
    to find a way to quickly respond to these forest epidemics to
    reduce this spread, so I wrote you a letter on February 18,
    which is a month ago, asking you to address the situation and
    hoping for a response. I have not gotten that response as of
    yet, so I hope today you might address what you are going to do
    about the bark beetle as well.

                           LAKE TAHOE RESTORATION ACT

        Additionally, 3 years ago Congress passed the Lake Tahoe
    Restoration Act. As you know, the Tahoe National Forest
    surrounds Lake Tahoe, and we authorized $300 million over 10
    years, the Federal Government to contribute a third. There
    really is good news. First, there is a huge consensus in the
    population. Second, Lake Tahoe's clarity has been increasing.
    It is now 73 feet, which is good news, but the disappointment
    is that there is only I think $6 million in this budget to
    continue that plan, and so I hope to be able to add to that a
    little bit.

                              QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP

        The final thing is the Quincy Library Group. As you know, I
    was a Senate sponsor of that legislation. I am very supportive
    of it. The project has had a number of delays, had a number of
    bumps. The President proposes $26 million to implement it this
    year the same as last year, and I am very hopeful that it will
    be able to serve as a model in other areas, and so I would like
    any comments you would care to make on that as well.
        I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you, Mr. Bosworth.
        Senator Burns. Thank you, Senator Feinstein.
        Senator Bennett.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT BENNETT

        Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Most everything I
    was going to cover has been covered.
        Senator Burns. Turn your mike on.
        Senator Bennett. Oh, I have to do that, too. All right.

                                  PRAIRIE DOG

        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Most everything I had intended to
    say has been covered. Senator Campbell, because our States
    adjoin each other, has exactly all the same concerns I have. I
    have to say to Senator Dorgan, he says you get a prairie dog
    and as soon as you get one you get a whole bunch. There are
    parts of my State where they are endangered species, and you
    have got a whole bunch, but nobody can do anything about them.
        Senator Dorgan. But they are not really endangered. They
    are just on the list, right?
        Senator Bennett. Well, they are endangered because the
    attitude in the local community is the three-S solution: shoot,
    shovel, and shut up. Whether that really solves the problem, I
    do not know.

                                  BARK BEETLE

        Then Senator Feinstein talks about the bark beetle, the
    combination of Senator Feinstein and Senator Campbell. In our
    State the problem with the bark beetle are all of the lawsuits
    that get filed, and the Forest Service is absolutely handcuffed
    in dealing with it because every time they want to go into the
    Dixie Forest to deal with the bark beetle, which is an enormous
    problem, somebody files a lawsuit and says oh no, no, you
    cannot do this because somehow this will invade the pristine
    nature of the forest, and by the time they get through with the
    lawsuit, then the bark beetle has expanded another few thousand
    acres and the Forest Service says, okay, we are going to do it
    now.

                         EVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION COSTS

        Well, they file a new lawsuit because it is a new set of
    acreage, and there is great concern that we may, in fact, lose
    the entire Dixie National Forest over this, so I just echo the
    concern about the bark beetle that Senator Feinstein has and
    hope, along with Senator Campbell, that we can find a way to
    deal with the litigation. I would be interested, if you have
    not got the number ready for us here, if you would supply what
    percentage of your budget is taken up in fighting litigation.
        We have asked that question of the BLM director and the
    numbers are between 40 and 50 percent, depending on which area
    you are talking about, and that is a huge, huge drain on the
    land management capabilities. We try to give you the resources
    you need in order to do the job properly, but if all of those
    resources are eaten up in lawsuits--which interestingly enough,
    the BLM always wins.
        It is not a case that the BLM is doing a bad job of
    stewardship. It is the fact that they are constantly being
    diverted with lawsuits, and they have to prove over and over
    and over again that their stewardship is fine in court, and one
    begins to believe that the basic strategy is not to file a
    legitimate lawsuit, but to hamstring the agency through this
    device, and I would appreciate any statistics you could give us
    about what percentage of your budget goes to lawsuits, or
    defending legal activities, and whether or not it is rising.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Burns. Thank you, Senator Bennett.
        Senator Domenici.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

        Senator Domenici. Well, by the time we get to me, I have
    all the same problems. I would say that we did submit to Deputy
    Under Secretary Dave Tenny questions with respect to the bark
    beetle in New Mexico. I would appreciate it if you would look
    at the question and get it answered.
        We have a very old, long-infested piece of BLM forest up in
    Northern New Mexico. It is already beginning to rot, it is old,
    and it is growing. We submitted some questions about treating
    and the like to which we would like to have some answers.
        You know, about now in my life in the Senate, I kind of get
    tired of coming to meetings and complaining that litigation is
    taking all our time. We cannot get anything done. I really wish
    that people like you would tell us what we ought to do so that
    we do not have that situation. I am not interested in having
    another long list of how much time it is taking. We are not
    doing anything to change the situation, and most of you all say
    that we cannot change it. It is the law.
        I think we ought to give it a try, even if it is some very
    significant surgery that we have to do on these statutes.
    Something is amiss when we cannot take care of the problems
    that are so patent that anybody with an ounce of common sense,
    a few dollars, and a little bit of expertise would at least get
    started on some of these things, but we cannot.

                            STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTING

        Let me suggest, if you look at this year's budget, in all
    deference to the President, you will not get much done this
    year, either. By the time we run out of money, when we cannot
    put out the fires and we start borrowing again, the good plans
    you have got going will get stopped. There is not enough money
    for the programs to clean the forest and thin them either, from
    what I can tell. I hope I am wrong, but that is what it looks
    like to me.
        I have one ray of hope, and I hope it does not get bogged
    down in court so it takes forever. I do have a strong sense
    that if you all will apply the stewardship contract approach in
    the right way, and we do not get ourselves in lawsuits where we
    have acted improperly, I believe there is a real chance you can
    have companies that will go in and contract to clean and manage
    and thin out in exchange for what they can take off the forest.
    You might get a lot of work done for not too many dollars that
    can quite properly be managed. I think it can be used for
    cleaning out infestations and anything.
        Right now, however, it is deemed by the environmentalists
    to be a subterfuge for logging. To the extent I read it, I see
    all the ways we could use it that would not be logging, would
    not be any subterfuge to get around the logging laws. I hope
    you can find ways to use stewardship contracting, and I hope
    you all think it is a good approach. I see no other way, based
    on personnel, management capacity, and money to get the forests
    of America managed and back where they are a credit.
        So with that, if you can comment on that later, fine. I
    have some questions about my State that I will ask or submit
    later. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Burns. Thank you, Senator Domenici. I read your
    statement, Mr. Bosworth, and I just want to point out a couple
    of things that you have highlighted in your statement. I am
    glad we are finally taking a look to see where we want our
    forests to be in 100 years, and the management it will take to
    get there within the next 100 years. That is foresight, and
    hazardous fuels.
        You may summarize your statement if you like. Your entire
    statement will be made a part of the record. As with all of the
    Senators who are here today, your full statement will be made a
    part of the record.
        Chief Bosworth, we welcome you and we look forward to your
    testimony.

                       SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DALE BOSWORTH

        Mr. Bosworth. Thank you. Is this on? It is on, good. After
    all these problems we had with that I was not sure.
        Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I do appreciate
    the opportunity to talk about the President's fiscal year 2004
    budget for the Forest Service. I have Hank Kashdan with me
    today. Hank is the Director of Program and Budget Analysis for
    the Forest Service. He will help me answer some of the
    specifics in terms of dollar questions that you might have.
        It is really good to have you back in the chair, Senator
    Burns. I really appreciate the working relationship that we
    have had in the past so it is good to have you there. It is
    also good to have Senator Dorgan in the ranking minority member
    position. It does make me feel a little bit like I am back home
    in the Northern Region. I worked with both North Dakota and
    Montana. Of course, we had lots of opportunities to work
    together. It does make me feel like I am back home until I look
    out of the window and see that I am still in the city. It is a
    little bit different here.
        I would like to acknowledge completion of the fiscal year
    2003 budget process. It was important to us, the completion of
    that. There are some thanks that you deserve for supporting
    some things like: Fire reimbursement--$636 million I believe is
    what we were reimbursed for the Forest Service--stewardship
    contracting, which was mentioned by Senator Domenici; an
    achievement of balance between fire suppression and fire
    preparedness. Those were some of the things that came up in
    some of the opening remarks.

                            STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTING

        I wanted to take this opportunity to say right now that I
    am strongly supportive, almost to the point of obnoxiousness,
    of stewardship contracting. I mean, it can be our future. It
    can make a huge opportunity for us to be able to treat,
    particularly, some of the fuels kinds of problems that we have.
    There are other kinds of opportunities beyond fuels management.
    We have been experimenting with it now for about 4 or 5 years,
    thanks in good part to the chairman, and we have learned a lot.
    This is an expanded authority which, I think, if we are smart
    in the way that we implement it, we will have people from all
    different viewpoints feeling like this is a good tool to help
    us do the right things on the national forests. So I really
    appreciate having the opportunity to expand the use of that.

                       FIRE PREPAREDNESS AND SUPPRESSION

        The other thing, the balance between fire suppression and
    preparedness: In the 2003 budget we have the opportunity to
    move the dollars back and forth between suppression and
    preparedness, depending upon what the fire season looks like.
    That can be very, very helpful to us because we are looking
    at--we are talking about the 2004 fire season in this budget.
    We do not really know what that is going to look like in 2004.
    As we get closer and closer, then, you want to maybe move money
    from one side to the other, depending on what the conditions
    are like. So the way the 2003 budget is set up, that gives us
    that flexibility to be able to make some of those adjustments,
    which I appreciate very much.

                                 AUDIT OPINION

        I am going to talk mostly about healthy forests, the
    national fire plan, and the Agency priorities. I do want to
    mention our financial accountability first. I appreciate your
    comments, Mr. Chairman, about our accomplishment in finally
    achieving a clean audit opinion. It is very important for us to
    have done that. I am very proud of the folks who worked really
    hard to accomplish that. It is almost unheard of to, really, go
    from no opinion to an unqualified audit opinion in just 1 year.
    We feel very good about that.
        But I also have to say that that is the very, very, very
    minimum that taxpayers ought to expect of us. At the least, we
    ought to be able to do that. We have a long ways to go yet in
    our organization to be able to sustain that clean audit
    opinion. We still have other changes we have to make in terms
    of how we are organized, in terms of how we manage our
    financial dollars. I believe that, while it is our job in the
    Forest Service to be good stewards of the public lands, it is
    also our job to be good stewards of the public funds. We intend
    to do that.
        A little bit, just sort of an overview, I guess, of the
    fiscal year 2004 President's program: For me, the reality is
    that it is a flat budget, the very, very best that we can
    expect, given the international and domestic issues that we are
    faced with. Having a flat budget is the most that we can
    expect. That is what we have.

                           HEALTHY FORESTS INITIATIVE

        We have legislative and regulatory initiatives, though,
    that I believe will help stretch those dollars a lot further to
    get more money on the ground. That would accomplish some of
    those things like the President's Healthy Forests Initiative.
    To me, the key solution here is to be able to do more with the
    dollars that we have. That is what some of these initiatives
    tie into.
        We have the Healthy Forests Initiative--many of you are
    very, very familiar--and everybody from the West is very, very
    familiar--with some of the fires that we have had--the problems
    that the lack of good forest health has brought to us. Many of
    these large fires happened because of the lack of forest
    health.
        Senator Feinstein mentioned the San Bernadino National
    Forest. One of the problems is that we are in a drought
    situation. There are way, way too many trees there for what the
    conditions, the natural conditions, would have been because we
    have been suppressing fires for years and years and years.
        So now we are faced with the problem of trying to clean up
    a place that is messed up because of insects and diseases--
    particularly insects, bark beetles in this case, with a whole
    lot of dead trees--rather than having treated it 10 years ago,
    or 15 years ago--to have a healthy forest condition so that we
    do not have to deal with the clean-up and then potential
    devastating fire problems.
        I think that is a good example. There are many other
    examples that we have seen around the country that are facing
    us that, if we can be proactive and get the work done on the
    ground, we maybe hopefully can avoid some of those
    circumstances.
        I think there are lots of opportunities--the same thing in
    Idaho again, or in Montana again--with stewardship
    contracting--to try to achieve some of the same things there,
    and that can apply to places--we have the same opportunities in
    New Mexico, Utah, and Colorado. Those are some great
    opportunities that I am really anxious to continue the work
    with this committee on.
        We have had good support from this subcommittee in the
    whole notion of forest health and long-term fuels reduction.
    That is going to be the challenge for us over the next 10 to 15
    years. I hope we can continue with that.

                                    RESEARCH

        There are some other increases in the budget that I think
    are important that I want to point out. There is an increase in
    research that is targeted at sudden oak death and other
    invasive species--an additional increase for fire-related
    research, and that is going to be really important. We need to
    do a good job of research. We need to be building our research
    capacity back. When we get some of these events, like sudden
    oak death, we have to have the capability to try to learn as
    much about that as quickly as we can or we can end up with some
    really difficult situations.

                                RANGE MANAGEMENT

        We have an increase in range management to help improve the
    health of rangelands--an increase for forest legacy, I think
    that you had mentioned, better enable acquisition of
    conservation easements on some important tracts.

                             LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS

        There is an array of legislative proposals that will do
    things like: update the appeals process; streamline the
    execution of the highest-priority hazardous fuels reduction
    areas; expand partnership authorities; improve the ability of
    partners to cooperate with the Agency--because right now it is
    very difficult for people to be partners with us and so there
    is a legislative initiative that would help that--and also to
    make existing watershed enhancement authority permanent, known
    as the Wyden authority.
        It is also important to note that there is a proposal to
    make the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program permanent. I do
    believe that a large majority of recreation users support that
    program.
        A lot of comments were made in the opening remarks that I
    would be happy to respond to. I could respond, I think, more to
    direct questions regarding these things. The one I would like
    to just--several people talked about ``analysis paralysis'' or
    ``process gridlock.''

                              PROCESS PREDICAMENT

        We submitted--developed a report in the Forest Service
    about a year ago in which we referred to a ``process
    predicament.'' The purpose of that report was to identify
    problems. It did not offer solutions but identified problems.
    We used that as a means to try to get some kind of
    understanding and agreement as to whether there was really a
    problem. We believed there was.
        My belief is that it was useful for that. People recognized
    that we have problems and are willing to work with us.
    Consequently, we have submitted a number of things. We proposed
    some changes in our planning regulations. That, hopefully,
    would reduce the time to do a forest plan from something like--
    8 to 10 years is what it has been taking us--down to maybe 2
    years. I mean, they are out for public comment right now. That
    is what I would like to do: To be able to get them and shorten
    that period of time.

                             CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS

        We are proposing some ``categorical exclusions'' which
    would mean that we would exclude certain kinds of projects from
    documentation in an environmental impact statement. We would
    still do analysis, still do public involvement. We just would
    not document it in an environmental impact statement for those
    projects that we have done over and over and over and over
    again. We know, after having done it so many times, that we are
    not going to have adverse effects on the environment.
        So we are proposing a number of categorical exclusions that
    we believe will help speed up the process for things like some
    small-debris removal, for fuels treatment, and for restoration
    and rehabilitation. Those are out for public comment right now.
    They are not all favorable, the comments we get on those but,
    again, I believe that if we get the opportunity to implement
    some of those things, we can show people what we can do on the
    ground. They will like what they see. We are trying to move
    forward and deal with that issue.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        So I am going to wrap it up now. I will answer questions. I
    am happy to be in this job right now. It is an exciting time.
    It is an honor to be here. I look forward to working with you.
    I will be happy to answer your questions.
        [The statement follows:]

                     Prepared Statement of Dale N. Bosworth

        Mr. Chairman, Senator Dorgan, and members of the Subcommittee,
    thank you for the opportunity to discuss the President's fiscal year
    2004 Budget for the Forest Service. I am accompanied by Hank Kashdan,
    Director of Program and Budget Analysis for the Forest Service. It is a
    great privilege to be here today.
        Before discussing my testimony in detail, let me first thank you
    Mr. Chairman for your support of the Forest Service and your focus on
    management of the nation's natural resources. The Committee's support
    of expanded authority for stewardship contracting as contained in the
    fiscal year 2003 Appropriation's Act, exemplifies this focus. And
    Senator Dorgan, let me start by congratulating you on assuming the
    ranking member position on the Subcommittee. I look forward to working
    with you in this important role.

                                    OVERVIEW

        Teddy Roosevelt's rich legacy includes the Forest Service, and he
    once observed that people should make few promises and then keep them.
    Our agency, which will celebrate its 99th anniversary during the 2004
    budget year, has made more than a few promises. I am often asked about
    my vision for the Forest Service. The Forest Service must be viewed as
    the world's leader in natural resource management by living up to
    commitments, efficiently using and accounting for the taxpayer funds
    that are entrusted to us, and treating people with respect. My vision
    as we approach the centennial is to heed TR's advice. We are an agency
    that keeps its promises.
        The fiscal year 2004 President's budget request for the Forest
    Service is $4.8 billion, $119 million greater than the fiscal year 2003
    Enacted Budget. The fiscal year 2004 Budget provides funding to reduce
    the risk of wild land fire to communities and the environment by
    implementing the President's Healthy Forests Initiative. In addition,
    it provides funds to enhance the ability of the Forest Service to meet
    multiple demands. The major departure from fiscal year 2003 is an
    increase of $187 million for wild land fire suppression and additional
    increases in funds for forest and rangeland research, forest
    stewardship, forest legacy, range management, and hazardous fuels
    reduction.
        This past August the President announced the Healthy Forests
    Initiative in order to help reduce the risks of catastrophic wildfires
    to communities and the environment. The fiscal year 2004 budget
    proposal contains a combination of legislative and funding priorities
    the President feels are necessary to address this need, as signaled in
    his State of the Union message. The Healthy Forests Initiative builds
    on the fundamentals of multiple use management principles that have
    guided the Forest Service since its formation. These principles embody
    a balance of conservation and balanced approach to the use of natural
    resources that are valid today in working with local communities,
    States, Tribes, and other Federal agencies.

                                 ACCOUNTABILITY

        In my testimony today I want to discuss in detail how the
    President's fiscal year 2004 budget and accompanying legislative
    initiatives will improve the health of our forests and rangelands, but
    first let me focus on the agency's effort to improve its financial
    accountability.
        When I began my career, the Forest Service was viewed as a model
    federal agency, accomplishing our mission for the American people. I am
    pleased to share with you today a stride that takes us closer to the
    reputation of a generation ago. Through the extraordinary efforts of
    our employees across the nation, we and our USDA counterparts have
    achieved an unqualified audit opinion for 2002. This is an important
    step in a continuing effort to fulfill promises previous Chiefs and I
    have made to get the Forest Service financial house in order. To
    progress from no opinion to a clean opinion in just one year is
    unprecedented. This unqualified audit opinion sets the basis for our
    next steps, which include additional financial reforms to efficiently
    consolidate financial management personnel; improve the effectiveness
    of the financial management system as part of the funds control and
    budget execution process; and improve the quality of account
    reconciliation. It will take as much work to keep that clean financial
    opinion as it did to earn it. But, this important accomplishment of a
    clean audit opinion demonstrates the progress we are making in keeping
    our word.

                              PROCESS PREDICAMENT

        When I met with you a year ago, gridlock and analysis paralysis
    directly affected our ability to deliver on many promises: to protect
    communities from catastrophic wildfire, to provide a sustainable flow
    of forest and grassland products, and to sustain the landscapes used
    and enjoyed by the American people. These problems still exist, but the
    Forest Service has taken the initiative to deal with this process
    predicament within its authority by proposing regulations and policies.
    I believe we are on the road to success. We proposed a revised planning
    rule to provide a more readily understood planning process--one that
    the agency can implement within anticipated budgets. We proposed new
    processes to simplify documentation under NEPA for management
    activities that do not significantly affect the environment--small,
    routine projects that are supported by local communities, such as
    salvaging dead and dying trees or removing insect infested or diseased
    trees. We propose to work with you and the American people to keep our
    promise that these measures are about sustainable land stewardship.

                         PRESIDENT'S MANAGEMENT AGENDA

        The Forest Service has developed and is implementing a
    comprehensive strategy to achieve the objectives of the President's
    Management Agenda. Today I'll highlight a few of the significant
    efforts we're making to improve Forest Service management and
    performance. In the competitive sourcing arena, we will conduct public/
    private competitions on 3,000 full-time equivalent positions during
    fiscal year 2004, identifying the most efficient, effective way to
    accomplish work for the American people, as identified in the Agency's
    Efficiency Plan which has been submitted to the Administration. Our e-
    government energies will move beyond web information delivery into four
    important areas: incident planning and management, recreation services
    and information, electronic planning record, and the federal and non-
    federal assistance process. We are instituting critical oversight
    controls to keep wildfire suppression costs as low as possible while
    protecting communities and resources and improve our methods of
    reporting wild land fire suppression expenses. Several streamlining
    efforts are underway to reduce indirect costs and better examine the
    role and structure of various Forest Service organizational levels.
        An element of the President's Management Agenda concerning budget
    and performance initiative, the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
    analysis provides a standardized set of performance management criteria
    that provides a consistent evaluation process to identify areas of
    performance and budget integration they should improve. In fiscal year
    2004, the Wildland Fire Management and Capital Improvement and
    Maintenance programs of the Forest Service were selected to participate
    in the first round of assessments using the PART. The PART analyses for
    these programs indicated that funds need to be better targeted within
    the Wildland Fire Management program while the annual performance
    measures of Capital Improvement and Maintenance program inadequately
    linked to ongoing management initiatives aimed at addressing the
    maintenance backlog.

                              RANGELAND MANAGEMENT

        The President's budget provides a $2.6 million increase that
    supports a significant Forest Service promise--to make progress on
    completing environmental analysis on national forest rangelands. The
    funding increase will enhance our capability to manage livestock and
    support communities where rangelands are an integral part of the
    economy and way of life.

                            FOREST SERVICE RESEARCH

        Productive forests and rangelands provide wood and forage, clean
    water, wildlife habitat, recreation, and many other values. Key to
    sustained and enhanced productivity is developing and deploying
    integrated resource management systems based on the best science
    available. A $2.1 million increase in forest and rangeland research is
    a valuable addition to our program. Some of the increase will support
    research and development tools essential to prevent, detect, control,
    and monitor invasive species and restore impacted ecosystems. Other
    emphasis includes a pine bark beetle program that looks at new
    management strategies, better utilization of bark beetle trees, and
    developing additional treatment options for managers and landowners.
    Programs to identify new biological control agents and treatment
    methodology and to develop integrated pest management technology for
    land managers will also be accelerated. The President's Budget
    recognizes the need for research to support the full range of
    challenges faced by land and resource managers because challenges don't
    stop at National Forest System boundaries. Addressing the issues
    associated with America's forests and grasslands--including hazardous
    fuels, protection of communities from catastrophic wildfire, invasive
    species, and pathogens--doesn't depend upon who owns the ground.
    Keeping this promise goes beyond the basic and applied science
    functions of research. We also need to bridge the gap between research
    findings and results on the ground. The request reflects the importance
    of technology transfer, internally in the Forest Service and externally
    through our university and State and Private Forestry program partners.

                           STATE AND PRIVATE FORESTRY

        Through close cooperation with State Foresters and other partners,
    our State and Private Forestry Program provides assistance to
    landowners and resource managers to help sustain the Nation's forests
    and protect communities and the environment from wildland fire. The
    President's budget contains an increase of over $31 million for these
    programs. While most of the forest health management, cooperative fire
    protection, and cooperative forestry programs continue at fiscal year
    2003 levels, forest stewardship and the forest legacy program reflect
    an increase. A $34 million increase for forest stewardship supports the
    objectives of the National Fire Plan, the Healthy Forest Initiative,
    and the Forestry Title of the 2002 Farm Bill. The increase will
    strengthen our partnerships through a competitive cost-share program,
    leveraging the effectiveness of federal funds to reduce hazardous
    fuels, improve invasive species management, and enhance forest
    production from state and private lands. This increase will support
    increased private landowners' investment in the management of small
    diameter and underutilized forest products. In the forest legacy
    program, the President's budget proposes a $22 million increase to
    conserve environmentally important private forests through partnerships
    with States and willing landowners. The budget will support
    partnerships with up to ten additional States that have not previously
    participated in the program. We expect total conservation of more than
    200,000 acres, benefiting wildlife habitat, water quality, and
    recreation.

        THE NEXT 100 YEARS FOR AMERICA'S NATIONAL FORESTS AND GRASSLANDS

        Some people and organizations still argue that timber harvest
    levels represent the greatest threat to the National Forests. However
    loudly voiced or strongly held these views may be, they are not
    accurate for the reality of management of the National Forests in the
    next 100 years. This year's budget request supports a program to offer
    two billion board feet including salvage sales.
        The request addresses two key long-term challenges to America's
    National Forests and Grasslands: the build up of hazardous fuels and
    the spread of invasive species that seriously impair ecosystems. In
    August of last year, the President announced the Healthy Forests
    Initiative (HFI). Its objectives include streamlining the decision-
    making process and continuing our long-term commitment of working with
    communities to achieve a meaningful level of public involvement.
        We are committed to our continued partnership with those that use
    and enjoy America's National Forests as well as those that value them
    as part of our nation, no matter where they live. Although we have made
    progress, we must do more. Last year, the Secretaries of Agriculture
    and the Interior proposed new legislation to authorize permanent
    stewardship contracting authority, expedited review, hazardous fuels
    reduction projects, and address a burdensome administrative appeal
    process. President Bush reaffirmed his commitment to Healthy Forests
    during the State of the Union Address. We are committed to working with
    you as you consider the proposals of the Secretaries.

    Hazardous Fuels
        The presence of large amounts of hazardous fuels poses a tremendous
    threat to people and to public and private natural resources. The
    Budget increases emphasis on protecting communities and property from
    the effects of these combustible fuels--catastrophic wildfire. The
    budget supports the 10-year Comprehensive Strategy and Implementation
    Plan, developed in close collaboration with governors, communities, and
    the Department of the Interior. Through performance goals contained in
    the implementation plan, we will implement hazardous fuels reduction
    projects, improve fire suppression planning, expand forest product
    utilization, protect lands from fire related spreads of invasive
    species, and undertake key fire research.
        The budget contains an increase of nearly $187 million for fire
    suppression. Wild land fire suppression costs are increasing and are
    having significant impact upon a wide number of Forest Service
    programs. The cost increases are due a number of reasons, including
    costs associated with national mobilization, wild land fire suppression
    in areas of high hazardous fuel loads, large aircraft and helicopter
    operations, and the increasing complexity of suppression in the wild
    land-urban interface. To address these increasing costs, the Budget
    proposes that the Forest Service and the Department of Interior (DOI):
    review the cost-effectiveness of large fire aviation resources;
    establish a review team to evaluate and develop cost containment
    strategies; and revise procedures to improve reporting of fire
    suppression spending. Together with other actions, this should enable
    the Forest Service to significantly improve our ability to fight
    wildfires without the major impacts to other programs we experienced
    during last year's fire fund transfers. Last year we kept our promise
    by aggressively fighting wildfire--long after funds appropriated
    specifically for fire suppression were gone--and catching more than 99
    percent of fires the way they all start, small. The request includes a
    renewed emphasis on up-to-date fire management plans and wild land fire
    use fires.
        Accomplishing performance objectives under the National Fire Plan
    is also consistent with the President's Management Agenda. Reducing
    hazardous fuels, protecting against fire-related invasive species, and
    targeting adequate resources to suppress wildfire promotes improved
    health of Federal, State, Tribal, and local lands as well as enhancing
    the economies of natural resource based communities. I again urge all
    of us--cooperators and skeptics--to keep a focus on what we leave on
    the land, not what we take from it. Effective, integrated hazardous
    fuels reduction can leave us with clean, healthy water, improved
    wildlife habitat, and more satisfying recreation experiences.

    Invasives
        Invasive species, especially weeds, pose a tremendous threat to
    forests and grasslands. Whether kudzu or leafy spurge or knapweed or
    oriental bittersweet vine, these unwanted invasives take hold and out
    compete native species, changing the look and structure of entire
    ecosystems. Our response to these threats needs to embrace an
    integrated approach. In the coming year we will improve integration of
    efforts among the National Forest System, Research, and State and
    Private Forestry, and other USDA agencies.

                             LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS

        The fiscal year 2004 Budget contains several legislative proposals
    that significantly advance common sense forest health efforts that
    prevent the damage caused by catastrophic wildfires and move past
    ``process gridlock'' to improve agency land management efficiency. Four
    proposals, in particular, promote the President's Healthy Forests
    Initiative by reducing hazardous fuels; permanently authorizing
    stewardship end results contracting; repealing the Appeals Reform Act;
    and revising standards of judicial review in decisions that relate to
    activities necessary to restore fire-adapted forest and rangeland
    ecosystems.

    Hazardous Fuels
        As mentioned earlier, the Secretaries of Agriculture and the
    Interior proposed legislation that authorizes emergency fuels reduction
    projects in priority areas of federal forests outside wilderness areas.
    This will allow timely treatment of forests at risk of catastrophic
    fire and those that pose the greatest risk to people, communities, and
    the environment. Our top priorities will include the wild land-urban
    interface, municipal watersheds, areas affected by disease, insect
    activity, wind throw, and areas subject to catastrophic reburn. We
    would select projects through collaborative processes, consistent with
    the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy and Implementation Plan.
        Fundamental to better implementation of core components of the
    National Fire Plan's 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy is the outstanding
    cooperation that exists between the Forest Service, Department of the
    Interior, State governments, counties, and communities in the
    collaborative targeting of hazardous fuels projects to assure the
    highest priority areas with the greatest concentration of fuels are
    treated.

    Stewardship End Result Contracting
        Section 323 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2003,
    authorizes the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to
    undertake, for a period of 10 years ``stewardship end results
    contracting projects.'' The Administration had requested this extended
    authority last year in the President's Healthy Forest Initiative. I
    appreciate the action of the Congress in responding to the President's
    request. We expect this tool, which had been available only to the
    Forest Service on a limited pilot basis, to be used to implement
    projects that have been developed in collaboration with local
    communities and which will primarily improve forest or rangeland
    health, restore and rehabilitate fish and wildlife habitat, and reduce
    hazardous fuel. Projects will have appropriate NEPA analysis and comply
    with agency wilderness and roadless policies, the relevant forest plans
    and appeals regulations.

    Repeal the Appeals Reform Act
        The Forest Service is subject to procedural requirements that are
    not required of any other Federal agency. To address this issue, the
    Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior will propose legislation to
    repeal Section 322 of the Department of the Interior and Related
    Agencies Appropriations Act of 1993 (commonly known as the ``Appeals
    Reform Act''), that imposed these requirements that I believe limit our
    ability to work collaboratively with the public.
    Standards of Judicial Review
        To ensure that courts consider the public interest in avoiding
    irreparable harm to ecosystems and that the public interest in avoiding
    the short-term effects of such action is outweighed by the public
    interest in avoiding long-term harm to such ecosystems, the Secretaries
    of Agriculture and the Interior will propose legislation to establish
    revised rules for courts in decisions that relate to activities
    necessary to restore fire-adapted forest and rangeland ecosystems.
        The President's Budget also includes legislative proposals to:
      --Expand or clarify existing partnership authorities,
      --Permanently authorize the Recreation Fee Demonstration program,
      --Allow for the transfer of Forest Legacy titles to willing State
            governments,
      --Promote watershed restoration and enhancement agreements,
      --Authorize a Facilities Acquisition and Enhancement Fund,
      --Restore eligibility for State and Private Forestry Programs of the
            three Pacific island entities in ``Compacts of Free
            Association,'' and
      --Eliminate requirements of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable
            Resources Planning Act of 1974 that duplicate the Government
            Performance and Results Act of 1993.

                                   CONCLUSION

        We are fulfilling key promises in re-establishing sound management
    throughout the Forest Service. I want the Forest Service to be an
    organization people trust and once again point to as an example of good
    government. Earning this trust means becoming good stewards of not only
    public land and natural resources, but of public dollars, of public
    trust. We know the work is not complete--there are still many
    opportunities like large fire cost management, integrating information
    systems, and making organizational changes in administrative support
    operations--but we're making good progress.
        Traditional functional and program boundaries do not serve us
    well--they get in the way of our ability to keep our word. I am
    committed to putting more effort into integrating our programs and
    becoming better partners with people interested in leveraging our work.
    The President's Healthy Forest Initiative exemplifies an integrated
    approach to problems that affect not just national forests or national
    grasslands, but America's forests and America's rangelands. It is an
    opportunity for our private land neighbors, for research, for partner
    agencies, for everyone concerned about America's forests and
    grasslands.
        Let me reiterate the deep honor I feel in being Chief of the Forest
    Service in this challenging time and the equally deep sense of
    obligation I feel to keep our promises to the American people. I enlist
    your continued support and look forward to working with you toward that
    end.
        I will be happy to answer any questions.

        Senator Burns. Thank you very much, Chief. I have a couple
    of questions, and then I want to move to my colleagues, because
    everyone is on a tight schedule. I have just a couple of
    questions.

                                    RESEARCH

        In your R&D, I noticed in your monies to do research--the
    continual research of what we can do--how do we better manage
    our forests? I was going to ask you: Do you ever commission or
    grant out to land grant colleges for work to be done with
    regard to soil or water management, or watershed, or any of
    those things? Do any of the colleges across the country--I
    mean--New Mexico State University, I know, has a forestry
    school that is very good. Do you ever outsource any of that
    research to these colleges and land grant schools?
        Mr. Bosworth. We do a lot of work in terms of research with
    colleges and universities. Yes, we do outsource research to
    colleges and universities. It depends upon the circumstances.
    In some cases, they are doing it in combination with our
    research organization. In other cases, it is just strictly
    outsourced to a college or university.

                            STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTING

        Senator Burns. You might bring this up. I know some folks
    believe that stewardship contracting is somewhat controversial.
    I think you emphasized in your statement that stewardship
    contracting is going to be sort of the centerpiece of getting
    some things done on our forests that we need to be done. What
    are the other main objectives that could be accomplished
    through those stewardship contracts? How many contracts do you
    plan to let this year?
        Mr. Bosworth. Well, the first part, the other kinds of
    objectives: The whole notion behind stewardship contracting is,
    first, to collaborate with the public up front, to figure out
    what condition you want the land to be left in. You work
    together to figure out what that may be. Then, under one
    request for proposal, you end up with a contract that will
    accomplish all the things that you want to accomplish on that
    piece of land. In other words, you are bundling all the
    activities together.
        So it may be things like reducing fuels. You may be able to
    do some work like habitat improvement for a threatened or
    endangered species, or for other species, some restoration work
    for a watershed, rehabilitation or restoration work. I think
    there are great opportunities to do some of the noxious weed
    kind of work that needs to be done as part of that.
        So you do all those jobs together. Then there is some
    value, there may be some value from some of the materials, some
    of the trees that are there. The value that is there would help
    offset the cost of doing that work. The contractor then would
    be able to utilize that material. So it makes a lot of sense
    because you work together and reduce the amount of dollars.
        Senator Domenici. Would the Senator yield?
        Senator Burns. Sure.
        Senator Domenici. Have you not done that, experimented four
    or five times in pilot projects?
        Mr. Bosworth. We have--let us see--we had 28 projects each
    year authorized for the last 4 years. It is a total--I do not
    have a calculator. I cannot multiply that out in my mind right
    now. Anyway, that is how many we are authorized to do.
        We have not completed a lot of those but we gained a lot of
    experience in working with the public in setting those up. We
    have done multi-party monitoring where we had people from the
    public to help monitor those experiments or those pilot
    projects. They were working very well.
        Again, we did not have final results in a lot of cases. We
    have the final results in some and a certain amount of progress
    in lots of cases. To me, the thing that was important--to
    monitor and see how it was working--is public acceptance:
    Whether or not we were actually getting people to look for
    common ground and find common ground. That was the important
    part.
        In terms of the number of projects or number of contracts
    that we have this year, it is difficult for me to answer that
    specifically. You know, we have delegated the authority, or
    will delegate the authority, to the regional foresters to use
    that tool wherever they can use it. There will be some
    sideboards. There are going to be more projects. We need to
    train people. There is some work that we are going to have to
    do now. We are expanding the use of that. I am anxious to get
    moving. I am anxious to have more opportunity to show people
    how it will work. I am certain it is going to be successful.
        Senator Burns. Well, thank you very much. I am going to
    move on. I was going to ask you about your--I see you brought
    all your boxes of appeals to make some points. I will let
    somebody else handle that end of it.
        Senator Feinstein.
        Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. I very
    much appreciate what you are trying to do to correct the long-
    standing, I think, failed policy of fire suppression. I want
    you to at least know that this Senator wants to work with you
    in that regard. I am very concerned about the Class 3 areas in
    the Sierra Nevada, which are about a third of the Class 3 areas
    in those strategic areas of Class 3.

                         SAN BERNADINO NATIONAL FOREST

        The San Bernadino National Forest supervisor, Gene
    Zimmerman, told my staff that he believes solving the bark
    beetle problem will require at least $300 million--at least--
    just for that forest, including $5 to $6 million which is
    needed immediately simply to ensure that: Evacuation routes are
    maintained; critical fire breaks are established; and the
    necessary manpower and equipment are on hand.
        The Omnibus Appropriations bill provided about $3.3 million
    for this problem but it is not enough. How do you intend to
    address this issue financially?
        Mr. Bosworth. The total amount that Forest Supervisor
    Zimmerman is talking about--I have not scrubbed those numbers
    myself or had my staff take a hard look at those numbers--but
    there is no question that the problem there is going to be
    extensive to deal with.
        The regional forester, Jack Blackwell, has already
    committed to shifting some dollars within the region to get
    down to, shift them down to the San Bernadino NF because that
    is an urgent problem. There is a will to deal with it. The
    public down there is interested in dealing with it. So he is
    going to be shifting some of those dollars.
        They have already implemented some projects--I can get you
    some exact acreages, if you would like, and some more specific
    kinds of plans for what we can do--but we are not going to be
    able to put $300 million into that in the short term. That is
    just too much money.
        We also need to be very strategic in where we locate the
    kinds of treatments that we are going to do so that we can get
    the most out of every treatment to protect the communities, to
    protect the homes, and to protect the forest as well.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
    I recognize that $300 million is probably out of the can. As
    has been said by others here, it is a really serious problem.
    Anything you can do would be appreciated.

                                   LAKE TAHOE

        I wanted to ask you about the Lake Tahoe situation. As you
    know, both California and Nevada are putting up their share of
    money. They have had enormous success at raising money in the
    private sector for that part of it. I am disappointed that so
    little is in the budget for the Lake this year. I have another
    question, too.
        There was $21 million transferred from the 2003 budget for
    Lake Tahoe to meet emergency wildfire suppression needs in that
    area. The regional forester, the one and only Jack Blackwell,
    has committed to use reimbursement monies in the Omnibus bill
    to restore those funds to Lake Tahoe. Chief, will you commit as
    well to use reimbursement monies in the Omnibus bill to
    reinstate the funds?
        Mr. Bosworth. Actually, the dollars that were--the way that
    the payback--or the dollars to restore--the $636 million that I
    talked about earlier--some of that would have been
    automatically restored, about a third of it would not, of
    National Forest System dollars. About a third of it would not
    have been restored for Lake Tahoe. Regional Forester Blackwell
    has agreed to move the dollars to make sure that Lake Tahoe
    and, I believe, the Quincy Library Group as well--100 percent
    of those dollars will be restored. He is doing that within his
    own region. I appreciate the fact that he is taking that on and
    doing that within the flexibility that he has. Those dollars
    will be there. They will all be back in Lake Tahoe.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

                                 LAKE ARROWHEAD

        Can you quickly tell us what you are going to do in the
    Lake Arrowhead area--now, this is for residence protection--in
    those areas that are in the greatest danger of catastrophic
    fire due to the tree mortality surrounding their property?
        Mr. Bosworth. Well, I am going to need some time to be
    really specific. I can tell you that our folks are working very
    closely right now with the county, with local law enforcement,
    as well as fire departments. Together we can take what we have
    to offer in the Forest Service, along with what the State,
    counties, and local jurisdictions have to offer, to work
    together to be able to provide that safety net that people
    need, but I cannot be specific about----
        Senator Feinstein. Maybe somebody could brief me on what
    you are doing in those areas, the bark beetle infestation
    areas----
        Mr. Bosworth. We would be happy to do that.
        Senator Feinstein [continuing]. With some specificity. I
    would appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Burns. Thank you. Senator Campbell.
        Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chief, I
    recognize, as I am sure you do--we all do--we have got a huge
    deficit this year. Demands are up. States all have deficits. I
    have to tell you, I think when I look at your budget we are
    being penny-wise and dollar-foolish.

                              WESTERN FOREST FIRES

        Those fires are so intense out there. I do not know if you
    have visited some this last year--like the one in Arizona in
    the national forest down there, and on the Indian reservation,
    or the Hayman fire in Colorado, or the Missionary Ridge fire--
    but they are not like fires years ago. These things are--I
    mean--they are hotter, move faster, are more unpredictable--
    they are worse.
        I visited the Missionary Ridge fire near Durango while the
    firefighters were there. I talked to a couple of firefighters.
    They told me that the flames were moving at about 50 miles an
    hour sometimes. They actually saw birds being burned out of the
    sky. They could not even out-fly the flames. That is a hot
    fire.
        I think that, you know, we are going to pay the bill no
    matter what. Durango is a good example. After that particular
    fire, there was a lot of sediment washing down from the burn
    area. They came back and asked me to get them one-half million
    dollars in the appropriations process to upgrade their water
    filtration system plant to be able to handle that increased
    sediment, which I did. They got the money. I would have rather
    put that money into your budget, very frankly.
        It seems to me that when we do not plan ahead, do not have
    adequate precautions, we are going to pay the bill. We are
    going to pay the bill anyway at a later date. This all comes
    out of the same taxpayer's pocket one way or the other. I just
    think that if we had more money through the administration's
    request, it would not cost us on the other end. It is going to
    cost, as I understand it, about $3 million to stabilize some of
    the areas around Denver where sediment is already washing
    down--and will even more after this last huge snow begins to
    melt--and washes into the filtration system. I just wanted to
    pass that on and maybe ask you a couple of questions.

                      RECREATION FEE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM

        By the way, all the calls we are getting in our offices out
    West are absolutely against that fee demo, making that Fee
    Demonstration Program permanent. I think most people think, as
    I do out there, that if you are using the land--like you are
    taking firewood or cutting Christmas trees or something of that
    nature--when you take something from it--or filming for profit
    or something--then it is fair to ask them to pay some kind of a
    fee. But most of the people I talk to out there are absolutely
    opposed to paying just to go out and look at what they think
    they own as an American citizen in a forest. I thought I would
    pass that on to you.

                              WESTERN WATER RIGHTS

        Let me ask you just two questions. One deals with water.
    Out West, we are very, very protective of our water, as you
    might know. It goes back to years and years ago. Mark Twain
    once said that whiskey was for drinking, water was for
    fighting. They still think that way out there, as you know. We
    have this constant struggle between those people who believe
    there is an implied Federal reserved water right and those
    people who think that all water within a State ought to be
    adjudicated through the State water courts.
        I would like to know your view on that, because in some
    cases--and I know it depends a lot on which administration is
    in power, too--but in some cases the Forest Service has tried
    to impose bypass flows in our national forest and circumvent
    working with State instream flow programs. I am sure you are
    aware of that. I would like you to give me your view on where
    you think that is going, particularly as we possibly face
    another drought in the West.
        Mr. Bosworth. Well, the first thing is that States
    adjudicate water rights. My belief is that people who have
    water rights, that is their water. The State is the
    organization that determines who has those rights.
        I also think that, in the end, the way to work with this is
    in a collaborative way to find common ground. The land is not
    worth much if you do not have water on it whether it is private
    land or whether it is public land. So it is important, in my
    view, that: We work together with those folks that hold the
    water rights; do what we can to try to make sure that we are
    still able to keep the functioning of the streams intact and
    also meet their needs; but do it in a working-together way
    rather than in a going-to-court or a regulatory way.
        I may be a little bit naive, but I believe that in most
    cases if you really sit down and try to work toward each
    other's interests, you can find solutions to those problems.
        Senator Campbell. Well, I would like to think so, too. But,
    as I said, sometimes it depends on the administration. It seems
    to me the past administration was hell-bent on usurping State
    water rights in all of our rivers that come through our Western
    States. We had those constant fights. I wanted you to be aware
    of that.

                           FIRE IMPACTS ON WATERSHEDS

        Let me just ask maybe one more, and that is: When I think
    in terms of how watersheds are affected by these murderous
    fires we have out now, it would seem to me the Forest Service
    would get ahead of the curve and try to work with
    municipalities in offering some suggestions or recommendations
    or something before the fires start on what precautions they
    ought to be taking. Do you have anything like that in place in
    the Forest Service? I see Hank is nodding his head so you must
    have something.

                                    FIREWISE

        Mr. Bosworth. We have a program called FIREWISE where we
    work with, usually through the State Foresters, the local
    community in making sure that people have the information to
    know what things they can do on their own property and around
    their own homes.

                            WATER FILTRATION PLANTS

        Senator Campbell. Yes, I knew of those because I have sat
    in some of those meetings. I meant particularly dealing with
    water filtration plants and precautions that can be taken by
    towns to protect their water after a fire.
        Mr. Bosworth. I guess I am not aware specifically in terms
    of water filtration. We would certainly have some expertise
    that could work with that. We also have some programs, like our
    Forest Stewardship program under State and Private Forestry,
    that helps in terms of how you manage on private land, how the
    vegetation is managed to help private landowners do things that
    will keep the land in better condition in the event that you
    have a fire. You would not need to deal with the problem in
    terms of filtration through plants. I would be very happy to
    explore some of our State and Private Forestry programs to see
    whether there are some things that can get at that more
    directly.
        Senator Campbell. Well, I might compliment you on one
    thing. I know in our State--and I think it is probably pretty
    much like this in other Western States, too--that Federal and
    State Foresters really work well together. I have done a number
    of town meetings--the things that we all do--and invited them
    to come answer some questions about it. They really have a very
    close working relationship and good communication between
    States and the Federal level.
        They are all strapped with the same problem--that is, not
    having enough resources--but they do have tremendous lines of
    communication.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Burns. Senator Bennett.
        Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                                    DROUGHT

        Again, most of the questions that I am concerned about have
    been asked. You are aware of the fact that we are in the fifth
    year of a drought. It seems hard to realize here in
    Washington--where we have just dug out from under huge amounts
    of snow and now we have rain coming down--but in Utah the
    conditions are very bad. I would hope you would do everything
    you can. I know you are doing everything you can.
        I simply want to underscore that. We are reaching a point
    where we need, not just good stewardship, but we need heroic
    kinds of statements to deal with the challenges of drought.
    Aside from doing a rain dance and making it rain--we will
    assign that to Senator Campbell--I am not quite sure what you
    can do.
        Senator Burns. He said it is a matter of timing.
        Senator Bennett. I see, okay.
        I want to compliment you on the people you have on the
    ground in Utah. We have a good relationship in our office with
    Forest Service personnel in Utah. We very much appreciate their
    cooperation. Other than that, as I say, all the issues relating
    to the bark beetles and litigation, et cetera, probably have
    already been covered.
        Senator Campbell. Would the chairman yield?
        Senator Burns. I would.

                           GROUNDED AIR TANKER FLEET

        Senator Campbell. I had asked you earlier if you would
    comment on the tanker fleet, too, that many of us are worried
    about so much, if you could do that.
        Mr. Bosworth. Yes. As you know, we had two accidents last
    year where the fatal crashes were air tankers: one was a C-130A
    and the other was a PB4Y. Subsequently, the Director of the
    Bureau of Land Management, Kathleen Clarke, and I commissioned
    a blue ribbon panel. It was a very high-level group of people
    from outside the Forest Service to evaluate our aerial
    firefighting program. They came back with some recommendations.
    We are looking through those and implementing some of those
    recommendations.
        But one of the things we have done is, we have grounded the
    C-130As and the PB4Ys. We are taking the rest of the large
    aircraft and, working with FAA, have developed an inspection
    and maintenance program. We are in the process of inspecting
    those before we are going to put them back in service. Once the
    inspections are completed, and we find out what kind of
    maintenance has to be done, then we will be able to move
    forward.
        It is my expectation that we will have retardant aircraft
    available this year. It may not be at the full level that we
    had last year. We are supplementing the numbers with what we
    call SEEDS--it is a single-engine aircraft as opposed to the
    larger ones. Then we also have--we are looking at more heavy-
    lift helicopters.
        Senator Campbell. Those will be leases, I guess. You do not
    own any of those.
        Mr. Bosworth. That is right. The other part of it is, we
    need to make sure that we are putting those retardant aircraft
    in the right places. What I mean by that is, I think that the
    best place for using those is in the initial attack and
    extended attack. When you get these huge fires--like the Hayman
    fire, the Rodeo-Chedeski fire, and the Missionary Ridge fire--
    in a lot of cases, heavy-lift helicopters are much more
    effective in terms of trying to protect private homes. You have
    seen how big those fires are. You know, dropping retardant in a
    lot of cases is just dropping dollar bills out of the aircraft
    and not doing much more than that.
        We will be prepared this year--maybe not at the full level,
    as we were, but we will be functioning very well.
        Senator Campbell. Thank you.
        Senator Burns. Senator Domenici.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
        First let me compliment you on your enthusiasm. I think it
    could be a good year for you and for the Forest Service. I was
    going to ask about your airplanes. You have answered that to my
    satisfaction.

                            WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

        I noted from my staff that a couple of weeks ago, in the
    Energy and Natural Resources Committee, you testified there
    that you expected to be able to put out 98 percent of the fires
    in 2004. I am wondering how you are going to do that. It is our
    understanding you are going to have about half the firefighters
    you had in 2002.
        Mr. Bosworth. What I would like to do first is put a chart
    up here for you to take a look at. I believe you have a copy of
    it in front of you there. It is the chart that shows--if you
    will notice there on the left, the blue circle: That is the
    total number of fires that we had between 1996 and 2001. That
    is that circle. The little pink pie shape in there is 1.8
    percent of those fires. That 1.8 percent are those fires that
    exceed 300 acres.
        So then if you go to the right and you look at the top
    circle, that is our suppression costs. What that shows is that
    86 percent of those suppression costs came from that little
    pink wedge on the left-hand side. In other words, the 1.8
    percent of the fires caused 86 percent of the costs and 95
    percent of the acres burned. The idea, then, is to keep that
    little pink wedge as small as you can keep it. If you could
    keep all fires less than 300 acres, then, of course, we could
    significantly reduce the dollars.
        Now, we are never going to be able to do that, not with
    drought and not with the situation we have with fuels. Our best
    hope to ever do that is by treating fuels. In the long term,
    there is hope that we could even significantly reduce the cost
    even more.
        So, then, our challenge is to look at that balance between
    suppression costs and preparedness costs to make sure that we
    have enough firefighters to do the initial attack, to keep
    those fires small, but still make sure that we have enough
    money to fight those large fires that we are going to have a
    certain amount of.
        There are differences of opinion about how much that ought
    to be. For me, the important thing is to have some flexibility
    to move funds back and forth between suppression and
    preparedness because, again, it depends so much on what the
    fire season looks like when you actually get closer to it. The
    fiscal year 2003 authority provided us that opportunity for
    2003. We will see how well that works this year. My expectation
    is that that will help us get the right level of preparedness
    and then still be able to do the job that we need in
    suppression.
        Senator Domenici. Well, you are saying that you want to try
    to have fewer big fires.
        Mr. Bosworth. That is right. We want fewer big fires
    because that is where the cost and that is where the acres are.
        Senator Domenici. Well, if you can do that, wonderful. We
    will give you some kind of medal if you can do that.

                              PROCESS PREDICAMENT

        Let me talk just a couple of minutes about the report on
    process predicament. I thank you for reminding me of it. I will
    review it. I am at fault for not having reviewed it if there
    are things in there that we ought to be doing. You have stated
    that you are going to be working to get at some of the
    predicaments in the process that that study revealed. We ought
    to be doing some of them if they are legislative. I hope we
    will look at them collectively and see what we can do.
        If there are any legislative changes in that that stand out
    to you, I would hope you would call it to our attention. We,
    too, have a responsibility to help you as you try to do that.
        Mr. Bosworth. Thank you. I would just like to respond very
    quickly if I could. The process predicament write-up does not
    give answers. It just kind of defines a problem. We are trying
    to work together to develop the answers.
        I would like to point out one thing that I have here since
    we are talking about process predicament. The Lolo National
    Forest had fires along with a lot of others in the year 2000.
    They attempted then to do some work, to do some restoration and
    rehabilitation. I would like to point out over here: This is an
    environmental impact statement. This stack here, which is a
    pretty good size stack of stuff--in order for them to do work
    on 752 acres of soil stabilization, 224 miles of road
    decommissioning--closing roads--2,172 acres of timber salvage,
    2,377 acres of commercial thinning, and 12,900 acres of
    reforestation--in order to do that work, it took this
    environmental impact statement.
        When we got the appeals, if you take this--we have the
    appeal record. That box--12 of those boxes is what it took to
    transfer the appeal record to the regional office from the
    forest--12 of those boxes to do the work on one forest after
    just one of the many, many fires that we had--to do some of the
    work of restoration and rehabilitation. That is why I am so
    focused on trying to deal with this process predicament. That
    is just a huge problem for us.
        Senator Domenici. Well, you know, we can just continue on
    and complain, or we can try to do something like you are doing
    and find some of the actual problems.

                            STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTING

        I have a personal commitment to myself to try to establish
    a presentable case for the use of the stewardship contracts. I
    have a certain entity that I would like to convince in my State
    that they are a good thing. To that end, I have the language of
    the law. I wonder if you could have one of your staff just take
    a couple of projects that have worked, even if they are small--
    they do not have to be in my State, obviously--and just narrate
    how they start, who gets involved, how it proceeds beyond that,
    and how it ends up--being able to accomplish something
    collectively that is contemplated by this new statute. Could
    you do a couple of those for me, please?
        Mr. Bosworth. I would be very happy to do that. I could
    also make some people available to go through the whole process
    of what they used. We have some people in my office now who
    have actually done those, as forest supervisors, and who have
    now transferred into my office. They would be happy to sit
    down. They have done some projects that are very successful.
    They had a huge amount of public support for them. We would be
    happy to go through some of those examples.
        Senator Domenici. If you could get me one in writing. If I
    may--in New Mexico--want to ask you to send a couple of your
    people with me to show some constituents how it is done. If I
    could start with a written explanation, it would be extremely
    helpful to me.
        Mr. Bosworth. I will do that.

                           COUNTY PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

        Senator Domenici. I have about 8 or 10 questions I am going
    to submit. One of which has to do with asking you whether you
    will continue to handle the so-called county partnership
    restoration program. Will you continue to work with the
    counties? There are a number of those going. Some of them are
    working. We do not want you to let up on that kind of
    relationship. Could you just take a minute or so and talk about
    that?
        Mr. Bosworth. The way that we are going to get these jobs
    done is through those kinds of partnerships. There are a number
    of projects that I know of that folks are working on, where
    county partnerships are working together, I think, in New
    Mexico, Arizona, and Colorado.
        Senator Domenici. Right. Lincoln is one, Apache----
        Mr. Bosworth. Apache-Sitgraves is one, and then the San
    Juan, I believe, is one.
        Senator Domenici. Right.
        Mr. Bosworth. Those folks are working together in that
    partnership to move forward.
        Now, we have not taken dollars off the top in my office and
    sent funds to those places specifically. We are looking at what
    kind of things we might be able to do in addition to help to
    make it easier for them to do that.
        Senator Domenici. The only thing we expect you to do is to
    continue to push those and give your blessings to them so that
    the people know they are for real and that you support them.
        Mr. Bosworth. I am more than willing to put emphasis, to
    talk it up, and to encourage the regions and the forests to
    take the dollars that we are giving them, and to work them into
    those partnership areas.
        The only thing I am reluctant to do--I am trying not to do
    very much of--is take dollars off the top here. I want to get
    as much money out as I can without me taking it off the top.
        Senator Domenici. Sure.
        Mr. Bosworth. So we have reduced that significantly, but
    boy--I am willing to do all the rest of that.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Burns. Yes, sir.

                            WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE

        Would you put the last chart that you had up there, sir,
    please? I have a question regarding it. That is a very, very
    compelling chart that you have up there. I would just like to
    know--up there in the big blue circle where you do your circle
    irrigation up there--that is what it looks like, does it not?
        Mr. Bosworth. It does.
        Senator Burns. How many of those big fires started--or had
    their origination--started in your wildland-urban interface
    areas? Would you have any idea? Have you ever looked at that?
        Mr. Bosworth. We can get some information on that. I could
    not tell you just offhand. I am sitting here trying to decide--
    what I was pausing about was whether or not, in my view, most
    of those would be in sort of roaded areas versus the
    backcountry kind of areas. I just do not know. I would have to
    do some work, particularly--and we can do that. I mean, I think
    you can get the information. We will see what we can find and
    at least figure out whether they are in the wildland-urban
    interface or whether they are in roaded versus unroaded areas.
        Senator Burns. And along with what Senator Domenici had to
    say, it would be good if we could do some kind of a white
    paper. He wants some concrete information that he can take to
    his communities in New Mexico as far as stewardship is
    concerned and how those are working.
        We also should take a look and see what changes we would
    have to make in the law to facilitate both what we are trying
    to do on the forest, and also take a look and see where the
    objections are--how we address those objections or those
    questions by people who would file these appeals--because, no
    doubt, some of those appeals have a legitimate basis. How do we
    address those in certain circumstances in order to deal with an
    isolated case? That would help us up here.
        Mr. Bosworth. That is part of--that is what the Healthy
    Forests Initiative wants to do in large part as well.
        Senator Burns. That is right.
        Mr. Bosworth. So that is why that proposal is out there.
        Senator Burns. Okay. Well, we sure appreciate your work on
    that.
        Senator Stevens, welcome to the committee this morning, the
    chairman of the full committee. We look forward to your--if you
    have a statement you may put it in the record.

                           TONGASS TIMBER REFORM ACT

        Senator Stevens. No, I do not have a statement, Mr.
    Chairman. We have four subcommittee meetings this morning. I am
    trying to go to each one. I am sorry to be late here, Mr.
    Bosworth. I have great interest in the Forest Service, as you
    know. We recently had to put a provision in the law to assure
    that the Tongass Timber Reform Act concept was finally approved
    in the Tongass Land Management Plan (TLMP). I hope that you
    will have no difficulty with that.
        Mr. Bosworth. Not at all.
        Senator Stevens. Are you all going to be able to observe
    that provision of the law?
        Mr. Bosworth. We are going to make every effort to do that,
    yes, I believe so.
        Senator Stevens. I have lived now through too many
    agreements with people over what happens in Alaska. One of them
    was in the Tongass Timber Reform Act. It was the third in a
    series of agreements we had to reach in order to continue
    Forest Service operations in Alaska, and harvesting timber. It
    has now been held up, as you know, for about 12 years or more.
    I hope that we will go ahead.
        Mr. Chairman, I am thinking about offering a provision that
    says anyone who challenges those plans must pay the loss of
    income to the people who have suffered by the delay--if they
    suffered--if they prevent going ahead now with the contracts
    that have been in place for so long, as far as harvesting
    Alaska timber.
        These people, who are just professional protesters in the
    legal profession, do nothing but file lawsuits in order to
    raise more money. The contributions go to a foundation they
    form themselves. They pay themselves and they have no downside
    when they lose. I think we have got to find some way to prevent
    people from holding up the harvesting of timber under a plan
    such as--I do not know if you know it--I opposed TLMP when it
    first came out. By the time it has gone through 12 years, I
    have no alternative but to support it.
        I do hope we can find some way to make certain it goes--I
    notice from your resume you never served in Alaska, Mr.
    Bosworth.
        Mr. Bosworth. I have never served in Alaska. I have been in
    a number of regions. I have been to Alaska a number of times. I
    spent a week there last year trying to gain a better
    understanding of the issues. There are some real challenges
    there. There are also some very good--we have some very good
    employees there. They are working hard.
        Senator Stevens. Well, we would invite you to come up,
    because, you know, some things that may work elsewhere, such as
    backfires and other things, can really cause holocausts in our
    State. I think it takes someone with firm professional
    experience to oversee operations on a day-to-day basis up
    there.

                       BEETLE KILL ON THE KENAI PENINSULA

        I went with Senator Domenici when they had those terrible
    fires out in his area. I could hardly believe them. We have
    now--I am told we have over 3 million acres of beetle kill on
    Federal lands that are in the vicinity of our major city of
    Anchorage, and coming up--that is the Kenai Peninsula, up
    towards the Matanuska Valley in Alaska. The beetle kill is
    substantial.
        I hope that under the President's new program that we can
    take some steps to try to thin out some of those dead trees so
    they do not provide the fuel for fires such as we have had
    before in that area. Beetle kill--I have flown over the forests
    when they are burning. The sinuosity of the fire follows the
    dead trees in our area. They just end up by consuming an
    enormous acreage of forest because the trees that are dead,
    because of the infestation, have not been removed.
        I hope you will look at a plan to try and remove some of
    those dead trees.
        Mr. Bosworth. Actually, when I was up visiting there last
    summer, I did get up in the Kenai. I did look at some of the
    area where the spruce is dead. It is a huge problem. I
    certainly agree with you. A lot of that is private land. Some
    of that is national forest. We are working through our State
    and Private Forestry program with private landowners. We are
    then trying to do as much as we can on the national forest as
    well.
        One of the successful programs I think also is the FIREWISE
    program there on the Kenai. We are working with those folks,
    the actual homeowners, helping them find ways that they can
    make their homes safer from fire. I appreciate your support and
    your attention on that.

                         ALASKA JURISDICTIONAL PROBLEMS

        Senator Stevens. You are right, it is a checkerboard of
    Federal ownership. Part of it is a wildlife refuge, for
    instance, and the forest surrounds that. The wildlife refuge
    was actually carved out of national forest lands in the past.
    There are enormous problems jurisdictionally between the two
    Federal agencies in determining how to deal with fires in the
    peninsula. In the final analysis, you know, we have less than 2
    percent of our land in private ownership. It is all surrounded
    by Federal or State land. If Federal and State people do not
    fight their fires, the people who suffer the most are the
    people who have the inholdings, so to speak, that are involved
    in those areas of heavy forestation.
        Southeastern Alaska, I am sure you saw, because of its
    rainfall, does not have as much difficulty. But it has been
    drier this year, too. We are going to have enormous fires if we
    do not get prepared for them.
        Mr. Bosworth. Again, my belief is that the solution is both
    fuels treatment and working together between State, Federal,
    local jurisdictions, and working with homeowners. We can do
    that by working together to make a big difference. That is an
    important part of the National Fire Plan.

                           ALASKA FOREST TRIP BY AIR

        Senator Stevens. Mr. Chairman, once in the past I got the
    cooperation of the Department of Defense. We took one of the
    enormous passenger planes from the military. We went through
    the forested area of our State. We had helicopters and National
    Guard standing by to take people, Senators and staff, out to
    look at these areas of really great risk to everybody. That is
    15 years ago now. I am not sure there are many people around
    here that made that trip.
        I would like to suggest to you that we try to organize a
    trip to go up there. It only takes a weekend, really. I think
    we should go up. We should ask Mr. Bosworth and some of his
    staff to go along. You just have to view it in totality. These
    are the two largest forests in the United States. Beyond that
    are millions of acres of forestland that is owned by the
    Federal Government. There is just not proper stewardship of
    handling the problem of infestation of the timber in
    particular.
        I do not want to belabor it. I urge you to think about it.
    I think that is a fantastic legacy for the future. I think the
    day will come when we will be compelled to resume harvesting
    that timber. We could have harvested that timber on a 103-,
    104-year cutting cycle, using only 10 percent of the forest,
    and supplied better than 450 million board feet forever. That
    has been challenged and cut back. As you know, we are down now
    last year to 34 million board feet.
        The year that I came to the Senate, the harvest was 1.5
    billion board feet. We still only cut--in the history of man,
    we have cut 3 percent of the forest. It does not make any sense
    what happened. I think more people in the Senate, and more of
    your people, need to be exposed to the whole of the totality of
    forest areas in Alaska in order to make sure we have a sound
    policy.
        I appreciate what you are doing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Burns. Mr. Chairman, thank you for coming by. I
    noted, Senator, that he said he had spent 1 week up there last
    year in your forest. I spent 1 night up there that turned into
    1 week.
        You know how that is. He raises a very legitimate question,
    though, I will tell you that.

                    NATIONAL FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLANNING

        There are a couple of things I want to ask you about, and
    then--forest plans, money to--we understand that they are
    incredibly costly, to do forest plans. Are you on schedule to
    do, redo forest plans--we have some coming up, I understand--
    especially when it has taken us 5 to 6 years to prepare one of
    those things. How are we on that schedule of redoing some of
    the forest plans?
        Mr. Bosworth. We are behind in terms of--you know--we are
    supposed to have our plans done--they are supposed to be
    revised every 10 to 15 years, 15 being the outside. We have a
    number of forest plans that are 15 years and beyond.
        The important thing, I think, is our attempt to update the
    planning rule and, frankly, to modernize the planning rule. The
    way it has been--the last time it was done was back in the
    early 1980s and then, of course, in 2000. The problem with the
    2000 planning rule is that it would cost us an estimated $12
    million per forest plan to do a revision. It would take several
    years--I mean, probably more than what it has taken under the
    old rule. It is my strong desire to get the timeframe down to
    just a couple of years.
        I also have a belief that the only people that can be
    involved in forest planning, when it takes you 8 or 9 years,
    are those who are being paid to be involved. But the person who
    just cares--the person who likes to go hunting or fishing, or
    the person who wants to go camping--they cannot stay with it
    for 8 years and work with us for 8 years along with everybody
    else. So if we really want to work with the public in a
    collaborative way on how their forests are going to be managed,
    we have to get that timeframe down to just 2 years or 3 at the
    max.
        That is what our proposed planning rule would do, I am
    hoping and expecting. If it does, then I think we can make a
    huge difference, reduce costs, and get caught up.
        Senator Burns. The same thing on grazing permits?

                                RANGE MANAGEMENT

        Mr. Bosworth. In the 2004 President's budget we are
    increasing the amount for Range that would--I will have Hank
    give you the dollars--that would increase the number of
    allotments that we could get under NEPA by about 30 percent, I
    believe. Can you give him the figures specifically, Hank?
        Mr. Kashdan. Yes.
        Senator Burns. Turn your microphone around there, Henry.
        Mr. Kashdan. Mr. Chairman, the grazing increase of $7.3
    million, compared to the President's budget, would enable us to
    do 33 percent more allotments and get them under decision
    notices than we had been able to do in 2002. You would still
    continue to have the backlog issues.
        Senator Burns. You still would, okay. That goes hand in
    hand, I think, with the forest plans and the grazing permits.
    All this is linked together, the invasive weeds, these forest
    plans, grazing permits.

                            NOXIOUS WEEDS MANAGEMENT

        Now, if you think just getting rid of weeds, that helps,
    especially in sheep. Now, cattle not so much. The cows will not
    eat that stuff. Sheep will. Doing these grazing permits is
    very, very important not only from a weed standpoint, but also
    in our fire management.
        Where we had grazing, we do not have those really hot
    fires. That excess grass and undergrowth is--and sheep browse--
    that is all taken away. It is part of fuels reduction. It does
    not hurt the land. We can do that--not using tax dollars--to
    remove some of those undesirable things that we think that are
    on our forests--such as weed management--and that costs--and
    also fuels reduction.
        There are some natural harvesters out here that will help
    us manage our forests. I do not know why we are not using those
    tools. Any other person who is in charge of managing--just like
    I said: The old equation of sun, water, and soil--and using
    those resources--and knowing how to use those resources.
        Now, does it work on every forest? No, it does not. That is
    why we cannot write a law that one size fits everything. It
    just does not. There are circumstances. There are growing
    seasons. There are variables in moisture, a lot of variables,
    that we have to take into account. It takes a really
    experienced person to understand what forest I am managing and
    what practices work, and what practices do not work. That is
    why it just has to happen that way.
        You can take every ranch in the State of Montana--and Dale,
    you know this as well as anybody else--and no two ranches are
    alike. They may lie right next to one another. How you manage
    it; how you take care of it; how you make it produce--but I
    will tell you, I bet the guy that has lived there for a
    generation-and-a-half or two generations--they know how to
    manage it. The next guy comes by and he buys it--he changes
    everything--he learns pretty quick--some things work and some
    things do not work.
        By the way, I called the Park Service up. I had a way to
    get that guy on that John Deere tractor out of that puddle but
    they did not take my advice down there.
        Just comment on that, then. I think those issues really
    link together. I would help us to complete as much of this as
    we can. That really enables us to deal with some of the
    problems we have, this management problem.

                                  LEAFY SPURGE

        Mr. Bosworth. I would like to say something, first, about
    leafy spurge up there. I did not respond to it when Senator
    Dorgan was here. I know what leafy spurge is. It is a huge
    problem. Springtime, as you know--it will have yellow flowers
    on it. Most leafy spurge that has been there for a while will
    have a root system that is 20 and 30 feet deep.
        Senator Burns. That is right.
        Mr. Bosworth. You cannot pull it out when it is 20 or 30
    feet deep. You can pull it and break it but it just pops right
    back up again. You can do some things with grazing. Both goats
    and sheep will eat it. We have even tried in some places to
    contract with goats to pay, in other words, to graze, to try to
    eradicate leafy spurge.
        We are also making some progress on leafy spurge with
    wasps, the bugs that are natural enemies to it.
        Senator Burns. Doing work at Sidney, Montana.
        Mr. Bosworth. Yes, that is correct, and at a couple of
    other places along the Smith River we are working with it, too.

                                INVASIVE SPECIES

        I will tell you, I am so convinced that invasive species--
    which would be insects, diseases, and weeds--are probably one
    of the biggest threats to our national forests and grasslands
    that there is, and not just to the national forests but the
    Nation's forests and grasslands. I mean, it is a huge problem.
    Our country spends a lot of money every year trying to deal
    with invasive species--either insects, diseases, or weeds--and
    I will be very happy to work with you to try to improve our
    program and to do it better. But it has to be integrated, like
    you say.
        Senator Burns. Right.
        Mr. Bosworth. When we have fires, when we have wildfires,
    we end up with a spread of--knapweed, for example, in the
    Bitterroot Valley. After those fires, we just had bumper crops
    of----
        Senator Burns. Knap.
        Mr. Bosworth [continuing]. Of knapweed, yes. That is one of
    the problems that you have in many places in the West now. When
    we have fire, whether it is a prescribed burn or whether it is
    a natural fire, we have got to be doing something about weeds
    right after the fire because there are so many of them.
        But again, to me it is essential that this be integrated
    between the fire, between the insects, between the diseases,
    between the weeds, and that our management work on all parts of
    those together. It is critical.
        Senator Burns. I do not know whether you have had the
    opportunity to visit with Packy Burns yet--no relation--no
    relation. She lives at Big Timber. They run sheep in the Big
    Timber area. She contracts out to private lands and also
    permittees. She takes her bands of sheep wherever she is
    contracted. They pay her to come in and do it.
        Mr. Bosworth. No, I have not met her.
        Senator Burns. Well, you ought to meet her. She is a very
    interesting woman and, of course, I knew her old father-in-law
    many years ago. He had sheep and cattle in the big sheep and
    timber area. We used to do a lot of business in Sweet Grass
    County.
        We thank you for your testimony today. I just want to say
    publicly, I remember that when you came to this office I had
    the feeling that we made the right choice, that the President
    made the right choice to put you in charge of the Forest
    Service. You sure have not been a disappointment. I just want
    to congratulate you on the work that you are doing.
        We are not going to agree on everything. No people do.
    Differences of opinion are what make the country go. Generally,
    though, when I talk to your people who are on the ground,
    morale is very good. You are to be complimented on putting some
    people around the forests. I think that are doing as good a job
    as they can possibly do under the conditions they have to do
    them.
        So thank you for coming this morning. We are willing to
    work with you on funding those areas--that white paper on what
    we can do on stewardship, how we make it work, and how we make
    it work for everybody in America. Thank you for coming this
    morning.
        Mr. Bosworth. Thank you, and thank you for those comments.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Burns. 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:]

                  Question Submitted by Senator Pete Domenici

                         COUNTY PARTNERSHIP RESTORATION

        Question. Chief Bosworth, I know that last year you made efforts to
    ensure the Lincoln, Apache-Sitgreaves, and GMUG National Forest
    received funding to work with County Partner Restoration Projects to
    help reduce hazardous fuels loads in Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado.
        I am told that last year, before you had to pull back funding to
    pay for fiscal year 2002 fire fighting, that about $1 million was
    slated to be expended on these three forests for this type of work. How
    much funding should we anticipate will be slated for these three
    forests this year?
        Answer. The following table displays Hazardous Fuels, Forest
    Health, and Vegetation/Watershed funds committed to the County Partner
    Restoration projects for the three forests in fiscal year 2003:

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Apache-
                                                                   Lincoln NF   Seagraves    GMUG NF's     Total by
                                                                                    NF                       BLI
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Hazardous Fuels.............................................      ( \1\ )      ( \1\ )      $90,000      $90,000
    Forest Health...............................................      ( \1\ )      ( \1\ )       33,000       33,000
    Veg/Watershed...............................................     $330,000     $305,000      ( \1\ )      635,000
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------
          Total by Forest.......................................      330,000      305,000      123,000      758,000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ None.

                              DEFERRED MAINTENANCE

        Question. Chief Bosworth, I note Deferred Maintenance/
    Infrastructure Improvements is down $50.9 Million from the fiscal year
    2003 request of $50.9 Million. In fiscal year 2002 we funded this line
    Item at $61 Million.
        With your current budget, are you able to fully manage and maintain
    the ecosystem health of the lands that are already entrusted to the
    Forest Service? Please provide a yes or no answer?
        Answer. No. However, the Agency's efforts will be to focus on the
    critical high priority work. Limited resources and combined with a
    multitude of resource management issues at the ecosystem level on the
    191 million acre National Forest System requires the careful balancing
    of funding priorities reflected in the fiscal year 2004 Budget. Within
    the Capital Improvement and Maintenance budget line items, the focus is
    on addressing the critical deferred maintenance health & safety items
    deferred maintenance backlog.
        Question. Specifically, which programs will not be funded at
    amounts called for in the Forest Plans, as a result of the fiscal year
    2004 budget request?
        Answer. Forest Land and Resource Management Plans (or Forest Plans)
    do not identify specific funding needs for an individual program in a
    given year. Forest Plans are the result of completing the middle-level
    of the agency's 3-tiered planning process. They are programmatic
    documents that tier from the agency's strategic plan and establish a
    framework for identifying, planning and implementing projects designed
    to achieve Forest and agency objectives.
        Program funding needs for a fiscal year are determined based on a
    combination of factors, including the results of project level planning
    within each program. The agency identifies various combinations of
    programmatic needs in its budget submission that are designed to
    address different sets of goals, objectives, and budget constraints.
    Reduced funding in any program will result in less work being
    accomplished on the ground and potentially lengthen the time it takes
    Forests to achieve their Plan objectives and the agency to achieve its
    strategic objectives.
        Question. I also note that there are a significant number of insect
    and disease outbreaks that are not being sanitized or salvaged. Would
    you provide me an explanation of the relative priority given to
    treating these outbreaks as compared to completing deferred
    maintenance?
        Answer. The President's Budget provides a balanced program to meet
    forest health protection and deferred maintenance/infrastructure
    improvement needs.

                     VIBRANT FOREST AND RANGE BASED ECONOMY

        Question. Give me a list of the legislative changes that you need
    to ensure you can implement the National Fire Plan, not only in a safe
    and effective manner but also in a manner that is environmentally
    acceptable?
        Answer. If Healthy Forest legislation is enacted, we don't
    anticipate a need for other legislative action. We are in the process
    of establishing and implementing several Healthy Forest related
    administrative actions that will enable the Forest Service to safely
    and more effectively implement the National Fire Plan. We will keep you
    informed of any change in circumstances.

                               FIRE PREPAREDNESS

        Question. Chief, a couple of weeks ago you testified to the Energy
    and Natural Resources Committee that you expect to be able to put out
    98 percent of the fires that start in fiscal year 2004. I am wondering
    how you will accomplish this with half as many fire fighters as you had
    in 2002?
        Answer. Preparedness funding was at an all-time high in 2001, the
    first year of the National Fire Plan. This included significant funds
    for one-time purchases of heavy equipment including engines and dozers
    to reach a maximal readiness level. While of that equipment will have
    to be replaced someday, annual investments needs not be maintained at
    the 2001 level.
        In 2002, fire readiness proved to be as good as or better than
    ever. Ninety-nine percent of wildfires on Forest Service-managed lands
    were controlled on initial attack. Preparedness funding in the fiscal
    year 2004 is $9 million higher than fiscal year 2003 request.
    Preparedness funding will be targeted in 2003 and 2004 to maintain the
    agency preparedness at the highest level possible, with resources being
    positioned in the area of extreme fire danger. In addition, resources
    will be moved throughout the fire season to areas in need. If 2004 is
    another severe fire season, the fire program has the flexibility to
    augment Preparedness funding with ``severity'' funds from the
    suppression account to fund the placement of additional resources in
    the areas most at risk from catastrophic wildfires in order to maintain
    sufficient readiness and initial attack capability.
        Unfortunately, no amount of preparedness can prevent all fires from
    escaping to levels requiring extended fire suppression. When fires
    become large, the costs to contain them become large as well. The rise
    in the 10-year average recognizes the long-term trend in fire frequency
    and severity. Even so, even that increase falls below the costs of the
    past three years. We consider it prudent to maintain a funding level
    based on the 10-year average. Anything less would seem shortsighted
    given what we know today.
        I have directed the Regional Foresters to use funds for the purpose
    of attaining preparedness levels that are similar to fiscal year 2002.
    The following table displays a comparison of what we plan to provide in
    fiscal year 2003 versus 2003.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Fiscal year
              Resource type           --------------------------     2003
                                       2002 actual   2003 base     planned
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Firefighters.....................       10,480        6,008       10,480
    Prevention Techs.................          403          296          332
    Engines..........................          995          700        1,072
    Forest Helicopters...............           75           57           87
    National Helicopters.............            7            8            8
    Smokejumpers.....................          277          277          277
    Type I Crews.....................           65           65           65
    Airtankers.......................           41           33           33
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. I also see that you have grounded 11 heavy slurry bombers
    and 11 of 19 of your Beech Craft lead planes. Half as many fire
    fighters, half your lead planes gone, and quarter of your slurry
    bombers out of commission. Please provide specific steps that you have
    taken to make up the 50 percent reduction in fire fighters and the
    grounding of these aircraft?
        Answer. We have some concern about the loss of 11 large airtankers
    but feel we have several alternatives available to us that will
    mitigate the effect of losing this capability. In our 2003 Fire
    Operations planning we are instructing Incident Commanders to shift the
    emphasis of the airtanker fleet to initial attack rather than large
    fire support. We will shift suppression tactics from those that require
    close air support to those that do not require such close support
    (direct fireline construction versus more indirect). This may cause a
    marginal increase in total burned acres but not enough to be
    significant. We will add contract helicopters with aerial suppressant
    capability to help offset the loss of the airtankers. Finally, we will
    add as many as 11 Single Engine Airtankers (SEATS) to help with local
    initial attack. In a normal year, these alternatives will allow us to
    effectively suppress wildland fire without compromising safety, burned
    acres, and program costs.
                            stewardship contracting
        Question. Chief, you advocated for stewardship contracting while
    you were in Region One. Can you tell us how that worked in Region One
    and how you see using Stewardship Contracting in New Mexico?
    Specifically, what type of projects are you thinking about implementing
    in New Mexico under this program?
        Answer. The demonstration pilot authority for stewardship
    contracting in the Northern Region (Region 1) has shown that some
    projects are better able to get needed work done in an area than what
    could be accomplished using a timber sale.
        In the Southwestern Region (Region 3), the Cibola National Forest
    is currently working on an existing stewardship contract on the Mt.
    Taylor Ranger District, and has also started to work on a new one using
    the new authorities on the Mountainair Ranger District. The Mt. Taylor
    Ranger District is also working on a new environmental impact statement
    that is scheduled for completion in fiscal year 2004 and is currently
    planned to be implemented through a stewardship contract. In addition,
    the Lincoln National Forest and the Santa Fe National Forest have
    stewardship contracts that will be completed by the end of the current
    calendar year. All the National Forests in New Mexico are looking at
    stewardship contracting opportunities and are interested in completing
    projects with this new authority.
                              insects and disease
        Question. As you know we have a large area of forest that is being
    devastated by bark beetles in Northern New Mexico. This has been on
    going for several years and is likely to continue and spread due to the
    drought.
        Can you tell me the specific steps the National Forests in New
    Mexico are taking to combat these insects and stop the spread of the
    outbreaks?
        Answer. Severe drought conditions and overcrowding have weakened
    many trees in New Mexico, including those on the National Forests.
    These weakened trees are now being attacked and killed by native bark
    beetles. Pinon and ponderosa pines are most severely affected. Large
    scale control measures to stop the beetle outbreaks are not feasible.
    However, spraying of 55 high-value trees to protect them from attack
    was completed in two campgrounds on the Santa Fe National Forest in
    March 2003. Thinning to enhance tree vigor is planned for those and
    several additional developed recreation sites on the Santa Fe National
    Forest. The thinning is scheduled to begin in the fall, when cutting
    activities are less likely to attract bark beetles. Thinning currently
    underway on the Santa Fe Watershed includes mastication, or shredding,
    of woody debris, rendering it unsuitable for bark beetle breeding. A
    pine bark beetle strategic communication plan is being utilized to
    provide the public with information about bark beetle activity,
    management, and impacts. A bark beetle website has been developed to
    provide information online: http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/resources/health/
    index.shtml
        Information has been provided in the form of presentations to
    adults and children, in articles, responses to phone and internet
    questions, and dissemination of literature. An informal interagency
    bark beetle meeting was held at the FS Southwestern Regional Office on
    June 24, 2003 to discuss bark beetle impacts and explore opportunities
    for information-sharing and coordination. In attendance were
    representatives from the Forest Service, the BLM, the BIA, and the NM
    State Forestry Division. A follow-up meeting is planned. The
    Southwestern Region is participating in a Forest Service interregional
    pinon mortality assessment which includes supplemental aerial surveys
    of pinon-juniper woodlands over about 2 million acres in NM. Ground
    crews will also be collecting field data. Surveyed lands will be across
    all ownerships and will cover about 22 percent of the pinon-juniper
    woodlands which exist in New Mexico. The Forest Service solicited input
    from State and federal agencies to delineate priority areas of private
    and public lands to be surveyed. Traps to monitor the pinon ips spring
    emergence, number of generations produced per year, and onset of
    hibernation have been placed in six locations across New Mexico to aid
    in our understanding of this insect's behavior.
        Question. Also specifically, what steps you are taking on each
    forest to remove this dead timber before it provides the fuel for
    another catastrophic fire?
        Answer. The mortality in northern New Mexico is primarily occurring
    in pinyon pine in the pinyon-juniper woodlands. This mortality is at
    the higher elevations, and is quite scattered. Because most of the
    mortality is pinyon pine, very little salvage is occurring, aside from
    firewood gathering. Most Forests do treat areas where personal use
    firewood gathering occurs, but they are not planning on doing any
    large-scale salvage to combat bark beetle outbreaks. All Forests are
    continuing to encourage salvage removal where trees are accessible.
    Some thinning is occurring around Las Alamos using FEMA fuels reduction
    dollars. The state also has a fuels reduction program on private lands,
    where most of the pinyon pine mortality has occurred. However, pinyon
    pine infected by the ips beetle decomposes rapidly, and after one
    season is no longer useful as fuelwood.
        As long as the dead needles remain on the trees, there is an
    increased risk of fire ignition. However, once the needles fall, the
    fire hazard for defoliated standing dead trees is less than for
    standing green trees. Needle fall can take as little as 6 months in
    pinyon pine or as much as 2 years in ponderosa pine. The only way a
    fire in a pinyon-juniper stand will advance is with a sustained stiff
    wind, because many of the high mortality sites have almost no
    understory vegetation and are quite rocky.
        Forests have begun using the new timber salvage categorical
    exclusion authority so that our removal efforts can be focused in a
    timely manner to remove the material that is still useful. This
    authority allows Ranger Districts to treat larger areas and create
    effective barriers at key points on the Forest.

                                     ______

             Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell

        Question. Last year's fires were not helped by the fact that
    Colorado and much of the West was and still is experiencing the worst
    drought on record. As you know, catastrophic wildfires can have
    catastrophic effects on watersheds where communities located below the
    National Forest boundary get their water. Many communities are
    concerned about the threat of ash and sediment from wildfires clogging
    their ditches, reservoirs, and drinking water intakes in the middle of
    this drought.
        I would be interested to learn a little more about how the Forest
    Service is working with local communities to guard against future water
    contamination due to fires, as well as what they are doing now to
    rehabilitate those affected watersheds. I'm sure that the Forest
    Service really appreciates the effects fire has on existing municipal
    water supplies and is willing to work with the state.
        Answer. Prevention.--The agency's first efforts are directed
    towards reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire occurrence. The
    National Fire Plan and the President's Healthy Forests Initiative
    provide the agency with strategic guidance for implementing this goal.
    In close cooperation with the Department of Interior, states, local
    governments, and communities, the Forest Service is working to reduce
    hazardous fuels accumulation, and to manage wildland/urban interface
    forests to be more resistant to catastrophic wildfires. In spite of a
    very challenging fire suppression season, the Forest Service reduced
    hazardous fuels on 1.3 million acres in fiscal year 2002.
        Stabilization.--Before a catastrophic wildfire has been
    extinguished, the agency quickly mobilizes Burned Area Emergency
    Response (BAER) teams to assess environmental degradation. Water
    quality and flood potential are prime considerations. The team
    establishes objectives for protecting water resources and prescribes
    needed actions. Treatments may continue up to a year after the fire,
    and monitoring of affected watersheds continue for up to three years.
        In 2002, the Forest Service conducted 130 BAER assessments,
    authorizing $70 million of emergency stabilization work. $47.7 million
    was obligated in fiscal year 2002. These projects will treat 136,000
    acres of severely burned land, of which about 90,000 acres were treated
    before the winter snows. Typical emergency actions include stabilizing
    slopes with log structures, straw wattles, and straw mulch, installing
    larger culverts to handle increased water flows, and seeding burned
    areas. Communities are protected from flood by installation of flood
    warning systems and construction of impoundments to reduce peak flows.
        The Hayman Fire stabilization work illustrates the types of
    accomplishments achieved through BAER team efforts. Hayman Fire BAER
    treatments cost $24 million of the $70 million authorized in fiscal
    year 2002, resulting in the following accomplishments:

                              ASSESSMENT OF THREAT

        Sedimentation of a major water supply reservoir: Post fire erosion
    into Cheesman Reservoir may exceed 1 million tons in the first year if
    storms of 1 inch per day occur.

                 ESTABLISHMENT OF EMERGENCY TREATMENT OBJECTIVE

        Reduce impacts to the Denver water supply reservoirs and the water
    quality-listed streams.
        Reduce erosion by establishing ground cover and increasing
    infiltration by scarifying the soil surface.
        Hayman BAER treatments in this emergency phase have been aimed at
    re-establishing the vegetative cover lost in the fire. Ground cover
    holds the soil in place, allows absorption of water into the ground,
    minimizes runoff, reproduces wildlife habitat and generally rejuvenates
    the area. Often, soils in fire areas where high intensity burn occurs
    become water repellent, and the hardened surface must be broken up by
    scarification, or raking, as part of the treatment.

                               AERIAL OPERATIONS

        Application of hydro-mulch (recycled wood fiber, grass seed, water
    and a binding agent) has been applied via helicopter on 1,569 acres of
    heavily burned slope. This work was completed in September 2002.
        Aerial seeding is complete on over 19,835 acres. The seed mix is an
    annual cereal rye mixture, which will germinate readily and persist for
    two to three years to provide ground cover until the native grasses and
    forbs come back.
        Approximately 6,000 acres have been treated as part of an aerial
    dry mulching project (applying straw to burned slopes via helicopter)
    during September 2002. Straw is applied over previously seeded areas.
    The straw helps to minimize erosion during rains, and provides
    necessary moisture and shade for quicker seed germination.

                               GROUND OPERATIONS

        Seeding and scarification (raking the soil) has been completed on
    13,800 acres.
        Hydro-mulch is being applied by truck to 1,500 acres along Forest
    Roads and highways, 300 feet on either side of 25 miles of designated
    roads. Work was completed in October 2002.
        Many private landowners in the burn area have been contacted to
    assess risks from adjacent National Forest lands. BAER is working with
    Natural Resource Conservation Service to formulate and implement
    rehabilitation plans with landowners.
        Culverts and stream crossings within the burn area are being
    cleaned and reinforced to prevent washout along roads. Grading and
    reconditioning of the roads within the fire area is ongoing.
        The Lake George Community Park has been demobilized, and the
    grounds within and around the camp are being rehabilitated. The roads
    at the Lake George Community Park have been graded and reconditioned.
    The area used for the fire camp is being seeded and straw mulch is
    being applied. The park has been reopened for public use.
        Treatment of noxious weeds is complete on 340 acres within and
    adjacent to the fire area.
        An archaeological assessment and clearance of all areas where BAER
    treatment will create ground disturbance has been achieved. Two sites
    within the fire area were identified as needing protection using straw-
    bale check-dams, which have been completed.
        Remote Area Weather Stations (RAWS) have been installed in and
    around the fire area. This will facilitate early detection of rainfall
    for public evacuation and emergency warnings when needed.
        Additional details on accomplishments at the Hayman fire are
    available at www.fs.fed.us/r2/psicc/hayres/baer/index.htm.
        Rehabilitation.--Efforts to repair damage caused by the fire begins
    as soon as the fire is out, and focus on lands unlikely to quickly
    recover from fire damage through natural processes. In fiscal year
    2002, the Forest Service implemented 518 projects costing $35.8
    million. These projects treated 435,000 acres of severely burned land
    through invasive plant control, seeding, planting, and watershed
    improvements on federal lands. Additional work was accomplished on
    trail reconstruction, roadwork, riparian enhancement, fencing and
    boundary line location.
        Communities are included in rehabilitation efforts. In June 2002,
    the Hayman Recovery Assistance Center (HayRAC) was established in
    Castle Rock, to aid victims of the Hayman Fire. This recovery
    assistance center provided representatives from state, federal and non-
    profit agencies who provided information on financial, logistical,
    human services, and fire rehabilitation techniques to citizens and
    businesses directly impacted by the Hayman Fire. The center served as a
    central source of information during and after the fire, providing a
    mechanism to coordinate interagency restoration and recovery efforts
    with the community, collaborating on short and long-term restoration
    needs, and coordination and facilitating volunteer programs to support
    community and forest restoration efforts. In 2002, HayRAC coordinated
    55 volunteer projects, with more than 3,000 volunteers, for about
    22,000 volunteer hours, and responded to about 1,600 phone calls for
    fire recovery assistance.
        Question. Recognizing the drought conditions that the West, in
    particular, is facing, I think that it is more important than ever for
    the Forest Service to commit to work with the states in good faith on
    water issues. Unfortunately, some in the Forest Service have tried to
    impose bypass flows in our national forests, and circumvent working
    through state instream flow programs. You are aware that bypass flows
    are estimated to cause a reduction in the dry-year water supplies
    available from water facilities on National Forest lands by 50 to 80
    percent?
        Answer. There are numerous permitted water storage and transmission
    facilities on National Forest lands in the west. Some of these
    authorizations have clauses that allow for temporary changes to
    authorization conditions during times of drought or emergency. Prior to
    last year these drought clauses had generally not been invoked, and
    many were undefined. In 2002, we worked actively with Denver Water, and
    others to modify authorization terms and conditions to allow for needed
    flexibility in operation during the drought. We will continue to work
    with facility managers and water providers in 2003 to meet changing
    storage and operation needs that have resulted from the drought.
        Question. Isn't the Forest Service's official policy to work with
    the states, pursuant to state law in administering water? Can I tell
    city officials in Colorado, as well as farmers and ranchers, that you,
    and the Forest Service in general, are committed to working through the
    state instream flow program and eliminating the perception of threats
    to existing water supplies by imposing bypass flows?
        Answer. The Forest Service has, and will continue, to work with
    states, tribal governments, water users, and any interested parties in
    resolving water issues on National Forest System lands in accordance
    with both federal and state laws. The State of Colorado's instream flow
    program falls short of meeting the needs of the United States in the
    matter of in-stream flow protection for federal purposes, such as, but
    not limited to, wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, and habitat
    for aquatic species listed under the Endangered Species Act. In other
    western states, the Forest Service does participate in state in-stream
    flow programs where its water needs can be met with reasonable legal
    certainty. The Forest Service has been very judicious about requiring
    instream flow conditions in its land use occupancy permits and
    easements, and will continue to unilaterally require bypass flows as a
    last resort when other options to sustain aquatic resource values have
    failed.
        Question. Colorado experienced its worst fire season on record last
    summer. My compliments go to the brave men and women who risked their
    lives to fight these fires. We also learned some lessons last summer
    and maybe you can tell me what adjustments we are making in
    anticipation of this year's fire season.
        Particularly, how do we use our local resources in suppression
    operations?
        Answer. We use predictive services and monitor local conditions to
    adjust resource locations so that new starts can be suppressed quickly.
    If we can respond to these new starts and suppress them within 24
    hours, we can minimize their cost. Wildland fires that resist
    suppression efforts typically transition from a small, inexpensive
    event to something larger and more expensive within the first 24-48
    hours of the event start. We emphasize and concentrate on aggressive
    initial attack to minimize large fire occurrence. It's not a question
    of what we can do better during the first 72 hours of an event. Our
    firefighters are very successful in initial attack. During the fiscal
    year 2002 fire season, they caught more than 99 percent of all
    unplanned and unwanted wildland fires during initial attack. What we
    need to do is continue to support the initial attack force by
    maintaining training curriculums, providing quality equipment, develop
    the lessons learned program, and maintaining coordination and
    intelligence systems.
        Question. How do we follow up with our communities to make sure we
    are reducing the risk?
        Answer. Local project managers carry out project monitoring.
    Project plans for treatments on National Forest lands adjacent to
    communities typically include specific objectives for addressing risk
    to the community. Appropriate project follow up includes assessment of
    how well project objectives have been met. Such project monitoring is
    the responsibility of the District Ranger. Federal financial and
    technical assistance, provided in conjunction with the efforts of State
    Foresters and other state, local, or tribal governments, will be
    increasingly focused upon the optimal reduction of the risk posed by
    catastrophic wildfires, particularly in the wildland-urban interface.
    In these efforts, communities, non-government organizations, and
    private landowners also have a key responsibility. In most cases such
    projects are developed using project planning standards similar to
    those used by the Federal agencies. Project plans establish risk
    reduction objectives. Federal agency grant administration includes spot
    reviews of projects to establish effectiveness of projects delivered by
    State Foresters or other grant recipients. Success may be judged by a
    measured change in the vegetation condition class or by simply a
    reduction from a high risk ranking to a moderate or low risk based on
    the rating system applied for the area.
        Question. One other thing, with the drought and the forest
    conditions what can we do better during the first 72 hours of a fire?
        Answer. After the 2002 fire season, the Forest Service reviewed
    lessons learned, after action assessments, and formal program reviews
    to develop new direction, clarify existing direction, and communicate
    expectations of line officers and Incident Commanders. These
    considerations manifested themselves in a Fire and Aviation Operations
    Action Plan for the 2003 fire season. This plan emphasizes four areas
    (Preparedness, cost containment, hazardous fuel treatment, and safety)
    of the Fire and Aviation Management program where I expect improved
    performance from the line officers, Incident Commanders, and other
    personnel involved in the conduct of operations in these areas. The
    plan seeks to improve fiscal integrity and reflects important
    performance measures.
        Specific to your question, initial attack and extended attack are
    the number one mobilization priority. We will continue to use
    predictive services, anticipate threats, and pre-position protection
    resources to those local areas that may need additional resources. Our
    first priority will be to maintain sufficient local initial attack
    resources to maximize our ability to staff new fire starts. Our second
    priority will be large fire support. These actions will continue to
    allow us to minimize the number of fires that grow large and require a
    larger response.
        Question. I wanted to mention to you the National Forest County
    Partnership Restoration program. This pilot program is an example of
    how restoration programs can be led by communities as Congress had
    requested.
        As I understand it from the restoration program that serves the
    area I live in down in southwestern Colorado, funding for the three
    partnerships that were created has not reached those who need it.
        Could you give me your views on this program and what is being done
    to fund it?
        Answer. The Forest Service supports the collaborative approach in
    the development of restoration programs. Funding for restoration
    programs should be developed through the normal budget process.
        This program involves a total of three forests, two forests in R-3,
    the Apache-Sitgreaves NF in AZ and the Lincoln NF in NM, and one forest
    in R-2, the Grand Mesa Uncompahgre and Gunnison (GMUG) NF in CO. The
    program is a multi-year collaborative partnership between the Forest
    Service and County governments for large-scale landscape restoration
    utilizing an adaptive management process. It will test streamlined
    processes in administration, contracting, planning and inter-agency
    cooperation with an idea toward national application of the model
        In fiscal year 2002 each forest was allocated between $305,000 and
    $330,000 in start up funding. Given the severity of the 2002 fire
    season, not all of the funds were obligated, consistent with the
    Chief's direction on deferring funds as a result of fire suppression
    needs. The GMUG Forest received some of this funding in fiscal year
    2003 as carryover, and the R-3 Forests received a 2nd year allocation
    in fiscal year 2003 dollars. Fiscal year 2004 allocations for the CPR
    program have not been finalized.
        The three Forests and three Lead Counties have completed a Master
    MOU for the CPR Program. The following table displays Hazardous Fuels,
    Forest Health, and Vegetation/Watershed funds committed to the County
    Partner Restoration projects for the three forests in fiscal year 2003:

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Apache-
                                                                   Lincoln NF   Seagraves    GMUG NF's     Total by
                                                                                    NF                       BLI
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Hazardous Fuels.............................................      ( \1\ )      ( \1\ )      $90,000      $90,000
    Forest Health...............................................      ( \1\ )      ( \1\ )       33,000       33,000
    Veg/Watershed...............................................     $330,000     $305,000      ( \1\ )      635,000
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------
          Total by Forest.......................................      330,000      305,000      123,000      758,000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ None.

                                     ______

                 Question Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan

                                  FIREFIGHTERS

        Question. According to the National Interagency Fire Center, much
    of the West is expected to experience an above normal fire season. If
    that turns out to be true, I'm concerned that the Forest Service would
    be unable to handle 7 million acres of fire with the resources being
    requested in this budget. Your Preparedness request of $610 million
    would provide for 4,900 firefighters, which is 53 percent fewer than
    the 10,480 you employed in fiscal year 2002; 465 fire engines, which is
    53 percent fewer than the 995 you had in fiscal year 2002; and 48
    helicopters, which is 49 percent fewer than the 94 that were available
    in fiscal year 2002. It seems to me that the administration is
    proposing to cut its firefighting capability in half, while at the same
    time the fire experts are predicting an above normal fire season. How
    does the administration square that incongruity? And what was the
    dollar amount requested for Preparedness; both the request to the
    Agriculture Department, and the department's request to the Office of
    Management and Budget?
        Answer. Preparedness funding was at an all-time high in 2001, the
    first year of the National Fire Plan. This included significant funds
    for one-time purchases of heavy equipment including engines and dozers
    to reach a maximal readiness level. While some of that equipment will
    have to be replaced someday, annual investments needs not be maintained
    at the 2001 level.
        In 2002, fire readiness proved to be as good as or better than
    ever. Ninety-nine percent of wildfires on Forest Service-managed lands
    were controlled on initial attack. Preparedness funding in the fiscal
    year 2004 is $9 million higher than fiscal year 2003 request.
    Preparedness funding will be targeted in 2003 and 2004 to maintain the
    agency preparedness at the highest level possible, with resources being
    positioned in the area of extreme fire danger. In addition, resources
    will be moved throughout the fire season to areas in need. If 2004 is
    another severe fire season, the fire program has the flexibility to
    augment Preparedness funding with ``severity'' funds from the
    suppression account to fund the placement of additional resources in
    the areas most at risk from catastrophic wildfires in order to maintain
    sufficient readiness and initial attack capability.
        Unfortunately, no amount of preparedness can prevent all fires from
    escaping to levels requiring extended fire suppression. When fires
    become large, the costs to contain them become large as well. The rise
    in the 10-year average recognizes the long-term trend in fire frequency
    and severity. Even so, even that increase falls below the costs of the
    past three years. We consider it prudent to maintain a funding level
    based on the 10-year average. Anything less would seem shortsighted
    given what we know today.
        I have directed the Regional Foresters to use funds for the purpose
    of attaining preparedness levels that are similar to fiscal year 2002.
    The following table displays a comparison of what we plan to provide in
    fiscal year 2003 versus 2003.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Fiscal year
              Resource type           --------------------------     2003
                                       2002 actual   2003 base     planned
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Firefighters.....................       10,480        6,008       10,480
    Prevention Techs.................          403          296          332
    Engines..........................          995          700        1,072
    Forest Helicopters...............           75           57           87
    National Helicopters.............            7            8            8
    Smokejumpers.....................          277          277          277
    Type I Crews.....................           65           65           65
    Airtankers.......................           41           33           33
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        We have some concern about the loss of 11 large airtankers but feel
    we have several alternatives available to us that will mitigate the
    effect of losing this capability. In our 2003 Fire Operations planning
    we are instructing Incident Commanders to shift the emphasis of the
    airtanker fleet to initial attack rather than large fire support. We
    will shift suppression tactics from those that require close air
    support to those that do not require such close support (direct
    fireline construction versus more indirect). This may cause a marginal
    increase in total burned acres but not enough to be significant. We
    will add contract helicopters with aerial suppressant capability to
    help offset the loss of the airtankers. Finally, we will add as many as
    11 Single Engine Airtankers (SEATS) to help with local initial attack.
    In a normal year, these alternatives will allow us to effectively
    suppress wildland fire without compromising safety, burned acres, and
    program costs.

                                  FIRE FUNDING

        Question. In the past, there has been a fairly large gap between
    what the administration requests each year for firefighting activities
    and what the Congress eventually ends up having to appropriate. In the
    mean time, the Forest Service is frequently forced to borrow money
    until Congress and the President can agree to reimburse the agency for
    its actual costs. That is not the best way to operate. In fact, the
    Chief has been as suggesting the current system is ``absolutely
    crazy,'' and that what's needed is a long-term solution. I know the
    administration's request includes an additional $187 million for fire
    suppression, but even with that money, you could easily be $600 million
    short of what's actually needed. Nevertheless, as I read your prepared
    statement, and as I look at the administration's budget, I don't see a
    long-term fix proposed anywhere. Has the Forest Service actually
    proposed a solution to the Agriculture Department, or to the Office of
    Management and Budget? And if you have, would you please tell us what
    you proposed, and why that proposal hasn't been sent to the Congress
    for consideration?
        Answer. While the fiscal year 2004 proposed budget line item
    structure for suppression is the same as previous years, the methods
    used to calculate the suppression proposal is different from previous
    years. The fiscal year 2004 Budget proposes the 10-year average of
    total suppression costs adjusted for inflation, $604 million. As noted,
    this is $187 million more than the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and
    is also $129 million greater than what would have been required if the
    same method was used as in fiscal year 2003. The method used for fiscal
    year 2004 provides a more realistic amount that decreases the
    likelihood of having to transfer funds and should it be necessary to
    transfer funds, the amount would be substantially less.
        The Chief of the Forest Service has finalized direction for the
    fiscal year 2003 fire season. The USDA Forest Service Fire & Aviation
    Operations Action Plan (04/01/03) responds to lessons learned following
    the 2002 fire season, and focuses attention on four critical areas:
    preparedness, cost containment, hazardous fuels treatments, and
    safety--for both ground and aviation operations. A copy of the Action
    Plan is attached.
        The best long-term solution to reverse the increase in suppression
    costs and eliminate annual transfers is to return the forests to their
    natural fire regimes. The fiscal year 2004 Budget proposes the Healthy
    Forest Initiative for this very reason. It is a tool to implement
    effectively and efficiently core components of the National Fire Plan's
    10-Year Comprehensive Strategy and Implementation Plan. A century of
    well-intentioned but misguided management has interrupted the natural
    fire cycle and allowed forests to grow unnaturally dense. In addition,
    excessive analysis, ineffective public involvement and management
    inefficiencies have further delayed treatments to return our forest to
    their natural fire regime. The Healthy Forest Initiative includes
    legislative and administrative actions that provide the necessary tools
    to efficiently implement actions to return our forests back to their
    historic densities and natural fire cycles. Together with updated fire
    management plans and greater application of wildland fire use,
    implementation of the Healthy Forest Initiative is the solution to
    increase the health of our forest and the pro-active solution to
    decrease the likelihood of extraordinarily expensive fire seasons and
    funding transfers.
        In the interim, we must respectfully defer any discussion of pre-
    decisional issues.

                                  MAINTENANCE

        Question. The administration's request for the Capital Improvement
    and Maintenance account includes an increase of $14 million for Roads
    and $9 million for Trails, but completely eliminates the $46 million
    provided for Deferred Maintenance. Overall, the request cuts
    maintenance activities by 4.4 percent. I'm puzzled by these cuts
    because your budget documents clearly state that the deferred
    maintenance backlog is over $7.8 billion. Now, I understand the Forest
    Service has management problems with its maintenance program, but I
    don't understand, when you have such an obvious need, why you've chosen
    to cut back on deferred maintenance?
        Answer. Deferred maintenance is an important concern to the agency
    and we will continue to focus on addressing the deferred maintenance
    backlog through use of our existing appropriations. The authority to
    expend funds on deferred maintenance already exists within Capital
    Improvement and Maintenance budget line items, Facilities, Roads, and
    Trails, the Roads and Trails for States--10 Percent fund (Expenditure
    from Receipts Act of 1913), Operation and Maintenance of Quarters
    funds, and the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program funds.
        The Department has a number of facilities and appurtenant
    administrative land excess to agency needs. The fiscal year 2004 Budget
    contains a proposal for the establishment of a Facilities Acquisition
    and Enhancement Fund that would enable the Secretary to sell such units
    excess to need and to utilize proceeds from those sales for the
    acquisition or development of land and improvements for administrative
    purposes. Funds collected under this authority would address backlogs
    and administrative consolidations while improving efficiencies through
    the reconstruction of functionally obsolete facilities or construction
    of new facilities. To this end, the Department will submit proposed
    legislation concerning this Fund in the upcoming weeks.

                          LEAFY SPURGE--NOXIOUS WEEDS

        Question. I'm very concerned with the noxious weed problem in North
    Dakota. My constituents who live near the Sheyenne National Grasslands
    in the southeastern part of my state and those who live near the
    Missouri National Grasslands in the western part have complained
    bitterly to me that the Forest Service has not been a good steward of
    the land. In particular, I'm talking about the spread of Leafy Spurge,
    which, by your own agency's account, has infested somewhere between
    30,000 and 35,000 acres of the Missouri Grasslands. That's more than a
    quarter of that land. For the past two years, I've had funds earmarked
    for leafy spurge management on the Dakota Prairie Grasslands; $200,000
    in fiscal year 2002 and $300,000 in fiscal year 2003. Unfortunately,
    because I've received conflicting reports, I don't have a great deal of
    confidence that the $200,000 provided in fiscal year 2002 was used as
    Congress intended; that is, as an addition to what was otherwise
    provided, not $200,000 total. I want to make sure that that does not
    happen again, Chief, and so my question to you is what assurances can
    you give me and the people of North Dakota that the fiscal year 2003
    funding will be used for additional weed control programs?
        Answer. Interagency and interdepartmental efforts have attempted to
    address the leafy spurge, one of the most insidious invasive noxious
    weed species, using a host of integrated management approaches that
    rely on strong partnerships between local, state, tribal, and national
    groups. The Dakota Prairie Grasslands (DPG) is an important leader in
    addressing the leafy spurge infestations in North Dakota, particularly
    with respect to infestations on the National Grasslands. The DPG has
    undertaken a comprehensive and collaborative program to fight leafy
    spurge infestations. This program relies on partnerships with local
    landowners, state and county governments, grazing associations, and
    other federal agencies. These partnerships are proving to be the most
    effective in fighting leafy spurge on public and private lands. The DPG
    has met often with local congressional staffs and county weed boards,
    other federal and state agencies and grazing association officers to
    plan a landscape-scale approach to the problem, and has developed
    cooperative agreements with the North Dakota Agriculture Department and
    several grazing associations for on-the-ground leafy spurge management
    operations.
        The Forest Service appropriations in fiscal year 2003 contained an
    unrequested $300,000 Congressional earmark for leafy spurge control.
    Our efforts will focus upon slowing infestations across the Dakota
    Prairie Grasslands and adjacent state and private property. A component
    of the approach provides about $100,000 directly to the North Dakota
    Agriculture Department to assist the County Weed Boards, in counties
    where National Grasslands are located, for leafy spurge control
    operations on those National Grasslands and other nearby critical
    locations that threaten to spread to Forest Service lands. This program
    is augmented by roughly a 20 percent voluntary contribution from the
    non-federal partners to the projects. This non-federal contribution
    allows for the implementation of the Wyden Amendment for cooperative
    treatment of noxious weeds on both public and adjacent private property
    in Weed Management Areas. The cost share amount is based on the
    percentage of land ownership within these Weed Management Areas
    (private vs. federal or 20 percent and 80 percent).
        The DPG is also leading cooperative treatment efforts with the
    grazing associations, including McKenzie County Grazing Association,
    Little Missouri Grazing Association, Horse Creek Grazing Association,
    and Sheyenne Valley Grazing Association, in leafy spurge management
    activities on National Grasslands. This effort will have the added
    benefit of 20 percent supplemental funding from the non-federal
    partners. The Dakota Prairie Grasslands will utilize about $180,000 of
    the fiscal year 2003 appropriations to support these partnerships.
        With the balance ($20,000) of the fiscal year 2003 leafy spurge
    earmark, the DPG will hire a four-person seasonal management crew for
    treatment of leafy spurge in critical locations on the Dakota Prairie
    Grasslands with emphasis on biological control (Flea beetles). None of
    the earmark will fund permanent employees, overhead expenses, or other
    Forest Service operational costs. Many of the seasonal workers are from
    local colleges and high schools and work for the Forest Service during
    the summer.
        All participating partners will record treatment and inventory
    activities utilizing global positioning system (GPS) equipment. Field
    data reporting, at minimum, will follow protocol required by North
    Dakota Department of Agriculture. The consolidation of field data will
    be coordinated between the USDA FS and ND Department of Agriculture for
    official records, mapping, and future planning and management.

                           GRASSLANDS MANAGEMENT PLAN

        Question. What is the status of the Scientific Review Team that is
    reviewing and analyzing the 64 Allotment management Plans per the
    Record of Decision on the Grasslands Management Plan?
        Answer. Regional Forester Brad Powell selected the Scientific
    Review Team (SRT) after consultation with North Dakota Governor John
    Hoeven. The SRT is comprised of Dr. Rod Heitschmidt, UDSA--Agricultural
    Research Service; Dr. Kevin Sedivec, NDSU Animal and Range Science
    Department; Jeff Printz, USDA--Natural Resources Conservation Service;
    Dr. Douglas Johnson, USGS--Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center;
    Karen Smith, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services; Kent Luttswagger, North
    Dakota Game and Fish Department; Dr. Harvey Peterson, Golden Valley
    County Extension Agent; and Dr. Don Kirby, NDSU Animal and Range
    Science Department.
        The first meeting of the SRT, held on February 10, 2003, was
    designed to provide team members with information that they would need
    to perform their role as defined in the Record of Decision for the
    Dakota Prairie Grasslands (DPG) Plan. Their delineated role is ``. . .
    to determine if the grazing portion of the plan can be implemented and
    to verify that grazing levels are similar to those projected in the
    Revised Grasslands Plan FEIS . . .'' (Record of Decision DPG Plan page
    5). The information presented to the SRT included Record of Decision,
    Dakota Prairie Grasslands Plan, Northern Great Plains Final
    Environmental Impact Statement, SRT Handbook and SRT Draft Charter.
        The second SRT meeting was on April 15, 2003. At this meeting, the
    Dakota Prairie Grasslands staff presented information to the SRT for
    the Little Missouri National Grasslands Assessment and the first set of
    eight allotment management plans (AMPs). The information provided
    included background information for these allotments. Public notice for
    these meetings resulted in well attended sessions by those interested
    in the process. The next meeting, scheduled for June 16-18, will
    include a field trip to those allotments where plan development is
    occurring.

                     LEWIS & CLARK BICENTENNIAL ACTIVITIES

        Question. I'm a big supporter of the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial
    and I'm looking forward to helping the various bicentennial
    celebrations. I know the Forest Service is an important federal partner
    in this endeavor, and I'm interested in knowing how your budget
    supports the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial. I know, for example, that
    there were plans to build an overlook and trail at Tobacco Gardens, in
    North Dakota, where Cruzat shot Merewether Lewis on August 11, 1806. It
    is my understanding that construction was scheduled to begin in 2003.
    Is that project still on schedule? And could you also tell us what the
    Forest Service is doing nationally to commemorate the bicentennial?
        Answer. Forest Service field units, especially those in close
    proximity to the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail (LCNHT),
    continue to dedicate funding to accomplish the critical work to meet
    the agency's commitment to the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial
    Commemoration. Where possible, the Forest Service provides funding,
    technical assistance, or other in-kind assistance to mutually agreed to
    interagency projects. Four Regions have specific funding allocated for
    National Scenic and Historic Trails, with portions of the LCNHT, have
    an estimated $66,000 available for trail management. Since 1999, the
    Forest Service has granted over a $1.5 million to 27 state and
    community Lewis and Clark Bicentennial projects. Over the past few
    couple year, under the agency's constrained budget, about $3 million
    has been allocated annually to Bicentennial activities, including the
    grants to state and community projects. The Dakota Prairies National
    Grassland has also worked in partnership with the Three Affiliated
    Tribes to provide interpretive programs to school children and as well
    as contributed funding to the North Dakota State Historic Museum for
    the development of a L&C Trail Travel Kit for North Dakota.
        The overlook and interpretive signs for Tobacco Gardens are
    currently under construction. Construction for the connecting trail
    will be accomplished in 2004.
        Nationally, the Forest Service has been working in partnership with
    the National Bicentennial Council, the Trail Heritage Foundation,
    federal interagency Memorandum of Understanding working group, and
    Tribes to ensure protection and interpretation of the historic trail,
    and to provide a coordinated effort for the Bicentennial.
        The Forest Service created a national exhibit that was displayed at
    the first signature event, at Monticello in January 2003. The Forest
    Service is currently planning participation in the Signature Events at
    the Falls of the Ohio, Louisville, KY and Clarksville, IN and in the
    Big Sky Festival in Great Falls Montana. Plans to participate in other
    Signature Events, such as in North Dakota, are evolving. The Forest
    Service is committed to our partnership with the National Park Service
    for Corps II, a traveling educational exhibit, and has designated an
    agency employee to be the liaison to the Corp II effort. Several Forest
    Service employees participated in giving presentations in the Tent of
    Many Voices at Monticello and on the National Mall.
        Question. The bicentennial will also offer the Forest Service the
    opportunity to highlight recreational opportunities that are a bit off
    the Lewis and Clark Trail. The Forest Service has developed the Maah
    Daah Hey Trail, which allows for hiking and biking through the Dakota
    Badlands. With increased tourism expected during the upcoming Lewis and
    Clark Bicentennial, what is the Forest Service doing to promote the
    Maah Daah Hey Trail and other recreational activities it offers in
    North Dakota?
        Answer. The Maah Daah Hey Trail has recently been designated a
    National Recreation Trail and will be formally dedicated on National
    Trails Day, June 7, 2003. The Maah Daah Hey Trail has also been an
    International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA) Epic Ride and
    remains listed on the IMBA website (http://www.imba.com). The Dakota
    Prairie Grasslands has developed brochures and maps about the Maah Daah
    Hey Trail as part of its public outreach effort. The Dakota Prairie
    National Grassland also has plans to develop and protect additional
    interpretive sites that commemorate other historical events that took
    place in North Dakota, in particular Custer's Initial Rock and other
    military history of that era.
        There are several other venues for the public to receive
    information on recreation opportunities on the Dakota Prairie
    Grasslands. Medora is the focus of a major advertising campaign by
    North Dakota Tourism, which is being marketed nationally and
    internationally in major magazines and other tourism literature. The
    campaign includes information about the 96-mile long Maah Daah Hey
    Trail. Locally, informational kiosks display information on
    recreational opportunities and special events are publicized in the
    newspaper. Dakota Prairie Grasslands staff also provide information to
    the public both in person and over the phone. North Dakota recreational
    activities in the national grasslands are also available via the
    internet, and is maintained at the Forest Service website (http://
    www.fs.fed.us/r1/dakotaprairie/) and through the interagency recreation
    website (http://www.recreation.gov).

                                  GRASS BANKS

        Question. Federal rangeland management is often made difficult
    during times of drought or other hardship. Already stressed ranchers
    experience shrinking resources. The Forest Service has the ability to
    work with local ranchers to establish alternative grazing ``grass
    banks'' and swing pastures to help during these hard times. What has
    the Forest Service done to promote the development of such tools?
        Answer. The Forest Service actively seeks alternatives to provide
    for rest and rehabilitation of specifically identified rangelands. The
    term ``grassbanks'' is a registered trademark of the Malpais
    Borderlands Group, therefore the Agency prefers to use the term
    ``forage reserves'' when referring to this concept in a generic sense.
    One way the Forest Service is looking at establishing forage reserves
    is through acquisition of private land within the grasslands where the
    landowners want to sell to the federal government. If the Forest
    Service acquires these lands, both the acquired private land and the
    associated federal allotments could be included in a forage reserves
    allotment.
        The Dakota Prairie Grasslands (DPG) is also a cooperating agency
    with the National Park Service on their environmental analysis to
    acquire the Ebert land located in the vicinity of the Elkhorn Ranch
    within the Little Missouri National Grassland. Much of the work with
    the Park Service has entailed looking at how this project can achieve
    the best land ownership pattern for the National Park Service, the
    Dakota Prairie Grasslands, and the involved private landowners. If the
    Park Service acquires the Ebert Ranch, the DPG would be interested in
    establishing a forage reserve on the associated allotment in
    cooperation with the Medora Grazing Association.
        Under the current grazing agreements, the grazing associations have
    the authority to work with the district rangers to establish pastures
    which can serve as forage reserves or swing pastures, although at this
    point no action has taken place. Members of the grazing associations
    have often applied for and received approval for voluntary nonuse.
    However, rather than promoting the establishment of forage reserves or
    swing pastures in these areas, the associations have allowed others to
    use these nonuse pastures with their livestock on an annual basis.
        Dakota Prairie Grasslands (DPG) Supervisor is currently working
    with the Partners for Grasslands Stewardship to develop forage reserve
    allotments or pastures within existing allotments. The DPG program has
    explored opportunities such as land exchanges, land purchase (willing
    seller) and grazing system changes, to provide some of the flexibility
    needed by the ranching industry and to improve resource conditions. The
    Partners for Grasslands Stewardship includes several ranchers and local
    community leaders. One of their efforts has been to develop a better
    understanding and acceptance of forage reserves concepts and
    opportunities.

                      SHEYENNE VALLEY GRAZING ASSOCIATION

        Question. The Sheyenne Valley Grazing Association's 10-year Grazing
    Agreement expires on March 23. Unless a new agreement is signed, or an
    extension granted, grazing will stop on these lands. The Forest Service
    is negotiating a new 10-year agreement with the Association, but the
    Association has raised several concerns. I've sent a letter to Mark
    Rey, the Natural Resources Under Secretary, spelling out these
    concerns, and asking for his cooperation in ensuring that the Forest
    Service continues to negotiate in good faith. In the meantime, I am
    concerned that, after March 23, grazing could come to a halt without a
    new agreement. That would be disastrous. Chief, I understand that you
    have the authority to extend the agreement for 2 or 3 months at a time
    as long as negotiations are continuing. I believe that would be in the
    best interests of all concerned. Can I have your assurance that that
    will happen?
        Answer. Grasslands Supervisor Dave Pieper sent a letter to Senator
    Dorgan's office on March 10, 2003 detailing the actions that have taken
    place and discussions with your Legislative Assistant LaDeene Freimuth.
    The Dakota Prairie Grassland is continuing to work with the Sheyenne
    Valley Grazing Association (SVGA) to renew this Grazing Agreement. In
    the letter, Supervisor Pieper said he was ``hopeful that a new grazing
    agreement will be developed and signed by the expiration date.'' He
    also included the following paragraph of assurance:

        ``In the event a new agreement is not signed by the expiration
    date, I will roll over the existing agreement for periods of three or
    more months until a new agreement is signed. This will allow permitted
    livestock grazing to continue unimpeded. I want to assure you that
    development of the new SVGA grazing agreement will be a cooperative
    effort between the Association and the Dakota Prairie Grasslands.''

        Supervisor Piper has tracked this process and has recently issued a
    letter officially extending the existing Grazing Agreement until July
    1, 2003, while development of a new formal grazing agreement is
    continued.

                                     ______

               Questions Submitted by Senator Ernest F. Hollings

        Question. The Forest Service is requiring states to identify
    potential tracts of land for acquisition up to two years in advance. It
    has also indicated a preference for identifying individual tracts
    instead of focusing on a strategy that emphasizes corridor area
    protection, a strategy that has proved very effective in South
    Carolina. The ACE Basin river corridor in South Carolina is a great
    example of success regarding this type of approach to land acquisition.
    Why has the Forest Service pushed for such early identification of
    potential land acquisitions? Why has the Forest Service chosen to push
    the identification of individual tracts of land as opposed to
    concentrating on corridor areas, specifically river corridor areas?
        Answer. The federal acquisition process, as defined by laws, rules,
    regulations, and policy, and being subject to the annual appropriations
    process, makes purchasing a tract of land by the Forest Service much
    more complex and time consuming than occurs between two private
    individuals. In addition, much lead-time is required in order to get a
    project in the President's annual budget request to Congress.
        Some of these requirements involve the Uniform Relocation
    Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public
    Law 91-646) and the appraisal process, which can take from 6 to 8
    months to contract for, produce an approvable report, and then complete
    agency review. Title issues, clearing of liens, surveys, hazmat
    investigation requirements, laws dealing with relocation assistance,
    negotiations, the phasing of projects, Congressional oversight, and
    specific requirements found in various appropriate authorizing
    legislation can all add to the time factor in processing a case.
        The annual appropriations process begins with the individual
    forests submitting their priority projects to the regions and then to
    the Washington Office during the summer before the President's next
    year's budget is submitted to Congress. Forests cannot know what lands
    are available for purchase until much of the preliminary work mentioned
    above is completed.
        The Forest Service is aware of and frequently uses the approach of
    ``focusing on a strategy that emphasizes corridor area protection'',
    which the Senator suggests in his letter. That approach has been used
    successfully over the past 11 years on the Chattooga Wild and Scenic
    River Corridor, which involves Georgia, North Carolina, and South
    Carolina. Emphasis has been placed on acquiring high priority tracts
    located within those river corridor boundaries. We are currently
    working with The Conservation Fund for the definition of a corridor for
    the new Broad River acquisition program in South Carolina in order that
    our acquisition program there will be the most effective. We have
    frequently used defined corridor planning to focus our acquisition
    efforts in various wilderness areas, other congressionally authorized
    areas such as National Recreation Areas including the Sawtooth; the
    Columbia River Gorge; the Florida National Scenic Trail; and since 1978
    on the Appalachian National Scenic Trail.
        Question. Can you outline for me the guidelines the Forest Service
    follows in identifying and ranking projects selected in the Forest
    Legacy program? Why do different regions follow different guidelines?
    Why does the Forest Service insert itself so heavily into the selection
    process? Why have lead agencies in our states not been intensively
    involved in drafting new guidelines or been involved more heavily in
    the selection process?
        Answer. The Forest Legacy Program operates under program
    implementation guidelines adopted in 1996. These guidelines are
    currently under review and are in the process of revision. The final
    revision will be released this year and is being amended to respond to
    program growth since 1996, findings expressed in the House of
    Representatives Committee on Appropriations investigation report
    released in June 2002 and to meet fiscal year 2003 congressional
    direction on specific items to be included in the revision.
        In keeping with the direction described in the above answer, the
    Forest Service engages in a project selection process that is
    articulated as direction to Forest Service Regional Foresters, Area and
    International Institute for Tropical Forestry Directors and State and
    Private Forestry Directors and Program Managers that includes a
    calendar of milestones and due dates. This is a five-step process that
    begins with submissions of project priorities from each participating
    State; receives Forest Service Regional input; undergoes a national
    review team process in which projects are scored using national
    criteria and selected for recommendation in a prioritized list; and are
    then submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for inclusion in
    the President's Budget.
        The Forest Service conducts this project selection process to
    comply with Congressional and Administration direction and to perform
    its oversight responsibilities to deliver this national program. Forest
    Service regions are allowed flexibility to develop mechanisms to assess
    and to recommend projects for selection. They must utilize the national
    criteria and provide information and input on individual projects to
    inform that process. The foundation for the entire project selection
    process is the process that participating State Lead Agencies perform
    with their State Forest Stewardship Coordinating Committees to review,
    approve and rank projects in their State. Only projects that are
    determined by the State-based process as priorities are considered for
    funding and recommended by the Forest Service.
        The Forest Legacy Program Implementation Guidelines revision has
    been conducted through a State lead agency--Forest Service Team. The
    revision began in 2000 and has undergone numerous drafting rounds and
    open comment periods with input received from hundreds of groups and
    agency personnel from across the country. The Guidelines Revision Team
    is composed of nine members from State lead agencies and the Forest
    Service. Drafts of the guidelines have been presented at national
    meetings and for review with State program managers from all
    participating States.
        Question. The regulations employed by the Forest Service for land
    appraisal in the states is overburdening. The process is inconsistent,
    especially with respect to projects in the Forest Legacy program. In a
    time of tight budgets and huge deficits, it is unwise to require 2 or 3
    appraisals by certified appraisers at a high cost to the taxpayer.
    There has been more emphasis placed on the method of appraisals as
    opposed to the value of the land. What has the Forest Service done to
    improve and streamline this process? Why is it taking multiple
    appraisals in order to get Forest Service approval for new land
    acquisitions? Do I need to ask for a GAO review of the appraisal
    process to determine where the problem is?
        Answer. The House Appropriations Committee reviewed the Forest
    Service Legacy Program and issued a report in June 2002. Among the
    findings of that investigation report were several related to appraisal
    and appraisal review. The report cited the requirement that Federal
    payments to landowners not exceed the market value of the property and
    that appraisals prepared to determine market value must be prepared in
    conformance with the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land
    Acquisitions. Many appraisals approved by States were later found not
    to comply with Federal appraisal standards and, in many cases, the
    value estimates were not supported.
        There are several reasons for a large number of unapproved
    appraisal reports. Federal oversight of the program was found to be
    inconsistent and States have hired appraisers and review appraisers not
    qualified to perform the appraisal and review assignments. States have
    been reluctant to impose uniform qualifications requirements for
    appraisers and review appraisers. Federal reviews of those appraisals
    in compliance with Forest Service oversight requirements have too often
    discovered these deficiencies after the fact. It often requires
    multiple appraisals to effect an acquisition when appraisers or
    reviewers are hired that are not qualified or who cannot support their
    value estimates.
        In an effort to streamline the appraisal process and help ensure
    more effective use of public funds, the Forest Service is working with
    the States to involve the assigned review appraiser early in the
    acquisition process to help obviate later unpleasant surprises. The
    Forest Service is also working with the States to adopt standard
    implementation guidelines for appraisal and appraisal review. There are
    both industry and Federal appraisal standards that must be applied when
    public funds are expended. Appraisal reports failing to comply with
    those standards cannot be approved.
        The Forest Service valuation function has been investigated and
    reviewed by GAO, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of the
    Inspector General (OIG), The Appraisal Foundation (TAF), and the
    aforementioned House Appropriations Committee. The Forest Service has
    made substantial changes in policy the past few years to comply with
    recommendations of those investigations and reviews.
        In the Federal appraisal community, the Forest Service is now
    regarded as a yardstick by which other agencies measure their valuation
    function. For example, TAF also reviewed the Bureau of Land Management,
    Department of Interior, and issued a report in October 2002. That
    report recommended massive changes to the way BLM does its appraisal
    business and how it is organized. The Forest Service has been requested
    to assist the BLM in implementing some recommendations of TAF report,
    as well as OIG and GAO reviews and audits dating back to 1987. The
    Appraisal Work Group chartered by BLM has relied upon ``the Forest
    Service model'' for several appraisal organization recommendations. The
    Chief Appraiser, Department of Justice, recently reported that he has
    fewer litigation and standards compliance problems with Forest Service
    than any other agency with which he routinely works.
                                     ______

        USDA Forest Service--Fire & Aviation Operations Action Plan 2003

                              [Finalized 04/01/03]

                                  INTRODUCTION

        This plan establishes Chief's direction for the 2003 fire season.
    It responds to lessons learned, after-action assessments, and formal
    reviews following the 2002 fire season. It incorporates recommendations
    from the Line Officer's Team and Chief's taskings dealing with cost
    containment (Troyer-Mann Report and Cost Accountability Report). The
    plan is consistent with the 30-Mile Mitigation Plan, the 10-Year
    Comprehensive Plan and the National Fire Plan. This direction
    introduces operational expectations and clarifies existing policies and
    procedures. It reinforces performance expectations for Forest Service
    Line Officers and Fire & Aviation Management personnel.
        The plan focuses attention on four areas:
      --Preparedness
      --Cost containment
      --Hazardous fuel treatments
      --Safety--ground and aviation operations
        This plan is responsive to Administration goals of fiscal integrity
    and the Chief's goals to deliver a safe, effective Fire & Aviation
    Management program. It recognizes that large air tanker capacity is
    down from previous years and several cooperator programs are also below
    last year's levels.
        The direction established in this plan reflect important
    performance measures for Line Officers, Incident--Area Command Teams,
    and fire management personnel in the conduct of operations.
        Finally, this plan recognizes that, because of Forest Service
    capability and experience with emergency response, the agency will
    continue to be asked to respond to incidents beyond the normal scope of
    business. The Forest Service is prepared to support missions that
    assist others in need, with focus on assisting others to build their
    capacity to respond. Management options for handling future all-risk
    workloads must be defined. In this context, the following priorities
    will guide the commitment of resources:
        1. National security
        2. Protection of life
        3. Protection of property
        4. Protection of natural resources

                                   BACKGROUND

        During the fire season of 2002, initial attack forces displayed
    remarkable success under extreme burning conditions by containing over
    98 percent of all starts before they could become large fires. The
    fires that escaped initial or extended attack actions resulted in
    extraordinary costs, losses, and damages. Fires that grew above 300
    acres accounted for over 95 percent of the total acres burned and
    nearly 85 percent of all suppression expenditures. Wildfires on
    National Forest System lands burned over 1.4 million acres or over
    twice the 10-year average. Suppression expenditures were $1.2 billion;
    again twice the 10-year average.
        Fireline operations were relatively safe, given the level of
    exposure. Vehicle accidents and aircraft accidents, however, exceeded
    past levels and accounted for 69 percent of all wildland fire-related
    fatalities in 2002.

                             SITUATIONAL ASSESSMENT

        Wildland Fire Outlook--March through August 2003. National and
    Geographic Predictive Service groups, climatologists, fuels specialists
    and fire behavior analysts convened for a seasonal assessment workshop
    in Mesa, Arizona during the week of February 24-28, 2003. Based on the
    analysis shared and assessments completed, it was determined that
    nationally, the 2003 fire season will not be as severe as 2002
    (seasonal assessment http://www.nifc.gov). However, much of the
    interior West, south/central Alaska, western Great Lakes and northern
    Maine is expected to experience an above normal fire season for the
    following reasons:
      --Long-term drought persists over much of the interior West with
            mountain snowpack and winter precipitation remaining below
            average to date.
      --Drought stressed and/or insect damaged vegetation is becoming more
            prevalent across the western states and will increase the
            potential for large, destructive wildfires at mid to high
            elevations.
      --Drought conditions are emerging in the Great Lake States leaving
            herbaceous fuels standing, uncompressed, and receptive to
            ignition. An early fire season is anticipated with peat fires
            in these areas being problematic due to dry conditions.
      --Early snow melt is anticipated for Alaska, Pacific Northwest, Great
            Basin and Northeastern California which will cause large dead/
            downed fuel moistures to drop below critical values earlier
            than normal in the higher elevation areas, resulting in an
            early and extended fire season.
      --The Southern Area is expecting a below normal spring fire season
            overall, however forecasts call for a very active tropical
            storm season which could result in an above average number of
            hurricanes that impact the area and diminish fire risk through
            the summer months.
      --An early spring prescribed fire season is expected across many
            western states.
      --State budget reductions are likely to result in reduced
            firefighting capacity from our State and local cooperators.
        Unless weather patterns provide relief, 2003 has the potential for
    an above normal fire season with several areas experiencing significant
    wildfire activity simultaneously. In some parts of the country, fire
    season potential will likely be higher, as the result of several years
    of drought. Of particular significance is the potential for long-
    duration fires in higher elevation timber types in much of the interior
    West. Fires occurring in these types often prove to be difficult to
    suppress and very labor intensive. Historically, in the Northern
    Rockies and higher elevation sites elsewhere in the interior West,
    exponential acreage growth typically occurs very late in the season, as
    high velocity winds blow out unsecured perimeters.

                                  PREPAREDNESS

        Policy.--``Agencies will ensure their capability to provide safe,
    cost effective fire management programs in support of land and resource
    management plans through appropriate planning, staffing, training,
    equipment, and management oversight.''
        Principle.--Where hazardous fuels dominate the landscape,
    establishing a strong, decisive initial attack capability is a key
    component in minimizing large fire suppression costs. As fire danger
    levels increase and suppression resources become scarce, initial attack
    capacity must be maintained as the most certain means of preventing new
    costly wildfires.
        Chief's Intent.--Extended attack and initial attack operations will
    be the number one mobilization priority. All efforts will be made to
    utilize predictive services, anticipate threats, and pre-position
    protection resources.
        At National Planning Levels Four and Five, national shared
    resources (airtankers, hotshot crews, smokejumpers, etc.) will be
    allocated and re-allocated by National Multi-agency Coordination Group
    (NMAC), based on observed and predicted fire danger intelligence.
        All units will be trained, staffed and ready to meet operational
    demands. Staffing levels will be adjusted, based on observed and
    predicted fire danger in order to maintain protection capabilities.
    Staffing levels will be coordinated with adjacent cooperators.
        Personnel will be trained, qualified, and red-carded for the
    positions that they are assigned. Forest Service employees will be
    available to support fire emergencies to the best of their ability and
    capability.
        Objective.--All level units will be staffed at the identical 2002
    level. We are currently working with OMB to achieve this goal. (95
    percent of planned NFMAS capability). A 98 percent initial/extended
    attack success rate remains our goal in 2003.

    Chief's Direction
      --Fire Management Plans will be updated utilizing the new interagency
            template (All plans must meet this new requirement no later
            than December, 2004).
      --Effective organizational capability will be sustained by
            maintaining management, supervisory, and crew staffing skills.
            Coaches or mentors will be pre-identified for support, where
            they may be needed.
      --Managers will assure personnel assigned to full duty will be
            appropriately trained and physically fit prior to their
            deployment.
      --Staffing levels and drawdown plans will be adjusted, based on
            observed and predicted fire danger. Severity funding requests
            will be submitted and approved prior to the pay period for
            which they are planned. Severity requests will be coordinated
            with cooperators to most effectively maintain management
            oversight, supervisory controls, and crew capabilities in the
            critical area.
      --Units will be prepared to hire and train AD employees and local/
            volunteer fire department personnel to meet local and, as
            appropriate, national needs. Training and availability of State
            and local fire departments, including volunteers, will be
            coordinated.
      --Preparedness Plans, Mutual Threat Plans, Memorandums of
            Understanding, Cost Share Agreements, and other plans will be
            reviewed and updated prior to fire season.
      --Multi-agency Coordinating Group (MAC) members will be pre-
            identified and Predictive Services support will be ready prior
            to the start of fire season. MAC Groups should include
            individuals with coordination and command experience. Prior to
            fire season, MAC Groups will establish prioritization criteria
            for incident allocation and re-allocation of resources. Line
            Officers will provide a formal Delegation of Authority to MAC
            Groups that include agency objectives and agency expectations.
            Prioritization criteria will be included in the Delegation of
            Authority.
      --Service and Supply Plans will be completed and associated Emergency
            Equipment Rental Agreements (EERA) will be in place prior to
            fire season.
      --Pre-season simulations, including Wildland Fire Situation Analysis
            (WFSA) development, will be conducted on units.

                                COST CONTAINMENT

        Policy.--``Fires are suppressed at minimum cost, considering
    firefighter and public safety, benefits, and values to be protected,
    consistent with resource objectives.''
        Principle.--Line Officer oversight and involvement during the
    decision-making process is critical for containing suppression costs.
        Chief's Intent.--In terms of implementation, this means that the
    primary criteria for choosing suppression strategies are to minimize
    costs without compromising safety. Planned and actual suppression costs
    must also be commensurate with the values to be protected. They must be
    included and displayed in the Wildland Fire Situation Analysis (WFSA).
        Under no circumstances are suppression strategies to be tailored to
    achieve resource benefit. Even though resource benefits may result in
    some areas of the fires, it is inappropriate to expend suppression
    dollars with the explicit objective of achieving resource benefits.
        Indirect suppression strategies (containing to natural barriers,
    etc.) are appropriate only if they are the safest or least cost option.
    When fire danger trends are rising, the selection of these strategies
    must be carefully scrutinized because escape potentials are greater.
    Long-duration, ``siege-like'' wildfires where high numbers of
    firefighting resources are being committed, need to be closely
    evaluated by standing cost containment teams to ensure that operations
    are not occurring beyond the point of diminishing returns.
        Objective.--Expend only those funds required for the safe, cost-
    effective suppression of the incident.

    Chief's Direction
      --Line Officers are responsible for financial oversight. This
            responsibility cannot be delegated.
      --Formulate two inter-agency Standing Suppression Cost Review Teams.
            Teams will be established by April 15.
      --When fire danger trends are rising, the long-term consequences of
            indirect containment strategies, including final fire cost,
            will be considered in the initial action decision.
      --The WFSA will include the least-suppression cost option. This
            option will serve as a way to describe the values to be
            protected and the context surrounding a suppression decision.
            If the least-suppression cost option is not chosen, the WFSA
            will include written rationale for not choosing it.
      --A suppression cost objective will be included as an incident
            objective and included in the Delegation of Authority to the
            Incident Commander. These cost objectives must maintain safety
            considerations and be commensurate with the values to be
            protected Revision of the WFSA is required if incident cost
            objectives are exceeded.
      --Incident suppression cost objectives will be included as a
            performance measure in Incident Management Team evaluations.
      --Suppression costs over $2 million will require approval of the
            Forest Supervisor.
      --Suppression costs over $10 million require Regional Forester
            approval and costs exceeding $50 million will require Chief's
            Office approval. It is understood that, in approving
            suppression costs, decision-makers at the higher organizational
            levels share the risks associated with outcomes.
      --All incidents projected to exceed $5 million will require assigning
            an Incident Business Advisor. The Incident Business Advisor
            reports directly to the responsible Line Officer/Agency
            Administrator.
      --Wildfires involving multiple jurisdictions should require mutually
            agreed-upon Unified Commands. Commands should be unified as
            early in the incident as possible. The rapid exchange of
            information and coordinated tactics are a safety precaution,
            first, and a cost containment protocol, second. Cost
            apportionments will be based on mutually agreed upon criteria
            and reflected in the Delegation of Authority from Agency
            Administrators.

                           HAZARDOUS FUEL TREATMENTS

        Policy.--Hazardous fuels are treated, using appropriate tools, to
    reduce the risk of unplanned and unwanted wildland fire to communities
    and the environment.
        Principle.--The most effective means of reducing large fire
    suppression costs, protecting community values, restoring forest and
    grassland health, and improving firefighter safety, is an aggressive
    fuel treatment program. Treatments are particularly important in fire-
    dependent ecosystems, where prolonged fire exclusion has resulted in
    over-accumulated fuels. The Forest Service will continue to emphasize
    fuel treatments in high priority areas where communities, watersheds,
    and critical resources are at risk.
        Chief's Intent.--The President's Healthy Forest Initiative, the 10-
    Year Comprehensive Strategy and the National Fire plan establish goals
    for reducing hazardous fuels. Reducing risk to our firefighters,
    communities, municipal watersheds and restoring the health of our
    forests and rangelands are the central themes of these initiatives.
        The safest, most effective wildfire protection strategy is
    predicated on an aggressive fuels reduction program. In fire-dependent
    ecosystems, the use of prescribed fire, at ecologically appropriate
    intensities is an essential means of restoring forest health
    conditions. In Fire Regime I, Condition Class 3 forests, hazard
    mitigation treatments may often be required before prescribed fire
    projects can go forward within acceptable limits of social, economic,
    and ecological risk.
        Prescribed fires and wildland fires that aim to achieve resource
    benefits must be accompanied by supporting NEPA compliant plans.
        Objective.--Treat 1.6 million acres of hazardous fuels, service-
    wide.

    Chief's Direction
      --A high priority will be given to achieving fuels treatment projects
            through the fire season.
      --Re-distribution of targets and funds between Regions may occur in
            order to maximize project accomplishments, service-wide.
      --Identification on fiscal year 2004 hazardous fuels projects will be
            completed by May 1, 2003 (reference FSM 5100 letter, dated
            January 14, 2003, ``fiscal year 2004 Fuel Treatment Program
            Priorities'').
                     safety--ground and aviation operations
        Policy.--``Firefighter safety is the first priority.'' Fight fire
    aggressively, but provide for safety first!
    Principles
      --Firefighter safety comes first on every fire every time.
      --The 10-Standard Firefighting Orders are firm; we don't break them,
            we don't bend them.
      --Every firefighter has the right to a safe assignment.
      --Every Line Officer, every Fire Manager, every fireline supervisor,
            and every firefighter is responsible to ensure that established
            safe practices are known and observed.
        Chief's Intent.--Safety will not be compromised in the conduct of
    ground or air operations. However, safety decisions must be made in the
    context of probabilities, exposure, and consequence over the long-term,
    particularly as fire danger trends are rising. The selection of
    indirect containment strategies must be weighed against longer-term
    safety concerns that may result if the fire exceeds expected or planned
    perimeters. Likewise, nighttime operations that mitigate snags and
    other hazards may be the safer tactic when weighed against fire
    behavior dangers that often exist during active burning periods. When
    seasonal fire danger trends are rising, the small wildland fire kept
    small is generally the safer fire.
        Proactive suppression tactics that can mitigate hazards and provide
    an operational advantage are favored over reactive or passive tactics
    that increase exposure to the firefighters over time. We all have a
    role in safety. In pre-season preparedness meetings, take the time to
    discuss the responsibilities and expectations that surround
    firefighting safety.
        Objective.--Observe established safe practices on every fire this
    year.
    Chief's Direction
      --Continue the implementation of the Thirty mile Hazard Abatement
            Plan on all units.
      --Unit preparedness--at management oversight, supervisory control,
            and crew levels--will be commensurate with observed and
            predicted fire danger.
      --Managers and supervisors will be in compliance with the National
            Wildland Coordinating Group (NWCG) work rest guidelines (2003
            National Interagency Mobilization Guide).
      --Appropriate span of control will be maintained for managers,
            supervisors, and firefighters at a ratio commensurate to the
            complexities presented by the fireline operations at hand.
      --Define control objectives (e.g. road, river, fuel type break, or
            other perimeter objective) on every initial attack incident.
            When control objectives are exceeded, immediately delay,
            modify, or abandon any firefighting action. Fireline
            Supervisors will assess the new situation, brief the
            firefighters on strategy/tactical change, and then implement
            appropriate actions.
      --Airtankers airworthiness and maintenance status will be monitored
            as the fire season progresses. At appropriate intervals,
            required inspections and maintenance will be conducted.
      --Airtankers will be pre-positioned, based on projected fire danger
            levels, in the context of values to be protected.
      --Airtankers will be utilized primarily for initial and extended
            attack. Large fire airtanker use will be determined on a case-
            by-case basis, or when lives or communities are at risk.
        Communicate.--Safety is a responsibility we all share.
        See it--Say it--Fix it.--You owe it to yourself, your crew, and
    those around you.

                                    SUMMARY

        Dynamic tensions define today's Fire and Aviation Management
    Program. These tensions can only be managed successfully with adherence
    to established safe practices procedures, attention to critical fire
    behavior risk thresholds, and sound judgment.
        At the highest levels of activity, when suppression demands are
    high and resources are scarce, Line Officers and Fire Managers must
    maintain a high level of situational awareness, anticipate needs, and
    proactively lead.
        Paying attention to relationships and maintaining open lines of
    communication pay big dividends when people and organizations are under
    stress. We are stronger when we work together and more effective when
    we share information.
        Early projections indicate that this fire season may be another
    difficult year for us. The steps outlined in this action plan are
    intended to increase margins of safety and preparedness with the aim of
    reducing the costs, losses, and damages that have become more common as
    fuels have built up in drought areas where people live.
        However, over the long-term, an aggressive fuel treatment program
    is the surest means of ensuring firefighter and public safety,
    reversing wildfire costs, and restoring healthy, resilient forests and
    grasslands (Wildfire Suppression: Strategies for Containing Costs, NAPA
    Report, 09/02).
        We will continue to pursue an accelerated fuel treatment program.
    Programs that focus on restoration of fire-dependent ecosystems and
    better integrate fuel management, forest health, wildlife, range,
    watershed, and other available dollars will be more aggressively
    explored.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Burns. Thank you all very much. The subcommittee
    will stand in recess to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, April
    10, in room SD-124. At that time we will hear testimony from
    the Honorable Gale A. Norton, Secretay of the Interior.
        [Whereupon, at 11:36 a.m., Thursday, March 20, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday,
    April 10.]

      DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2004

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 2003

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

                           DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                            Office of the Secretary

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

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS

        Senator Burns. We will call the committee to order.
        Depending on if you are running on daylight savings time,
    or just standard time, which one of the clocks do you want to
    go by?
        We like to serve everybody with 10 o'clock according to one
    and another one.
        Madame Secretary, thank you for coming today as we look at
    the budget for the Interior Department and the appropriations
    for 2004. While I suspect we will get to a number of topics
    today, there is one aspect of the Department's budget request
    that really jumps off the page. One does not have to be an
    accountant to see that we have real problems. I am talking, of
    course, about the Indian trust reform.
        It looks like right now, compared to the 2003 enacted
    level, the Department's request for programs under this
    subcommittee's jurisdiction represents an increase of about
    $370 million. Of that total increase, at least $180 million is
    for trust reform activities of the Office of Special Trustee in
    the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The bulk of that increase is to
    implement the Department's plan for historical accounting. This
    is a remarkable concentration of resources for a single task. I
    think you would have to agree with that.
        Madame Secretary, we applaud the commitment you have made
    to the trust reform; both in dollars, and in terms of your
    personal attention. I know it has occupied far more time than
    you would have imagined, or you would care to even talk about.
    But the litigation has taken its toll on the morale and funds
    of the Department.
        I think all of us here are struggling with the fact that
    increasing resources being devoted to trust reform are
    resources that might otherwise be spent in improving Indian
    schools, maintaining our national parks and public lands, or
    working with landowners to eliminate noxious weeds, and
    conserve the critical wildlife habitat. We know that it will
    take money to fix the trust problem.
        Madame Secretary, I think you would agree that over the
    years this committee has been very responsive to the
    Department's budget request for trust reform. But this year's
    request, particularly in respect to the historical accounting,
    really forces this committee to ask some tough questions.
        On one hand, I do not think any of us want to simply give
    up on historical accounting. I hate to condemn the Federal
    Government to paying billions of dollars of damages that may or
    may not have occurred. On the other hand, can we justify
    spending hundreds of millions of dollars to perform a
    historical accounting that will, undoubtedly, be disputed in
    Indian country?
        What will such an accounting ultimately tell us? And what
    needs in Indian country will go unfulfilled while we go through
    this very expensive process? These are really difficult issues.
    And, Madame Secretary, I suspect the line of questioning this
    morning will go down that trail.
        We also have a problem that I want to raise with you as far
    as increased funding in Indian schools, and the community
    colleges that are located around our many reservations. We
    increased the monies going into that particular program, and to
    higher education in Indian country. As it turns out, by some
    quirk of the pen, I get a decrease in my monies going for
    students in Montana. Rather than being an accross the board
    increase for all Indian schools, all of the funding gets
    distributed elsewhere.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        We will look into this. But I will tell you that you can
    look forward to seeing this Senator in that office. I am going
    to find out how they do those figures, because I will not allow
    this to happen. I do not fight for my State, and I do not fight
    for funds for higher education in Indian country, to see it
    become concentrated in one place under some quirk of a rule of
    titles. We are going to look into that and be very critical of
    it. Again, I thank you for coming this morning.
        [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Senator Conrad Burns

        Welcome Madam Secretary. We appreciate your making the time today
    to appear before the committee in support of your fiscal year 2004
    budget request.
        While I suspect we will get into a number of topics today, there is
    one aspect of the Department's budget request that really jumps off the
    page. I am talking, of course, about Indian trust reform.
        Compared to the fiscal year 2003 enacted level, the Department's
    request for programs under this subcommittee's jurisdiction represents
    an increase of about $370 million. Of that total increase, at least
    $180 million is for trust reform activities in the Office of Special
    Trustee and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The bulk of that increase is
    to implement the Department's plan for historical accounting. This is a
    remarkable concentration of resources on a single task.
        Madam Secretary, we applaud the commitment you have made to trust
    reform, both in dollars and in terms of your personal attention. I know
    it has occupied far more of your time than you ever imagined, and that
    the litigation has taken a toll on morale within the Department.
        But I think all of us are struggling with the fact that the
    increasing resources being devoted to trust reform are resources that
    might otherwise be spent improving Indian schools, maintaining our
    national parks and public lands, or working with landowners to
    eliminate noxious weeds and conserve critical wildlife habitat.
        We know that it will take money to fix the trust problem. Madam
    Secretary, I think you would agree that over the years this Committee
    has been very responsive to the Department's budget requests for trust
    reform. But this year's request--particularly with respect to
    historical accounting--really forces this committee to ask some tough
    questions.
        On the one hand, I don't think any of us want simply to give up on
    historical accounting. I'd hate to condemn the Federal Government to
    paying billions of dollars in damages that may or may not have
    occurred. On the other hand, can we justify spending hundreds of
    millions of dollars to perform an historical accounting that will
    undoubtedly be disputed in Indian country? What will such an accounting
    ultimately tell us? And what needs in Indian Country will go
    unfulfilled while we go through this very expensive process?
        These are difficult issues, Madam Secretary, and we're anxious to
    hear your thoughts on them today. Certainly we'll have a lot else to
    talk about as well, so I'll conclude my remarks at this time and ask
    Senator Dorgan if he has an opening statement.

        Senator Burns. It is good this morning to recognize my co-
    partner on this committee, Senator Dorgan. It is your turn.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN

        Senator Dorgan. No, no. Mr. Chairman, I am just trying to
    digest all that you have just said.
        I agree with much of what the chairman has said. And,
    Madame Secretary, let me say, first of all, that I welcome you
    and look forward to working with you on these issues. You know,
    perhaps, that today I will ask you about the United Tribes
    Technical College and the proposal to de-fund that. I will ask
    you about some issues that are not necessarily the purview of
    this subcommittee dealing with NAWS funding and some things,
    some commitments we have made that the President's budget does
    not keep.
        I note some things in the budget that I think give us some
    heart, taking care of parks. The proposal to increase the
    maintenance backlog in national parks, I think, makes a lot of
    sense. I mean, we just cannot keep pushing that off. And a
    number of administrations have done that. I think there are
    some solid recommendations that we will agree on.
        The Senator from Montana described the funding issue with
    respect to Indian schools. And it is not right and not fair, in
    my judgment, to decide we are going to actually decrease the
    money that is available to Indian schools. I know that you
    probably will argue, ``Well, the funding for last year included
    $2 million that was added by the Congress.'' But even at that,
    we are dramatically below the per-student support that we
    provide to other colleges in this country.
        So on that I think you will find that this subcommittee
    feels very strongly about Indian education. And the tribal
    colleges have been a remarkably effective way to allow people
    to escape from poverty, to get educated and move to a payroll,
    get a good job as a result of the training and the education
    they get at tribal colleges.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        So we have a number of things to talk about. You run a very
    big agency. It does a lot of different things. Some I think it
    does exceptionally well. Some perhaps can well use some
    improvement. So I look forward to visiting with you about all
    of those issues, Madame Secretary.
        [The statement follows:]
                 Prepared Statement of Senator Byron L. Dorgan
        Madame Secretary, thank you for being here this morning to present
    the department's fiscal year 2004 budget request. We understand that
    you have many responsibilities and many demands placed on your time,
    and so we appreciate your willingness to come before this subcommittee
    to answer our questions.
        As you know, the services provided by the Department of the
    Interior are vitally important to our constituents and reach well
    beyond the traditional notion of parks and wildlife refuges. Many North
    Dakotans, for example, rely on the programs of the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs. From education, to community. development, to law enforcement,
    to environmental and resource management, the BIA is critical to the
    Native American population in my state, and I think in the Chairman's
    state, too. Yet, as I look at the administration's budget, I am deeply
    concerned with the way the administration has prioritized its scarce
    resources. While some agencies and programs have received 3 or 4 or 5
    percent increases, total funding for tribal allocations goes up by less
    than I percent and funding for tribal colleges is cut by nearly 9
    percent. These are serious flaws, Madame Secretary.
        Mr. Chairman, despite my reservations, I look forward to hearing
    the Secretary's testimony, and I have no doubt that she will put the
    best face on a rather dismal situation. Nevertheless, as this process
    proceeds, I hope to work with you to rectify what I think are
    fundamental mistakes in the way this budget has been arranged.

        Senator Burns. Thank you, Senator Dorgan.
        Senator Stevens.
        We are blessed with the chairman of the full committee this
    morning.
        Senator Stevens. Not for long.

                    OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

        Madame Secretary, I want to invite you--I heard you are
    interested in going out to the end of the Aleutian chain. I
    would encourage you to do that and tell you that if you do
    that, we will get a plane and take a few other people along
    with us. It is the forgotten place of World War II. More people
    were killed in the Aleutian battle than were killed in the
    Battle of the Coral Sea.
        The battles took place at approximately the same time. Very
    interesting place. We would go to Kiska and Attu and Shemya and
    Dutch Harbor. I think it is a wonderful thing if you show some
    interest there, because there are many people who would like to
    go there, but there are no facilities to do so. We have
    prohibited that because of the withdrawals made by your
    predecessors.
        So I think it would be wonderful if you would just look at
    it. I think the World War II veterans, their families, would be
    very interested to see some means of access to those areas.
        I have a long statement here to make, but let me do this
    for the convenience of the committee and for the time factor
    that you have. My colleague, Lisa Murkowski, Senator Murkowski,
    and I would like to talk to you about the delay in terms of
    land conveyances to both the Alaska natives and the State of
    Alaska. We would like to set a deadline for getting all that
    done, which includes accelerating the surveying.
        We would like to talk to you about the proposed regulations
    of the Park Service concerning commercial use that put
    commercialization within the national parks, as far as those
    people who are recognized to have rights to conduct their
    business activities within the parks. As you know, we have, I
    think, more than 70 percent of the total areas with the
    national parks that are in our State. There are two categories,
    those that were national park areas before 1980 and those after
    1980. The 1980 Act preserved a considerable number of rights
    for Alaska native people and other Alaskans with the additions
    to the national park system that was created by the 1980 Act.
    Those regulations, in our opinion, do not recognize the rights
    that were preserved by the 1980 Act. And I would encourage you
    to review that. My statement, full statement, deals with some
    of those.
        Of basic concern, really, is the restriction of access
    across the parklands. We accept the fact that the pre-1980
    parks and their acreage are not subject to the rights created,
    or really preserved in the 1980 Act for the enormous additions.
    That Act withdrew over 100 million acres of our State. And
    without the rights for access across those lands that were
    preserved, the native lands and the State lands that are beyond
    them become absolutely inaccessible, unless we build some
    really crazy roads that would go north, south, east, and then
    west and back north again. It would be impossible to get money
    for Federal roads of that type. But I would urge you to take a
    look at it with regard to that.
        We have also raised the issue of fires on Federal lands. It
    is an interesting thing. We burned over 7.1 million acres
    nationwide. And there was little attention paid to fires in
    Alaska. When a few hundred thousand acres burned around Montana
    or Colorado around national parks, they flew Alaska
    firefighters down there to fight it.
        We think there has to be some standard made in terms of the
    regions of Alaska that are going to be given fire protection
    because in many instances, those fires rushed across State
    lands and Federal lands. And by the time they reached our
    lands, they were just out of control. I can show you that right
    in Kenai just south of where I live.
        Also, we have a problem with--the spruce bark beetles have
    killed millions of acres of land. And we know that when fire
    starts, the fire goes through the beetle kill area, the dead
    timber first. And that, too, with the dry winter we have had,
    we feel this 2 million acres in the south-central area alone
    have been killed by the birch beetles, most of them on Federal
    land. But there is no action being taken. And I understand, in
    fact, the people I call extreme environmentalists oppose taking
    action on Federal land to remove that dead timber. That dead
    timber jeopardizes half of our population. We are not very big
    in population, but half of the population of Alaska is still
    important. And we are surrounded by that beetle kill.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        So, Mr. Chairman, let me put the whole statement in the
    record.
        I will send you a copy, Madame Secretary, and save the rest
    of the time. Let me take the time to congratulate you on what
    you are doing. I think you are a breath of fresh air in being
    willing to listen. I am not sure I always agree with you, but
    you will listen. And we look forward to working with you. And I
    am particularly proud to be a member of this committee so I can
    listen to you.
        Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Senator Ted Stevens

        Good morning Madam Secretary. An issue of concern to myself and to
    Senator Lisa Murkowski is the pace of the Bureau of Land Management's
    Alaska Land Conveyance Program.
        As you know, the BLM was tasked with completing work on Native
    allotments and land selections mandated by both the Alaska Statehood
    Act of 1959 and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971.
        That task has not been completed.
        This delay has severely impacted the ability of the State of Alaska
    and our Native groups from developing their resources and furthering
    the economic development of the State.
        Language included in the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations
    bill directs the Bureau to develop a plan to ensure that allotments and
    conveyances are completed by 2009.
        I would like to get your commitment that the BLM will abide by its
    obligations and complete the land conveyance program by 2009.
        I know that Senator Murkowski is committed to assisting you and the
    BLM in this effort through her membership on the Energy and Natural
    Resources Committee.
        And I commit to providing the BLM the resources it needs to develop
    this plan.
        Another issue is the National Park Service's proposed regulations
    concerning the issuance and administration of commercial use
    authorizations in National Parks.
        As expressed to you in a February 6, 2003 letter from Senator
    Murkowski, Congressman Don Young and myself, these proposed regulations
    fail to comply with the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
    of 1980. The 1980 law is the controlling authority on public lands in
    Alaska and any Park Service regulations must conform with this law.
        I would like your assurance that the Department and the Park
    Service are committed to working with the State of Alaska, interested
    parties and Alaska Native groups in developing regulations which are
    consistent with the 1980 law.
        Additionally, Denali National Park recently issued its draft
    backcountry management plan.
        I am concerned that some of the alternatives, if implemented, would
    restrict public access to our Parks.
        Access to public lands is an issue that I have struggled to protect
    first as a solicitor your Department, in the Alaska State House, and in
    my 34 years in the Senate.
        I will oppose any plan which imposes unnecessary limits on the
    public's right to visit their Parks.
        I understand that Denali's superintendent and his staff have held
    public hearings and meetings on this management plan.
        I encourage these efforts in order to ensure that the final plan
    balances the protection of our natural resources with the public's
    right to access for recreational, economic and social purposes.
        I am pleased with the proactive stance the administration has taken
    in the area of wildfire prevention and suppression through the healthy
    forests initiative.
        In recent years we have witnessed catastrophic fires which burned
    over 7.1 million acres, affecting several regions in the United States
    including Alaska.
        In Alaska, we have a particular problem with Spruce Bark beetles
    which have decimated spruce forests in the Kenai Peninsula area along
    the Kachemak Bay watershed and the Copper River basin near Wrangell-St.
    Elias National Park and preserve.
        The Spruce Bark beetle problem along with an extremely dry winter
    season in Alaska raises serious concerns for this coming fire season.
        I hope that your efforts in fire prevention and suppression will
    include funding to address Alaska's Spruce Bark beetle problem.
        As you know, we have begun the fiscal year 2004 appropriations
    process. It has come to my attention that the committee does not have
    the most current data for public lands being administered by the
    Department of Interior.
        In order to appropriately allocate scarce resources towards the
    management of our public lands, I request that the Department provide
    the committee with statistics on federally owned land by agency in each
    State and Territory by acreage and percentage of total State area.
        These statistics should also include the total wilderness areas
    within each State.

        Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate that,
    and appreciate you dropping by this morning.
        Madame Secretary, again, welcome to the committee. We look
    forward to your statement. Your full statement will be made
    part of the record, if you want to summarize and hit the high
    points of what you would like to tell the committee. Thank you,
    and your guests, for coming this morning.

                    SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. GALE A. NORTON

        Secretary Norton. Good morning and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    It is a pleasure to once again address this committee and talk
    with you about our budget for fiscal year 2004. I appreciate
    the opportunity to highlight a number of our initiatives.
        I am accompanied today by Lynn Scarlett, who is our
    Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget, and John
    Trezise, who is the Department's Budget Director.
        Interior takes pride in its mission to protect and manage
    the Nation's natural resources and cultural heritage, provide
    scientific information about those resources, and honor our
    special responsibilities to American Indians, Alaska Natives,
    and affiliated island communities. Our programs touch the lives
    of individuals across the Nation. How well we fulfill our
    mission influences whether farmers will have water and people
    can turn on the tap, whether our children will enjoy America's
    vistas, places in history, and whether we can hike, bird watch,
    canoe, or hunt and fish in the great American outdoors.
        Our 2004 budget request lays the foundation for us to build
    a legacy of healthy lands and thriving communities. Our request
    for programs under the purview of this subcommittee is $9.8
    billion. This is the largest Presidential request in the
    Department's history. It is a 28 percent increase over the 2000
    budget.
        The Department of the Interior is not quite self-
    supporting. We bring in $3 for every $4 in expenditures. The
    Department anticipates that it will collect $7.8 billion in
    revenue in 2004.

                            TRUST REFORM INITIATIVES

        As the chairman noted, our largest increase is in the area
    of trust reform initiatives. Fulfilling our trust
    responsibilities presents a major challenge. The challenge is
    both retrospective and prospective. We inherited a history of
    inadequate management of trust accounts. Our budget lays the
    groundwork for a better future.
        Our budget for Indian trust programs includes $554 million
    for trust operations and reform. Our budget proposal reflects
    new management concepts that grew out of consultation efforts,
    including a reorganization of Interior trust offices to improve
    delivery of services. The budget provides an increase of $183.8
    million for trust programs, which is an increase of nearly 50
    percent over 2003.
        We also have a substantial increase for the Office of the
    Special Trustee, bringing it to $275 million. Within the Office
    of the Special Trustee request is $130 million for the Office
    of Historical Trust Accounting, an increase of $114 million
    over the 2003 level. These funds will provide a major down
    payment toward our plan to complete a historical accounting for
    individual Indian money accounts. We submitted a plan to the
    district court in the Cobell litigation on January 6 that
    outlines the details of how we would do that historical
    accounting.
        Once this accounting is completed, we should be able to
    resolve the disputes about whether the books are off by
    billions of dollars or the much smaller amounts that we expect.
    We hope to improve our management of our Indian trust program
    by consolidating our portfolio. Today we manage interests in
    land that are very tiny, as small as .00002 of an 80-acre tract
    of land. These areas often provide less than $1 a year in
    income to the owners.
        Fractionated interests in individual Indian-allotted land
    continue to expand exponentially as these small fractions pass
    through the generations. The 2004 budget proposes $21 million
    for Indian land consolidation, which is an increase of $13
    million. These funds will enable us to expand our pilot efforts
    to reduce the fractionation of individual land ownership
    interest in a nationwide program. This is only a very small
    part of what will be needed to accomplish a nationwide
    consolidation of these lands. But it gives us an opportunity to
    begin tackling this problem seriously.
        Our budget also lays the foundations for leaving a legacy
    of healthy lands. Our request presents a blueprint for
    fulfilling the President's vision of a new environmentalism of
    citizen stewards and cooperative conservation. Building
    partnerships lies at the heart of this effort. Enduring
    conservation needs many helping hands on the landscape. It
    requires a nation of citizen stewards.

                      COOPERATIVE CONSERVATION INITIATIVE

        Last year we proposed a cooperative conservation
    initiative. This year we are restructuring that program around
    our bureau challenge cost-share programs and cooperative
    conservation grant programs. It will tap into the tremendous
    potential that resides in conservation partnerships. It will
    better enable our land managers to join with Americans across
    the nation in caring for the land. Thousands of landowners and
    organizations remain on waiting lists to participate in our
    cooperative conservation grant programs.
        The 2004 budget includes $113 million for this initiative,
    including an increase of $9 million for the Partners for Fish
    and Wildlife Program. This will allow us to partner with 2,500
    landowners and restore wetlands, uplands, and riparian habitats
    through voluntary conservation agreements.

                              MAINTENANCE BACKLOG

        As Senator Dorgan described, the maintenance backlog in the
    national parks has been a continuing problem. We need to take
    care of these lands. We need to take care of the buildings and
    infrastructure through which we serve the millions of visitors
    to our parks, refuges, and BLM recreation sites. We are
    continuing our commitment to fulfill the President's pledge of
    addressing the maintenance backlog, proposing nearly $706
    million for national park backlogs.
        To date, the National Park Service accomplishments have
    been impressive. But we still have more work to do. A key focus
    will be to improve park roads. Here, too, we are reaching out
    to partners. The Federal Highway Administration has helped us
    review our roads program to see how we can operate it more
    efficiently. And the budget request for maintenance of park
    roads is in the Department of Transportation budget as part of
    the Federal Lands Highway bill.

                               ENERGY DEVELOPMENT

        Lands managed by Interior include working landscapes where
    ranchers, energy partners, and other entrepreneurs help ensure
    that Americans have food, can warm their homes, and have
    shelter for their families. Federally managed lands in onshore
    areas supply about a third of the Nation's oil, natural gas,
    and coal. Our 2004 budget provides $2 million to support the
    development of geothermal energy on public lands, as well as
    increased wind and solar energy opportunities. Our renewable
    energy program budget is more than five times the 2002 amount.
        Our budget also includes increased funding to facilitate
    the development of coal bed natural gas reserves, an abundant
    clean source of energy.

                                INDIAN EDUCATION

        No task is more important to all of our communities than
    educating our children. As we seek to educate our children, the
    President has committed to leave no child behind. At Interior,
    this commitment centers on the children educated at BIA schools
    and educated with Bureau assistance. The 2004 school operations
    request is over $529 million. The children also need safe,
    functional places to learn. Our budget includes a request to
    invest $293 million, including funds to replace at least seven
    decaying and dilapidated school facilities.

                            RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES

        Perhaps the closest connection that Americans have with the
    Department is through recreation opportunities. With almost 500
    million visits to our public lands, Interior provides a wide
    array of recreational opportunities. We are seeing a dramatic
    increase in visitation to our Bureau of Land Management lands
    where we are requesting increased funding to enable BLM to
    continue to provide high quality recreational opportunities.

                             EVERGLADES RESTORATION

        Our Everglades restoration efforts also affirm the power of
    partnerships. As stewards of about one-half of the remaining
    Everglades ecosystem, the Department works with a broad team of
    Federal, State, and local partners. In 2004, the President's
    budget included $112 million for Everglades activities, an
    increase of almost $28 million over the 2003 enacted level.
        Near these Everglades restoration efforts is Pelican
    Island, the Nation's first national wildlife refuge established
    100 years ago. We just celebrated the anniversary of the
    wildlife refuge system with large events there at Pelican
    Island. And our budget builds on last year's historic increases
    for refuges with an increase of nearly $34 million for refuge
    operations and maintenance, bringing the total to $402 million.
    Together, our increases for last year and this year set forth
    an additional $82 million increase in our national wildlife
    refuges.

                           OTHER PROGRAM INITIATIVES

        The fisheries program is also an important Fish and
    Wildlife Service activity. The budget recognizes this and
    includes a $7 million increase for the national fish hatchery
    system.
        The National Resource Challenge is an important component
    of the President's commitment to improving natural resource
    management in our parks. It strengthens the scientific basis of
    knowledge about our national parks. Our budget includes nearly
    $9 million to increase this program.
        The Land and Water Conservation State Grant program is a
    cornerstone of our commitment to involve State governments in
    conservation planning. Our budget requests $160 million for the
    traditional State grant program, which is a $63 million
    increase over the 2003 level enacted by Congress.
        The President's budget includes full funding for the Land
    and Water Conservation Fund at $900 million through a medley of
    programs that emphasize achieving LWCF goals through
    partnerships. We have two central resource protection goals.
    First is to leave a legacy of healthy lands by targeting our
    budget toward caring for the vast lands under our stewardship.
    Second is to extend our conservation and recreation
    achievements through partnerships.
        Through a mix of grant programs, we propose to leverage
    Federal LWCF dollars. These programs engage States, tribes, and
    other partners allowing us to achieve conservation and outdoor
    recreation goals across many lands and with many landowners.
    Through leveraging using conservation easements and other
    agreements, we are able to achieve more conservation than we
    would through fee acquisition alone.

                                 WILDLAND FIRE

        There are two problems that we need to address in an
    ongoing way. And one of those that has attracted a lot of
    attention from this committee is the problem of wildland fire.
    Last year over 7 million acres of Federal lands went up in
    flames during catastrophic wildfires. The President's healthy
    forest initiative will help us reduce decades-long buildups of
    underbrush and unnaturally dense forests.
        The budget continues a high level of funding, $186 million,
    to reduce the buildup of brush, dead vegetation, and fire-prone
    invasive species. This will allow us to reduce the risk of
    catastrophic wildfire. The best approach for the long run is in
    building public-private partnerships. Stewardship contracting
    allows us to do that. Thanks to the subcommittee's efforts, we
    now have stewardship contracting authority. We are moving
    forward with getting that in place, working with the Forest
    Service on some joint standards for those programs, and
    beginning to get our contracting going.

                                    SECURITY

        We are also investing in greater security for our monuments
    and for public lands that border Mexico and Canada. The 2004
    budget includes $46.8 million for increases in improved
    security to protect our visitors, employees, and resources.
    Over $10 million of this increase will be targeted to public
    lands located along the borders.
        An additional $34 million is slated for site security
    improvements at the Jefferson National Expansion Area in St.
    Louis, Independence National Historic Park in Philadelphia, and
    the Jefferson Memorial and Washington Monument here in
    Washington.

                                    SCIENCE

        At the foundation of all Interior's efforts is scientific
    information, and it is the cornerstone of our research
    management activities, providing a basis for decisions about
    resource protection, use, recreation, and community-based
    programs. The 2004 budget proposes a $17 million increase for
    USGS to enhance science support to Interior's bureaus to meet
    their high-priority needs and address other high-priority
    research needs, including invasive species control.
        Thank you very much for the opportunity to discuss our
    budget. We are working to better manage through partnerships.
    Our ability to leave a legacy of healthy lands and thriving
    communities depends on how well we can build those
    partnerships. Our budget sets forth the tools through which we
    can accomplish those goals.
        Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]

                      Prepared Statement of Gale A. Norton

        I am pleased to be here today before the Subcommittee on Interior
    and Related Agencies to discuss with you the fiscal year 2004 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.
        As an introduction to our 2004 budget request, I'd like to offer
    some observations about the Department's mission. We take a great deal
    of pride in our mission to:
      --Protect and manage the Nation's natural resources and cultural
            heritage;
      --Provide scientific information about those resources; and
      --Honor our special responsibilities to American Indians, Alaska
            Natives and affiliated Island Communities.
        Our responsibilities touch the lives of each individual across the
    Nation. How well we fulfill our mission influences:
      --Whether farmers will have water and people can turn on the tap;
      --Whether our children will enjoy America's grand vistas, places, and
            history;
      --Whether we can hike, bird watch, canoe, or hunt and fish in the
            great American outdoors; and
      --Whether our landscapes are healthy and our communities are
            thriving.

                                BUDGET OVERVIEW

        Our 2004 $9.8 billion budget request provides the single clearest
    statement of how we plan to honor these commitments in the upcoming
    year. It lays the foundation for us to build a legacy of healthy lands
    and thriving communities, including:
      --Resource Protection--Reflecting the Department's multiple missions,
            the budget proposes $2.5 billion to fund programs that improve
            the health of landscapes, sustain biological communities, and
            protect cultural resources.
      --Serving Communities--The budget proposal includes $5.0 billion to
            serve communities through fire protection, generation of
            scientific information, education investments for American
            Indians, and through activities to fulfill responsibilities
            toward American Indians, Alaskan natives, and the Nation's
            affiliated island communities.
      --Resource Use--Interior lands include many working landscapes where
            ranchers, energy partners, and other entrepreneurs help
            maintain thriving American communities and a dynamic economy.
            The budget includes $728 million to provide access for these
            important uses.
      --Recreation--$1.4 billion in fiscal year 2004 budget investments
            will ensure recreational opportunities for all Americans in the
            network of public lands, parks and refuges that the Department
            administers.
        In total, the 2004 budget is the largest presidential request in
    the Department's history. The 2004 request includes $9.8 billion for
    programs funded in the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations
    Act, an increase of $369.8 million or 3.9 percent over the 2003 enacted
    level. Permanent funding that becomes available as a result of existing
    legislation without further action by the Congress will provide an
    additional $3.0 billion, for a total 2004 Interior budget of $12.8
    billion. The Department anticipates that it will collect $7.8 billion
    in receipts in 2004, equivalent to 73 percent of Interior's current
    appropriations request.

                                 TRUST PROGRAMS

        Over one-half of our $369.8 million increase for 2004 will fund
    trust reform initiatives. While the overall budget request is
    approximately 3.9 percent over the fiscal year 2003 request, our fiscal
    year 2004 Indian trust budget request is almost 50 percent higher than
    what was included in the 2003 appropriations act.
        Fulfilling our Trust responsibilities remains one of the
    Department's greatest challenges. The Department has responsibility for
    the management of 100,000 leases for individual Indians and Tribes on a
    land trust that encompasses approximately 56 million acres. Leasing,
    use permits, sale revenues, and interest of approximately $226 million
    per year are collected for approximately 230,000 individual Indian
    money accounts, and about $530 million per year are collected for
    approximately 1,400 tribal accounts per year. In addition, the trust
    manages approximately $2.8 billion in tribal funds and $400 million in
    individual Indian funds.
        Interior faces many challenges in reforming the management of its
    Indian trust responsibilities. First, the Department has not been well
    structured to focus on its trust duties. Second, fractionated interests
    in individual Indian allotted land continue to expand exponentially
    with each new generation. Today, there are approximately four million
    owner interests in the 10 million acres of individually owned trust
    lands. These four million interests could expand to 10 million
    interests by 2030 unless an aggressive approach to fractionation is
    taken. There are now single pieces of property with ownership interests
    that are less than 0.000002 of the whole interest.
        Third, there are 230,000 open individual Indian money accounts, the
    majority of which have balances under $100 and annual transactions of
    less than $1,000. Interior maintains thousands of accounts that contain
    less than one dollar, and has a responsibility to provide an accounting
    to all account holders. Unlike most private trusts, the Federal
    Government bears the entire cost of administering the Indian trust. As
    a result, the usual incentives found in the commercial sector for
    reducing the number of accounts do not apply to the Indian trust.
        An increase of $114.1 million for the Office of Historical Trust
    accounting will support the Department's plan to conduct a historical
    accounting for individual Indian money accounts and to account for
    funds in Tribal accounts. On January 6, 2003, the Department presented
    a plan to the District Court in Cobell v. Norton for the historical
    accounting for about 260,000 IIM accounts. The work described in that
    Plan is expected to take five years to complete and is preliminarily
    estimated to cost approximately $335 million. The budget includes
    $130.0 million for these historical accounting activities. Funds also
    will be used to provide for historical accounting activities related to
    tribal accounts.
        The 2004 budget proposes $21.0 million for Indian land
    consolidation, an increase of $13.0 million, to expand pilot efforts to
    reduce the fractionation of individual land ownership interests into a
    nation-wide program. During 2003, we will establish a national program
    office, standardize business practices, and develop a strategic plan to
    guide expansion to more tribal reservations.
        Interior is reorganizing trust functions in BIA and OST. The new
    organization was developed after detailed analysis of the prior
    organization and a year-long consultation process with tribal leaders.
    In one of the most extensive consultation efforts ever undertaken by
    the senior management level at the Department on any issue relating to
    Indian Country, over 45 meetings with tribal leaders provided detailed
    findings and recommendations. The new organization reflects a synthesis
    of the views heard during the consultation process. It will meet
    fiduciary trust responsibilities, be more accountable at every level,
    and operate with people trained in the principles of trust management.
    The 2004 budget provides an increase of $15.0 million to support the
    new organization, which together with base funding available in BIA and
    OST will provide resources needed for the new organization in 2004.
        The proposed $183.8 million increase for trust management reforms
    includes funding to help rebuild Bureau of Indian Affairs information
    technology infrastructure to support trust and non-trust programs. The
    BIA's information infrastructure and security use outmoded hardware and
    software that do not meet lifecycle management and systems architecture
    principles, and do not comply with the security requirements of OMB
    Circular A-130 and the Government Information Security Results Act. The
    Department requests IT funding for the significant new investments
    needed to address these challenges. The 2004 budget includes increases
    of $29.6 million for a ground-up rebuilding of the BIA IT
    infrastructure to support trust, as well as non-trust programs, and
    $2.5 million for Interior-wide IT security. The proposed rebuilding
    will fit within the enterprise architecture and includes full business
    cases for proposed investments.
        The 2004 budget also proposes an increase of $4.5 million to
    accelerate a new strategy to administer, manage, search, retrieve, and
    store trust records. Reform efforts to date have improved records
    collection and security. However, recent Interior reviews have resulted
    in a reassessment of the resource requirements needed to establish
    proper records retention schedules, establish and implement record
    keeping requirements, safeguard records, implement and maintain
    training programs, and meet records-retrieval needs in an effective and
    cost-efficient way.

                      COOPERATIVE CONSERVATION INITIATIVE

        The 2004 budget lays the foundation for a legacy of healthy lands,
    presenting a blueprint for fulfilling the President's vision of a new
    environmentalism of citizen stewards and cooperative conservation.
    Building partnerships lies at the heart of this effort. Last year's
    budget proposed a Cooperative Conservation Initiative. This year, our
    budget again includes a Cooperative Conservation Initiative, structured
    around bureau Challenge Cost Share programs and other existing
    cooperative conservation grant programs.
        The Cooperative Conservation Initiative, funded at $113.2 million,
    will empower citizen stewards to conserve and protect natural
    resources, while also achieving important community and economic goals.
    The Initiative builds on existing conservation partnership programs and
    will provide new and expanded opportunities for landowners, land
    managers, and others to participate in projects that foster innovation
    and create incentives for stewardship. Our budget also provides funds
    for a public lands volunteers program.
        The 2004 CCI request builds upon Interior's long history of working
    collaboratively with others. It builds on existing conservation
    partnership programs, including the challenge cost share programs of
    the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National
    Park Service, as well as FWS's Partners for Fish and Wildlife program,
    Coastal program and Migratory Bird Joint Venture program. This
    initiative also funds a program of volunteers to increase public
    awareness of, and appreciation for, natural and cultural resource
    protection.
        The CCI request includes a $9.1 million increase for the Partners
    for Fish and Wildlife program, the largest increase ever provided to
    this program. The Fish and Wildlife Service will partner with 2,500
    additional landowners on the program's waiting list. These new
    partnerships will restore an additional 19,298 acres of wetlands;
    83,601 acres of native grasslands, forest and other uplands; and 241
    miles of riparian and in-stream habitat over 2003 levels.

                              CONSERVATION GRANTS

        The Private Stewardship grants and the Landowner Incentive Program
    recognize continuing opportunities for conservation of endangered and
    threatened species through partnerships with private landowners. The
    budget request includes $50.0 million for Private Stewardship grants
    and the Landowner Incentive program. Interest in the State portion of
    the program is high, with over 80 grant requests totaling $61.0 million
    for the program's first year.
        The 2004 budget request includes a comprehensive, partnership
    approach to meeting the President's commitment for fully funding the
    Land and Water Conservation Fund. The 2004 LWCF program includes $662.4
    million for the Department. It emphasizes conservation partnerships
    with States, Tribes, local communities, and private citizens, including
    a strong State grant program, and reduced Federal land acquisition.
    This proposal recognizes the costs of adding to the significant land
    holdings that are already managed by the Department and our commitment
    to take better care of these lands. It also recognizes the value and
    cost-effectiveness of partnerships. We can accomplish our conservation
    goals by conserving endangered and at risk species through conservation
    easements, working with private landowners to enhance habitat for
    endangered and at risk species, and other innovative partnership
    approaches.

                       CONSERVING WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES

        March 14, 2003 marks a milestone in the history of wildlife
    conservation in America-the centennial anniversary of the national
    wildlife refuge system. Reflecting the importance of this event and the
    record of conservation established through this unique system of lands
    and resources, the 2004 budget builds on last year's historic $48.4
    million budget increase for the national wildlife refuge system by
    requesting a total of $402.0 million for refuge operations and
    maintenance, an increase of $33.6 million over 2003 appropriation
    levels. The total budget request for the Fish and Wildlife Service is
    $1.3 billion.
        The Fish and Wildlife Service fisheries program has played a vital
    role in conserving and managing fish and other aquatic resources. The
    2004 budget enhances the Federal contribution to aquatic resource
    conservation partnerships, by providing $103.6 million for the FWS
    fisheries program. The request includes an $3.9 million increase for
    operation and maintenance of the national fish hatchery system's
    hatcheries, fish health centers, and fish technology centers. Also
    included is a $1.0 million increase to combat aquatic nuisance species,
    part of the larger, coordinated interdepartmental effort discussed
    below.

                               OTHER PARTNERSHIPS

        As stated earlier, the 2004 budget is based on a vision of
    partnerships and leaving a legacy of healthy lands and thriving
    communities resulting from efforts to work together across landscapes
    and across communities. The 2004 budget sets forth the tools through
    which these partnerships can flourish and leave a legacy of healthy
    lands and thriving communities
        The Department's parks, refuges, and public lands host nearly 500
    million visitors a year and provide access for economic uses,
    activities that fuel the economic engines for communities adjacent to
    our Federal lands. Recognizing that the Department's decisions can
    greatly impact these gateway communities, the Department is working in
    partnership with the people who live on the private lands that border
    these areas and developing collaborative approaches to address local
    issues.
        Everglades.--The Everglades restoration effort also affirms the
    power of partnerships. As stewards of about one-half of the remaining
    Everglades ecosystem, the Interior Department works with a broad team
    of Federal, State and local partners. In 2004, the President's budget
    includes $112.3 million for Interior Everglades activities, an increase
    of $27.8 million above 2003 enacted appropriations. The request
    includes $40.0 million to protect the Big Cypress National Preserve by
    acquiring the Collier family's mineral right holdings.
        Exemplifying the partnership approach to this restoration effort,
    the Department is building stronger coalitions to implement the
    restoration program, including:
      --Forming an advisory committee for public input to land managers in
            South Florida on a wide range of issues;
      --Providing scientific expertise to the State and the U.S. Army Corps
            of Engineers to meet the objectives of the Comprehensive
            Everglades Restoration Plan; and
      --Taking steps to ensure that appropriate quantities of water are
            distributed at the right times and in the right places to
            restore the unique Everglades ecosystem.
        Invasive Species.--The Department is participating in an
    interagency performance budget to promote invasive species management
    that is being coordinated by the National Invasive Species Council. The
    2004 budget proposes $57.5 million for the Department's portion of this
    interagency effort.
        At this funding level, Interior will participate in the control and
    management of tamarisk and giant salvinia in the southwest; conduct
    ballast water research; control and eradicate nutria in the Chesapeake
    Bay and in Louisiana; plan early detection and rapid response to
    eradicate outbreaks of sudden oak death in eastern hardwood forests of
    the central Appalachian Mountains; and develop a marine invasive
    species early detection warning system.
        Abandoned Mine Reclamation and Clean Streams.--Through partnerships
    the Office of Surface Mining is restoring streams impacted by coal
    mining. Its Clean Streams program involves State and local groups to
    enhance miles of riparian areas. The President's budget request
    includes $281.2 million for State and Federal programs to protect the
    environment during coal mining, assure prompt reclamation after mining,
    and clean up abandoned mine lands. The request will enable OSM to
    continue directly administering Federal regulatory and reclamation
    programs in States that do not operate their own surface mining
    programs as well as on Federal and Indian lands, and to reclaim 6,900
    acres of disturbed land and other hazards that threaten human health
    and welfare and environmental quality.
        Payment of Lieu of Taxes.--The President's proposal calls for
    $200.0 million for Payments in Lieu of Taxes, to compensate States for
    Federal lands that cannot be taxed by local governments. The 2004
    budget proposes to move the program from the Bureau of Land Management
    to the Departmental Management account to reflect the breadth of this
    program. The lands on which the payments are made are administered by
    the NPS, FWS, and USDA Forest Service, as well as by the Bureau of Land
    Management.

                       WILDLAND FIRE AND HEALTHY FORESTS

        Building a legacy of healthy lands and thriving communities means
    applying a healing hand to the landscape. The Department is advancing
    the President's Healthy Forests Initiative to reduce decades-long
    build-ups of underbrush and unnaturally dense forests.
        The budget proposes $698.7 million for wildfire prevention and
    suppression and Healthy Forest initiatives in fiscal year 2004. This is
    a $48.5 million, or 7.5 percent increase over last year's budget
    proposal. The request includes continued funding for a robust fuels
    treatment program at $186.2 million, 400 percent above spending in
    2000. At this funding level, the Department will treat 307,000 high
    priority acres in the wildland-urban interface and an additional
    768,000 acres that are not in the wildland-urban interface.
        The Department is also taking a number of steps to improve the
    productivity and performance of the fuels program that will help the
    Department's firefighting bureaus take maximum advantage of the
    opportunity for fuels treatment projects at the beginning of the fiscal
    year when weather and workload conditions for fuels treatments are
    optimal. The Department is accelerating project planning and selection,
    issuing policy guidance and proposed legislative language designed to
    facilitate and expand contracting in the fuels program, and issuing
    policy guidance to expedite the budget allocation process for the fuels
    program and individual projects.
        The fuels treatment program is key to restoring forests and
    rangelands to long-term health and preventing damage caused by
    catastrophic wildfires. One approach to improving forest health that
    holds promise is stewardship contracting. Stewardship contracts allow
    the private sector, non-profit organizations, and local communities to
    productively use materials generated from forest thinning.
        The 2004 budget proposal also calls for $282.7 million for fire
    preparedness, including increased funding for aviation contract costs.
    The fire suppression request of $195.3 million reflects a $36.0 million
    increase to fund suppression operations at the revised 10-year average.
    This funding level will provide resources to respond to an ``average''
    fire year without having to rely on emergency borrowing that can be
    disruptive to other Interior programs. The Department is also working
    to develop new and improved current cost control strategies for
    suppression. The budget also includes $24.5 million for rehabilitating
    burned areas. Timely stabilization and rehabilitation of severely
    burned areas are critical to prevent further damage due to erosion,
    loss of soil nutrients, and the introduction and spread of invasive
    species. The budget also continues funding for Rural Fire Assistance at
    $10.0 million. Frequently, local firefighting departments are the first
    responders to wildland fires on public lands and play a vital role in
    preventing fires from escaping initial attack and becoming
    exponentially more expensive to suppress. In 2002, the Department
    assisted 5,349 rural and volunteer fire departments through grants,
    technical assistance, training, supplies, equipment, and public
    education support.

                   HELPING TO MEET THE NATION'S ENERGY NEEDS

        Interior plays a central role in meeting the Nation's energy needs.
    Conservation, renewable energy, and traditional energy sources all play
    an intertwined role in helping the Nation meet these needs. The budget
    supports the President's and the Department's goal for increasing
    domestic energy supplies from a variety of sources, in an
    environmentally acceptable manner, with a special emphasis on
    developing renewable energy sources on Federal lands.
        The 2004 budget request includes an increase of $444,000 for
    activities on the North Slope, for a total of $8.4 million. Funding
    will support planning for sales in the National Petroleum Reserve-
    Alaska, and, if authorized, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
    Congressional authorization will be required for a lease sale to be
    conducted in ANWR.
        The budget requests an increase of $2.0 million for BLM to
    strengthen inspection and enforcement activities, targeted primarily to
    the Powder River and San Juan basins. The budget also proposes a
    $500,000 increase to expand resource monitoring to improve assessment
    of the cumulative impacts of oil and gas development, especially on
    cultural resources and species at risk.
        The 2004 budget includes $2.0 million for renewable energy
    resources. This includes an increase of $100,000 over 2003 enacted
    appropriations to support the development of geothermal, wind, and
    solar energy on public land. This is more than five times the 2002
    funding level for these programs.
        The Outer Continental Shelf is projected to produce over 25 percent
    of both the Nation's oil and natural gas in 2003. The Minerals
    Management Service is the primary steward of the mineral resources on
    the OCS. The MMS appropriations request of $171.3 million includes an
    increase of $1.6 million to meet increased workload brought about by
    the demand for Outer Continental Shelf program services in the Gulf of
    Mexico. The 2004 budget includes a total of $11.6 million, an increase
    of $2.9 million over 2003 funding levels for MMS to employ innovative
    business processes and advances in electronic technology in the
    offshore program. The budget also includes an increase of $300,000 to
    investigate the energy resource potential found in methane hydrate
    formations. The MMS will also invest an additional $3.0 million to
    operate and maintain its minerals revenue management and royalty-in-
    kind systems.
        The 2004 BIA request includes a $2.0 million increase for grants to
    Tribes to evaluate mineral resource potential on tribal trust and
    restricted lands. The request also includes $1.0 million to help Tribes
    expedite the development of tribal regulations governing mineral
    leasing and permitting, and rights-of-way of tribal lands required
    under the Energy Policy Act, 2002.

                              TAKING CARE OF PARKS

        Complementing the Department's cooperative conservation commitments
    is a continued investment in taking care of National Parks. The
    President's budget proposes a $2.4 billion budget for the National Park
    Service, an increase of $131.4 million above 2003 appropriations.
        This budget continues the Department's commitment to fulfill the
    President's pledge of addressing the maintenance backlog in National
    Parks, proposing $705.8 million this year toward this effort, an
    increase of $54.1 million, nearly an eight percent increase over 2003.
    The budget includes an increase of $16.3 million for cyclic
    maintenance. This increase will provide additional funds for regular
    maintenance activities and will help the NPS keep pace with its
    maintenance needs and prevent additional projects from becoming
    deferred. It also includes an additional $16.7 million for the repair
    and rehabilitation program and a $4.7 million increase for
    comprehensive condition assessments at parks. Data collected through
    the condition assessments will be used in 2004 to evaluate progress in
    eliminating the deferred maintenance backlog, as measured by a facility
    condition index.
        To date, our accomplishments are impressive. For example, the Many
    Glacier Hotel at Glacier National Park was built in 1914. A highly
    recognized National Landmark, this facility signifies an important
    period in the development of the National Park Service. Due to the
    harsh climate and insufficient maintenance in the past, this important
    landmark had deteriorated to a stage where emergency stabilization was
    necessary. The Department is in the process of stabilizing this
    important facility.
        But we still have more work to do. A key focus in the 2004 budget
    will be to improve park roads. Here, too, the Department is reaching
    out to partners. A signed memorandum of agreement with the Federal
    Highway Administration will help us achieve our road maintenance goals
    efficiently. The Department of Transportation's 2004 budget proposes
    $300.0 million in 2004 for Park road repair as part of the
    reauthorization of TEA-21, bringing the total park maintenance budget
    to over $1 billion.
        In the National Park Service, the Natural Resource Challenge helps
    Park managers improve resource management by strengthening the
    scientific base of knowledge about park resources. Our budget proposes
    $76.1 million, an $9.0 million increase over 2003, for the program.
    This increase will provide a three-year cumulative total increase of
    over $104 million above the 2001 level. The Natural Resource Challenge
    is an integral component of President Bush's ongoing commitment to
    improving natural resource management in Parks.

                                INDIAN EDUCATION

        No task is more important to the American community than educating
    its children. In education, the President has committed to ``leave no
    child behind.'' At Interior, this commitment centers on the 48,000
    children educated at schools operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs
    or by Tribes under BIA grants or contracts.
        The budget request for Indian education continues the President's
    commitment with a robust $528.5 million school operations budget
    request, including funding for teacher pay increases. The budget
    includes $3.0 million to establish a separate fund for new
    administrative cost grants to encourage more Tribes to exercise their
    authority to operate BIA schools by providing full funding for start-up
    costs for the first year of tribal operation of bureau-operated
    schools.
        Children deserve safe, functional places to learn. The 2004 budget
    invests $292.6 million in school facilities, including funds to replace
    at least seven high priority school facilities and to repair schools
    identified in the Indian school maintenance backlog. The President's
    goal is to eliminate the backlog by 2006.

                                   RECREATION

        With almost 500 million visits each year to the Department's lands,
    Interior provides a wide array of recreational opportunities, including
    fishing, hiking, hunting, camping, and wildlife viewing. Public lands
    managed by the Bureau of Land Management provide recreational venues
    for a growing population in the West, hosting over 60 million visitors
    annually.
        The 2004 budget requests $48.7 million to enable the Bureau of Land
    Management to continue to provide quality recreational opportunities.
    BLM will address transportation and access needs and challenges, expand
    interpretive and other visitor services, and support greater outreach
    and consultation efforts to help resolve user conflicts in the face of
    growing visitation.
        In recreation as in conservation, partnering is central to achieve
    our recreation goals. The Department depends on the contributions of
    200,000 volunteers, almost three times Interior's Federal workforce, to
    help address resource protection and public recreation needs. Over
    126,000 volunteers work in parks, the rest work in refuges, public
    lands, and other Interior sites across the country. In 2004 volunteers
    will assist NPS staff with important park projects including the Lewis
    and Clark bicentennial, the Powered Flight centennial, and the
    Jamestown 400th anniversary. The budget request proposes to increase
    funding by $1.5 million for partnership efforts and volunteer
    recruitment and training. A $1.0 million increase is aimed at
    bolstering volunteer participation and improving park capacity to
    supervise, train, and reward volunteers. An increase of $500,000 will
    allow NPS to establish full time volunteer coordinators to manage an
    expanding program.
        The Department's partnerships include working with States. Today,
    the LWCF State grant program is a cornerstone of the Secretary's
    commitment to involve State governments in conservation and recreation
    activities. This program, enacted in 1965, helps States develop and
    maintain high quality recreation areas and stimulate non-Federal
    investments in the protection and maintenance of recreation resources
    across the United States. Reflecting the President's goals, the
    Interior LWCF program seeks to promote cooperative alliances, leave
    land on State tax roles, and achieve conservation goals by emphasizing
    innovative alternatives to fee simple title purchases, such as
    conservation easements and land exchanges. This emphasis also enables
    Interior land management agencies to focus more funds on caring for
    lands already under their management.
        The President's budget fully funds the Land and Water Conservation
    Fund at $900.7 million. The LWCF proposal calls for $160.0 million in
    State grants, an increase of $62.6 million over the 2003 funding level
    enacted by the Congress.

                          LAW ENFORCEMENT AND SECURITY

        The budget requests increases for Interior's law enforcement and
    security programs. The funding would be used to hire additional law
    enforcement officers, for law enforcement agreements with States and
    localities, additional training, and physical hardening of key visitor
    sites, all of which will improve security operations Department-wide.
    The increase of $46.8 million is earmarked for strengthening law
    enforcement and security operations at Interior refuges, parks, and
    public lands, including along the U.S. borders with Mexico and Canada.
    Included within this increase is funding for site security improvements
    at the Jefferson National Expansion Area in St. Louis, Independence
    National Historical Park in Philadelphia, and the Jefferson Memorial
    and Washington Monument in Washington, D.C.

                                    SCIENCE

        All of the Department's efforts require good information.
    Scientific information is the cornerstone for Interior's natural
    resource management activities, providing a basis for making decisions
    about resource protection, resource use, recreation, and community-
    based programs. The USGS has the principle responsibility within
    Interior to provide its bureaus the earth and natural science
    information and research necessary to manage the Nation's natural
    resources.
        The President's 2004 budget proposes $895.5 million for the USGS.
    The budget includes $17.1 million in new program increases above the
    2003 conference level for high priority research needs, including
    invasive species control and management and increased capability to
    address science needs for Interior bureaus.

                                   CONCLUSION

        The Interior Department's responsibilities lie at the confluence of
    people, land, and water. The 2004 budget funds programs that support
    our broad and multiple missions. Leaving a legacy of healthy lands and
    thriving communities requires resources, creativity, and, above all,
    collaboration. The 2004 budget supports this vision of forging
    partnerships.
        This concludes my overview of the 2004 budget proposal for the
    Department of the Interior and my written statement. I will be happy to
    answer any questions that you may have.

                          HISTORICAL TRUST ACCOUNTING

        Senator Burns. Thank you, Madame Secretary.
        We have spent numerous occasions discussing your
    inheritance of one of the most frustrating court cases in
    recent memory. However, the recently released summary of the
    Ernst and Young analysis of the five lead plaintiffs' accounts
    raises questions about whether historical accounting is a wise
    use of Federal resources. If you could, would you please give
    us a quick update on the court's actions over the past few
    months, and how those actions impact your 2004 request?
        Secretary Norton. We submitted plans to the courts in
    January that set forth how we would go about doing an
    historical accounting and how we would improve the overall
    management of our trust programs to address some specific
    deficiencies identified by the court. We are preparing now for
    a trial that is set to occur starting in May that will cover
    those plans. The court will in essence be looking both at our
    plan and the plans that were submitted by the plaintiffs and
    evaluating those.
        We also have, ongoing, an appeal to the Federal Court of
    Appeals from the decision that held myself and the Assistant
    Secretary for Indian Affairs, Neil McCaleb, in contempt of
    court. The oral argument on that will take place on April 24.
        Senator Burns. What message should this committee take from
    the Ernst and Young report?
        Secretary Norton. I think it helps illustrate the
    difficulty that we have in trying to resolve these issues. On
    the one hand, we have the plaintiffs' attorneys, who are
    estimating the damages that the Department and the Federal
    Government would owe to individual Indian account holders at
    $137 billion. On the other hand, the Ernst and Young report,
    which looks at the accounts of specified individuals, found
    that there was, in reviewing approximately 2,900 transactions,
    a $60 account error. So we have a wide divergence of opinion
    about the accuracy of the books that were handled by the
    Department of the Interior over time.
        In essence, what we are doing through the historical
    accounting is verifying our bank ledgers. We have the account
    ledgers that say how much was given to individuals, how much
    was deposited, and what was received. The question is trying to
    find external documents that verify those account records. The
    court has asked us to find that external documentation.
        We submitted to you all a plan for doing a complete
    historical accounting and finding all of the documents that
    would support those transactions. That basically would have
    cost about $2.4 billion to do all of that accounting. We then
    revised that in the report that we gave to you, and the basis
    for our budget is to use statistical sampling on smaller
    transactions, as opposed to going through transaction by
    transaction.
        We will still look at all of the transactions over $5,000
    individually and in certain other categories of transactions
    and account for those in a detailed way. The others we would
    propose to use statistical sampling.
        Senator Burns. Do you see an end to this?
        Secretary Norton. Our plan would basically have us complete
    all of that accounting in 5 years. That would basically be a
    $335 million project over that time to complete that
    accounting. At that point, we would have what we view as a
    definitive answer as to how much those books might be off.
        Senator Burns. Looking at it from this perspective, we do
    not see an end to it. Either that, or we are not getting the
    right signals, or I am not smart enough to figure it out.
    Probably a combination of the two. It seems to me that this is
    something we do not know how we got into, and we have had very
    few answers on how to get out of it, until you came into
    office. I congratulate you on your commitment to straighten
    this out. I hope you have enough time to see it through to its
    completion.

                                 INDIAN SCHOOLS

        I want to ask you about the situation with the Indian
    schools. I know the President cut some funds out of Indian
    education. Then the subcommittee put them back in, especially
    this past year, we put $1.7 million back into Indian education.
    Can I get an answer to why--the enacted 2003 level was
    functionally $1.7 million over the 2002 level after an across-
    the-board reduction? That sounds confusing, but I guess up here
    people can walk their way through that.
        Despite the increase, Title I TTCs are faced with an $8-
    per-student reduction. The BIA split the reduction as follows:
    Approximately 23 percent of the total increase allocated to the
    Dine College due to Dine stance as a Title II, which is a
    boarding school; this amounted to an increase of approximately
    $60 per student. The Title I schools also sought an enrollment
    increase of approximately 300 Indian students. As a result, the
    remaining, to be put into the formula for Title I schools,
    resulted in a decrease of $8 per student in fiscal year 2003.
        I would like to know how we come up with those kinds of
    figures. Can anyone respond to that? John, can you enlighten
    us?

                          DIFFERENT FUNDING CATEGORIES

        Mr. Trezise. Senator Burns, your figures are correct. This
    is a situation that arises from the authorizing legislation
    which authorizes two categories of colleges, which are funded
    on the basis of different formulas. In addition to the colleges
    authorized in the TCC Act, we have two colleges which have
    traditionally been funded by the Congress outside of the Act,
    which are funded on yet other basis. So we have four different
    funding levels on a per-student basis.
        This is a situation, I think, that does warrant some
    consideration. Specifically with respect to 2003, though, your
    figures are correct. But I would point out that of the increase
    of $1.7 million over the 2003 enacted level, or $3.6 million
    over the President's budget, 77 percent was devoted to the
    Title I colleges. This is an increase over the President's
    budget of about $2.7 to $2.8 million.
        The per-student funding went down, despite that increase,
    because the number of students which we were expecting, which
    we actually have in school this year, in 2003, is higher than
    the student level in 2002.
        Senator Burns. It sounds like we are going to have to
    change the way we fund our colleges. I do not like the idea of
    being discriminatory one against the other. And when we try to
    do the overall good for everybody, it seems like we have not
    attained that degree of fairness.
        Senator Dorgan.
        Secretary Norton. Mr. Chairman, anticipating a question
    from Senator Dorgan, since this is all on the same topic, we
    have had some discussions previously as to the United Tribes
    Technical College. I have asked the Assistant Secretary for
    Indian Affairs, the acting Assistant Secretary, to work with
    you all. It may be appropriate to bring that college into the
    same funding category, which it is my understanding would
    require a statutory change, as well as the Crown Point
    Institute of Technology, which is the other one that has
    usually been independently funded.
        I am not familiar enough with the rest of the differences
    in the funding, but this might make sense as a time to try to
    wrap all of that into an examination of the authorizing basis
    for those appropriations.
        Senator Burns. I think you have a point. I am not versed
    enough in exactly how those stages are funded, or in what
    categories they fall. So I will have to do a little looking
    into this. It seems unfair that funds dedicated to community
    colleges found on reservations are increased or restored. And
    then what we receive per student decreases.
        I have an idea that we might have been remiss in not
    identifying where those funds were to go. So it seems that the
    ``haves'' got, and the ``have nots'' got less. I find that
    inherently unfair.
        Senator Dorgan.

                                INDIAN EDUCATION

        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
        Again, Secretary Norton, thank you for being here. Let me
    start on the point that the chairman finished with; that is,
    Indian education. First of all, I think tribal colleges are
    remarkably successful. Let me tell you about--since we take a
    lot away from these hearings, I want you to take something away
    in terms of an anecdotal story about Indian colleges.
        There is a young woman in North Dakota named Loretta that I
    have known for a good many years. Loretta Delong is her name.
    And she lived in a two-room log house on an Indian reservation.
    She stuttered. She was painfully shy, wore hand-me-down
    clothes. She was called a savage at school. And she wondered,
    you know, what it would take to be noticed. She reached the
    seventh grade. She got into all kinds of trouble. She dropped
    out of school, had a child, was involved in substance abuse.
    And she is now a Ph.D. When I see Loretta, I call her Dr.
    Delong.
        She got her life turned around and is a remarkable
    contributor to the Indian reservation on the Turtle Mountain
    Reservation. And it happened because of tribal colleges, the
    availability and opportunity for people to go to college and
    have their extended family be involved in childcare and all the
    things that allow somebody to get up and out and do something
    for themselves.
        There are many other stories. I simply mention Loretta
    because she is happy for me to do that, and I am proud of what
    she has done.

                            TRIBAL COLLEGES FUNDING

        It just makes no sense to me to be reducing the funding for
    tribal colleges at a time when we are already substantially
    short of the support per student that exists in the rest of the
    country. The Tribal College Act authorizes funding of $6,000
    per full-time Indian student. It has currently funded about
    $3,900. That is 45 percent below the $7,180 spent by the non-
    Indian community colleges. So these colleges are already
    underfunded. And this is just a recommendation that we will
    have to change, I believe.
        With respect to your point about Crown Point and United
    Tribes, it would not make much sense to me to put them into the
    rest of the tribal colleges, if the other batch is already
    underfunded. For almost a quarter of a century, we have
    provided funding for Crown Point and United Tribes, which are
    unique tribal technical colleges that serve, in the case of
    United Tribes, dozens of States' American Indian populations.
        So, I mean, the suggestion that we should put them in with
    the rest of the tribal colleges does not make sense. What is
    suggested here in the budget is let us de-fund United Tribes
    and then let us cut the other tribal colleges. My guess is you
    will say: ``Well, this is a matter of choice and priorities.''
    But would you not agree that this should be a priority, tribal
    college funding should and must be a priority, and cutting them
    at this point, when they are so far below the support that is
    given to non-Indian community colleges, that that is not a fair
    recommendation?
        Secretary Norton. Senator, if I can point out a few things.
    First of all, the tribal college funding has increased by over
    62 percent since 1993, while the enrollment has increased by 11
    percent. So there is certainly considerably more funding than
    there has been in the past. The funding for tribal colleges was
    increased by $3.6 million in the 2003 Appropriations Act, but
    our budget was formulated before that final congressional
    action. So it does not reflect that 2003 increase.
        Senator Dorgan. Would you support that increase? If the
    budget were formulated now, do you think that would be
    included? And would you support that?
        Secretary Norton. We have a couple of different things
    going on here. One is the base level of funding for that. We
    are certainly interested in working with you all for next year
    on improvements needed in our funding structure, to work on
    that approach with you.
        The other issue has been those items that have been
    earmarked from outside any authorization. That causes problems
    for us and will continue to cause problems, as I have said. It
    is much more difficult for us to fund something that does not
    have any standards, does not have a program, is simply an add-
    on to our other programs. There is no way of evaluating whether
    that is treating fairly those particular colleges in comparison
    with other colleges.
        Senator Dorgan. Yes, but you----
        Secretary Norton. We would certainly like to see something,
    and we would be very happy to work with you on something that
    would look at those on a more across-the-board kind of basis.
        Senator Dorgan. But I do not understand that. These are--
    for example, United Tribes Technical College is easily
    accredited, identified by all as a remarkable institution,
    visited by yourself and by the head of the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs. I mean, I have never heard anyone suggest this is not
    worth funding. So I understand your point about ``Let's make
    sure that we are always funding things that work,'' but there
    has never been a question that I am aware of that this is not,
    both this and Crown Point are not, good educational
    institutions. So de-funding them just makes no sense to me.
        Secretary Norton. It is a question of trying to prioritize
    our funding. And, you know, we have increased funding for
    elementary and secondary schools. We have a $16 million
    increase enacted over there. These are good programs. We do
    continue to support the funding of the tribal college programs.
    We have had to make some tough choices this year with, as you
    all have mentioned, the increased funding that we needed for
    historical accounting for Indian trust programs.

                          WILD HORSE AND BURRO PROGRAM

        Senator Dorgan. But you know what? In terms of priorities,
    I was just looking here, we have $31 million for the wild horse
    and burro management program, including Adopt-a-Horse. So $31
    million for that and $39 million for all the tribal colleges in
    America? I mean, I am not sure I understand that.
        In terms of choices, I want us to make good choices and
    right choices. And it is not the right choice to de-fund United
    Tribes Technical College. And it is not the right choice to
    come in with a funding recommendation that is below what the
    tribal colleges received last year. There is bipartisan
    support. Senator Domenici is not here, but you know he would be
    more aggressive than I am even on these issues. And I know the
    chairman feels the same way.
        So I understand your point about choices, but it is very
    important to make the right choices. And I think Indian
    education is very important.
        Senator Burns. Do you want to switch that money from the
    burros over to schools?
        Senator Dorgan. Well, I tell you what I am going to do. I
    did not even know about the program until I was reading last
    evening. I am trying to go through. This is a big agency, as I
    said. You have quite a job, a lot of things. And I was not
    aware that the wild horse--I knew we had a wild horse and burro
    management. I also knew that we had an Adopt-a-Horse program.
    But I did not know we spent $31 million on it. And I do not
    know how many horses there are, but I am going to divide the
    number of horses into the $31 million to find out how much per
    horse we are spending. Because I used to raise horses. My dad
    used to raise horses. And, in fact, the program in here talking
    about gentling horses, I do not think anybody in Montana has
    ever uttered that, nor have we in North Dakota. You do not
    gentle horses; you break horses. I would like to know what they
    are spending on gentling horses, because we have some young men
    and women in North Dakota who will do that pretty cheaply and
    do it pretty well. And I suppose in Montana you have some as
    well.
        But at any rate, my point is not to--I love horses. I have
    not been around burros much, so I cannot profess any love for
    burros. But I do want to find out how much per animal we are
    spending here and how we are spending----
        Senator Burns. I saw one on your jacket the other day.
        Senator Dorgan. Is that right?
        They call it donkey where I come from.
        Senator Burns. Oh, yes.

                      NORTHWEST AREA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT

        Senator Dorgan. It would not be fair to you if I did not
    mention the NAWS funding. That is not the province of this
    subcommittee, but it is in your agency. And you will appear
    before another subcommittee of mine on this. But as you know,
    the folks in Minot, North Dakota, and northwestern North Dakota
    are really upset, and that is a mild way of saying it, upset
    about the proposal not to fund NAWS.
        We have had the groundbreaking. Construction is under way.
    And the proposal is to stop that by, I understand, the Office
    of Management and Budget with a new program. It is called PART,
    I believe it is. Is it PART? And I am not doing this--what does
    PART mean?
        Secretary Norton. Program Assessment Rating Tool.
        Senator Dorgan. Right. I am involved in a formal program
    assessment rating of the Office of Management and Budget. And I
    have just a preliminary estimate of that. And it really does
    not look good for OMB.
        But no one has suggested, for example, that the NAWS
    program, which is, as I said, under construction, is anything
    other than a stellar program and the continuation of a promise
    that was made to the people of North Dakota as a result of
    being willing to host a half-a-million-acre flood that came and
    stayed. And then just out of the blue we discovered this de-
    funding because of PART, I believe, from OMB. So tell me again,
    how does OMB justify recommending we not fund this program?
        Secretary Norton. There are several factors that went into
    their rating tool. One of the things that they looked at was
    the difference between the number of people served per million
    dollars under this program compared to other Federal agency
    programs. They found that the Bureau of Reclamation, on
    average, serves 363 people per million dollars, whereas the
    USDA program serves almost 1,800 people. EPA serves almost
    1,700 people. So that was one of their concerns as to why
    Interior's program was different than those other programs.

                    RURAL WATER PROGRAM LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL

        We are moving forward to address some of the problems that
    were identified in terms of lack of goals and consistency in
    the program. We do have underway a legislative proposal being
    developed that would establish a reclamation rural water
    program with adequate controls and clear guidelines for project
    development.
        It would provide a two-pronged approach that involves
    pursuing new general authority for reviewing, planning,
    prioritization, and construction of rural water projects,
    combined with administrative measures that would improve the
    program. It would eliminate the piecemeal approach that we
    currently experience. As we have discussed previously, there is
    no overarching rural water program that the Bureau of
    Reclamation has through which we have standardized funding or
    standardized approaches. That was one of OMB's concerns, that
    we try to put that in place instead of doing piecemeal
    projects.
        This legislative proposal would provide that type of
    overarching program. It would allow the Department and the
    administration to set priorities and control the process and
    would thereby limit the problems that were identified by OMB.
    It would also involve other interested parties in the planning,
    design, and construction of rural water supply projects.
        Although this is still in the formative stages, we will be
    happy to work with you on further developing that overarching
    program.
        Senator Dorgan. Well, let me understand this because when a
    project is underway or under construction, and the
    groundbreaking has taken place and, therefore, we have a
    project under construction, it seems to me you stop that
    project only if you believe that project is not worthy. Is the
    administration suggesting that the NAWS project is not a worthy
    project?
        Secretary Norton. The evaluation that was done was based on
    identification of goals and seeing whether we were meeting the
    goals of the project. It is the same kind of evaluation that is
    taking place on Federal programs across the board. Based on
    that approach, OMB found that this particular program fared
    more poorly than other programs. They made the choice to put
    the funding into the programs that did better in this kind of
    an approach.
        Senator Dorgan. But the distinction here is you are using
    the word ``program,'' not project. The OMB described this
    program as not meeting certain goals. It made no such judgment
    about this project. Is that not correct?
        Secretary Norton. This was based on, as we said, an overall
    assessment of the effectiveness of this rural water project or
    several rural water projects. It combines with an evaluation of
    those in comparison to other departments' similar programs.
        Senator Dorgan. Has Governor Hoven talked to you about this
    issue?
        Secretary Norton. Yes, he has.
        Senator Dorgan. It is interesting to me, if you look at the
    map, about where these cuts came. I will talk to you more about
    that in the other subcommittee. But I am still not
    understanding. I guess you are saying something to me that is
    different now than what you said when you testified before the
    Energy Committee. I think you are saying----
        Secretary Norton. I am saying we have made progress in
    getting some of these problems resolved.
        Senator Dorgan. At which point would you then recommend
    continuing funding of a project that is under construction?
        Secretary Norton. Once we get this in place, we would be
    focusing on fiscal year 2005 and working with you on getting
    legislation put in place and then work on funding things on
    that legislation.
        Senator Dorgan. So the administration's recommendation is
    that even if this project is finally determined to be worthy,
    that we should delay it for a year?

                           PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING

        Secretary Norton. The findings of the program assessment
    rating are that we need to look at those programs that are
    working, that are providing what they are supposed to provide,
    and to fund the things that are working. And this, by having
    come out low on that rating, by not having clearly-defined
    goals, means that we are going forward with something that is
    not coming out as high on providing value to the taxpayers.
        Senator Dorgan. But let me just--Mr. Chairman, I do not
    know what your time situation is, but I do want to just finish
    this point.
        You know, Montana and North Dakota did not rush to
    Washington to ask if we could host some floods in reservoirs
    and so on. I mean, we did not beg Washington to have a Rhode
    Island-sized flood come in North Dakota and stay there forever.
    Washington asked us to be the host to a permanent flood of half
    a million acres. So they built the dam, and we have a permanent
    flood.
        They said: ``In exchange for that, we will give you some
    benefits.'' And, I mean, we would be crazy to say: ``Well,
    bring this flood. And by the way, it will be no cost. We will
    just lose half a million acres of land,'' good bottom land, by
    the way.
        But the Federal Government said: ``No, no. We will give you
    some benefits.'' And we said: ``All right. That is a fair
    trade,'' except we got the flood but never quite got all the
    benefits.
        The NAWS program, the Northwest Area Water Supply, program
    is part of that. And for anybody to suggest to me that because
    there are fewer people in North Dakota that it somehow does not
    quite measure up, I mean, I think that is nuts. If that is what
    OMB is saying, I am sorry, tell them to go back and read a
    little history. We know we do not have as many people as New
    York City does, but we know what the promise was. And the
    people in North Dakota deserve good quality water.
        Here, incidently, is a sample of the water. And some of it
    looks like coffee. This is actually a little better looking.
    But this is the kind of water we are trying to replace with the
    NAWS program. And we do not want to wait another year, and we
    are not going to wait another year. And I think what OMB has
    done to us is a disaster. I mean, there is no excuse for what
    the Office of Management and Budget has done. We want this
    funded. We want it funded now. And we do not want to wait a
    year. And I do not want somebody telling me they are going to
    change the rules after we have already begun construction and
    after the promise has been made.
        So you and I will have other discussions about it. But you
    are probably just required to defend OMB and defend this
    budget. But I hope you know that what has happened in this
    budget, at least with respect to this project, is fundamentally
    wrong. And it is unfair to the people of North Dakota, who have
    been told this project is going to help them get a good supply
    of quality water.
        One additional point--do you want to respond to that?
        Secretary Norton. I think we have had a number of
    conversations about this. So----
        Senator Dorgan. And we will talk again in the other
    subcommittee.

                                    OVERHEAD

        But one other point: I am very interested in pursuing with
    a range of agencies the issue of how much in each agency is
    represented by ``overhead.'' And that comes from a 1993
    Presidential directive that asks all Federal agencies to
    determine what their overhead was. Almost no Federal agencies
    have complied with that. And I have been involved with some
    others in trying to make sure that we do force Federal agencies
    to comply.
        The reason is simple. If we have to tighten our belt, and I
    believe we do, I believe we are going to have to cut some
    Federal spending. If we do that, I would prefer that we begin
    to cut where businesses would cut. The first thing they would
    cut is some overhead, some travel, some administrative burden.
    But the fact is we cannot get at that in any of the Federal
    agencies because they do not determine what their overhead is.
        I would like, at least in this subcommittee, to ask you to
    work with us to try to, for this agency, comply with the
    Federal direction of 1993, which has not been complied with.
    And I am not blaming your agency, because no agency has
    complied with it. But I hope that we can work together to
    understand what is the overhead burden, what is the
    administrative overhead burden, in these agencies, your agency
    and the various component parts of your agency.
        I think it is important because, Mr. Chairman, as we begin
    taking a look at funding levels, I would much prefer that we
    fund critically needed programs such as Indian colleges, rather
    than fund overhead that could well be cut in lean or in tough
    times.
        Secretary Norton. Senator, if I could say, that is a very
    good question to ask. And it is something that has, frankly,
    been frustrating for us as well. When you come in and say,
    ``Okay, here is the box of a program. Can't we look within that
    box and figure out what is being spent that really does not
    need to be spent?'' The way our accounting is currently
    operating throughout most of the Department, we really cannot
    see how much is actually spent on particular types of things.

                             ACTIVITY BASED COSTING

        We are now moving towards something called activity-based
    accounting or activity-based costing that will let us
    understand that. And it will require each of the bureaus to say
    not just ``We budgeted for this program and we spent it all,''
    but ``Here is what we spent on travel. Here is what we spent on
    printing. Here is what we spent on litigation,'' all the
    different categories of expenditures.
        That is something that is currently in place for the Bureau
    of Land Management, and we are getting it into place for our
    other bureaus. I think that will be very helpful for all of us
    in trying to better manage.
        We have also just implemented an across-the-board cut in
    travel expenditures. So we are addressing some of those things.
        Senator Dorgan. All right. Well, Madame Secretary, I am not
    perpetually crabby. It is just that I feel very strongly about
    tribal colleges, UTTC, about NAWS and some other issues. And I
    look forward to working with you on these issues. And can we
    work together to find out what we spend per horse and per mule,
    just for fun?
        Senator Burns. You are not going to like that figure.
        Senator Dorgan. Actually more than just for fun. I think we
    ought to know that, just as policymakers.
        Secretary Norton. We will provide that information for you.
        [The information follows:]

                          Wild Horse and Burro Program

        For 2004, the BLM budget proposes $29.4 million to manage a wild
    horse and burro population estimated at 57,000. This would represent a
    cost-per-animal average of $516 per year. This total population
    estimate includes 38,000 on the open range, and 19,000 in what BLM
    refers to as the ``National Pipeline'', including 10,155 in
    sanctuaries, 4,656 in maintenance facilities, and 4,303 in preparation
    facilities. The budget supports such activities as monitoring
    populations on the open range, gathers, holding costs, adoption
    activities, and compliance checks.

        Senator Burns. You are not going to like that horse figure.
    I will tell you that. We have been involved in that over in
    Montana. As you know, some of those wild horses and burros come
    from that part of the country. And I will tell you, it is
    something. I have some special projects in Montana.

                             POWDER RIVER BASIN EIS

        We have an 11:15 conference coming up, Madame Secretary.
    And I want to make that, I think all of us are involved in this
    budget thing. Though, there are a couple of questions I want to
    ask. We have been following the multi-year effort by the BLM on
    the environmental impact statement in the Powder River Basin.
    This has to do with coal bed methane. We want the EIS to be
    completed in a comprehensive and responsible way. Could you
    update us on the status of that EIS? And when can we expect any
    kind of a record of decision?
        Secretary Norton. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that
    that is expected to be completed later this month.
        Senator Burns. I assume you have all the resources that you
    need to complete this and to get it off the board?
        Secretary Norton. We have requested increases in this 2004
    budget proposal for taking care of that, including inspection
    and monitoring.

                            STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTING

        Senator Burns. Let me also ask you about standardizing the
    Forest Service and Department of the Interior stewardship
    programs. Will you be using the same book in your procedures,
    and everything else in the stewardship contracting? Tell me how
    that is coming along.
        Secretary Norton. We have had a great working relationship
    with the Forest Service throughout our fire program. It is my
    understanding that that is nearly completed to get the program
    that the Forest Service has already been operating tuned so
    that it can also accommodate our Department of the Interior
    needs.
        Senator Burns. Will you be offering some stewardship
    contracts this year?
        Secretary Norton. We certainly expect to be doing that very
    quickly. In fact, can I let Lynn Scarlett respond to that? She
    has been involved very directly in our fire management program.
        Senator Burns. Please.
        Ms. Scarlett. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We are working with the
    Forest Service and all our land management agencies to develop
    the operating guidelines and principles for the stewardship
    contract. We expect that to be completed this month. That will
    give us the basis from which to move forward on contracts right
    away. So yes, it is very much in our plans.
        Senator Burns. In the areas where you have large
    concentrations of forest lands, rather than grazing lands, do
    you have any kind of assessment of what kind of fire season you
    are looking at? And conditions, how are you looking in that
    respect? Give Congress an idea of some of the challenges that
    we may have to meet later on this summer.
        Ms. Scarlett. Well, I have copies of the recent drought
    maps. We get these every week. And I feel very optimistic,
    because the drought map in the last couple of weeks has
    improved dramatically over where it was in early March.
    Unfortunately, in preparation for this hearing, I looked at the
    drought map for this year in comparison with the drought map
    for last year. We are generally much worse across the western
    United States than we were last year. And especially in your
    area of Montana, we see a tremendous drought that is now a
    multi-year drought. So we are very concerned.
        Senator Burns. We are in a different weather pattern up
    there. We are hoping that June will bring the normal--where we
    have a little more snowpack than we had a year ago, I can tell
    you that. Our rains and moisture have been a little bit better
    this spring. We just hold our breath and make sure our Junes
    turn out the way traditional Junes do, and we will be okay.

                       ZORTMAN/LANDUSKY MINE RECLAMATION

        In another area, 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
    reclamation. But the BLM and State DEQ joint SEIS recommends
    reclamation exceeding this bond of approximately $33 million
    over that bond number. $11 million is still needed to
    supplement a trust, ensuring the water treatment facilities. It
    can be operated in perpetuity.
        It is my understanding that the Montana BLM office
    identified this project as a top priority and requested
    increased funding in its fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004
    budget to address these reclamation needs. Additionally, this
    committee directed the Bureau to consider the project in the
    formulation of the 2004 and 2005 budget requests. Why did the
    Department not include this request in its final proposal in
    the 2004 budget? And can you identify funding for your current
    budget request to support these activities? In other words, are
    you going to put some money into this?
        Secretary Norton. Let me defer to John Trezise. But I think
    we will have to get the detailed answer for you in writing.
        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, before he answers, I have to
    run off to the Energy Committee markup.
        Senator Burns. Okay.
        Senator Dorgan. So let me thank the Secretary and the
    Secretary's staff for being here.
        Secretary Norton. Thank you.
        Senator Burns. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Dorgan.
    Appreciate it. You can vote for me.
        Senator Dorgan. I will do that. Careful what you ask for.
        Senator Burns. All right.
        Mr. Trezise. Senator Burns, this is a very difficult
    problem and obviously one where a great deal of work is needed
    to restore the Zortman/Landusky site and address the water
    quality problems associated with the site. Work is currently
    ongoing, of course, using the bond that was posted by the
    mining company. Unfortunately, the bond is not adequate to
    cover all costs, especially the long-term costs. The water
    monitoring costs we will face for many decades.
        As you say, the Montana office did recommend significant
    funding in the 2003 and 2004 budgets for this project. We at
    the Department and the Bureau headquarters are working with the
    Montana State office to look at all the options about how we
    can address this issue, both in the short term and, more
    importantly, in the long term, which is where the bond money is
    really going to be a problem. I think it would be useful for
    the Bureau to come up and talk to you later in the spring about
    the progress they have made in looking at options.
        Senator Burns. Well, we look forward to that visit. Also, I
    was talking to the tribal leaders at Fort Belknap, and they
    want to have a meeting with you. They have not been able to
    secure one, Madame Secretary. I would suggest you sit down with
    the tribal leaders at Fort Belknap, go through some of the
    concerns they have. Because they are in that drainage area off
    of Zortman, not only on water, but also on land issues. I would
    like for you to meet with them, if you possibly could.
        Secretary Norton. I will try to make sure that somebody who
    is familiar with the issues and can actually perhaps address
    them better than I can is able to meet with them.
        Senator Burns. I would suggest you sit in on the meeting,
    but take your experts with you. That is the way we do things,
    just a little hint.
        Okay. We have more questions for you, and I am going to put
    those in letter form. We would like to have a response.
        We are looking at the overall funding. And, of course, we
    do not know what is going to finally come out of the budget.
    But we hope to have a budget. That is what that conference is
    about at 11:15 today. We are going to talk about Going to the
    Sun Road in Glacier Park, and also some Forest Service, and
    stuff with fuel loads on our forest floors.
        There is a reauthorization of the SMCRA activities, Surface
    Mining Control and Reclamation Act. And, of course, surface
    mining and State regulatory grants. We will put these in
    question form. We will need your response before we finally go
    to final markup on the Interior side of this bill.
        Secretary Norton. We will be happy to provide you that
    information.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Burns. Okay. We appreciate you coming this morning.
    And we will leave the record open for questions, from other
    committee members.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Conrad Burns

                             SMCRA REAUTHORIZATION

        Question. The authority of OSM to collect the abandoned mine
    reclamation fee established under the Surface Mining Control and
    Reclamation Act (SMCRA) expires on September 30, 2004. Many states out
    West have paid a great deal in these fees which go into the Abandoned
    Mine Reclamation fund abut have not received back anywhere near what we
    put in. For example, Montana has paid in over $266 million but has only
    gotten back about $100 million.
        What is the Administration's position with respect to extending the
    authority to collect this fee?
        Answer. The Administration is seeking to extend fee collections
    beyond September 30, 2004. We think that additional funds are necessary
    to address the many remaining health and safety problems threatening
    our citizens who live and recreate in coal country. OSM hopes to craft
    a proposal that will concentrate funding on the highest priority
    abandoned mine land problems affecting the largest number of people. We
    have been working with our stakeholders (the States and Indian tribes,
    as well as environmental groups, industry and members of Congress) to
    develop an extension proposal.
        Question. If you propose to extend SMCRA, does the Administration
    support keeping the fee the same or will you propose increasing it?
        Answer. The President's Budget assumed the extension of the fee at
    its current rate. However, we continue to refine the proposal.
        Question. Will there be anything in the proposal to deal with
    states that have paid in a great deal but have not gotten much back?
        Answer. The Administration is reviewing several options for paying
    out AML funds to the States. States which have certified the completion
    of coal mine land reclamation, like Montana, are of particular concern
    to us. Our records show that as of September 30, 2002, over $275
    million in AML fees has been collected from mining operators for coal
    mined in Montana. Under SMCRA, 50 percent of those collections, or over
    $137 million, are State Share funds targeted for projects in Montana,
    of which $95 million has been distributed to the State of Montana for
    grants. The remaining State share balance of $42.5 million is a
    concern, and we hope to find ways to provide the payment of such funds
    to Montana and to the other certified States.
        Question. When will the Administration send its proposal to
    Congress?
        Answer. We're working diligently to develop recommendations for
    Congress. We hope to have something ready by mid-summer.

                            STATE REGULATORY GRANTS

        Question. As you know, the Office of Surface Mining provides grants
    to states on a 50/50 cost share basis to regulate mining in their
    states. This is a good deal for the Federal government, since if the
    states did not regulate surface mining the Federal government would be
    required to do it and pay 100 percent of these costs. I see that the
    budget request for this activity is $57.6 million but that the states
    asked for $64.4 million.
        If we don't fund the full amount asked for by the states will it
    lead to any serious problems such as legal challenges to state programs
    based on their inability to carry out their regulatory requirements?
        Answer. The amount requested in the President's Budget is a slight
    increase from fiscal year 2003, and OSM believes that the requested
    total will be sufficient to assist the States/Tribes. OSM is concerned
    about the States and Tribes having adequate funding to meet their
    requirements and will work with each individual State and Tribe to
    ensure that their program needs are met. OSM will continue to closely
    monitor the State programs, and State and Tribal funding requests and
    expenditures, to identify and resolve any concerns.
        Question. Do you expect that any states will turn the regulatory
    program back over to the Federal government due to lack of funding?
        Answer. OSM is not currently aware of any specific State or Tribe
    seriously considering giving up regulatory primacy due to lack of
    funding. We agree that it is possible that if funding were inadequate,
    States might pursue this option. As previously mentioned, OSM will
    continue to work with each State and Tribe to ensure that their
    regulatory program needs are met.
        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.

                              MMS ROYALTY-IN-KIND

        Question. I see that MMS has greatly expanded its use of the
    Royalty-In-Kind authority. Currently, over 80 percent of the oil
    production from the Gulf of Mexico is taken ``in kind'' in order to
    fill up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR).
        How long will it take for MMS to fill up the SPR?
        Answer. The SPR Fill Initiative is a joint project of the
    Department of Energy (DOE) and the Department of the Interior (DOI) to
    fill the remaining capacity of the SPR utilizing RIK oil from Federal
    leases in the Gulf of Mexico. For the majority of RIK oil committed to
    the SPR Initiative, the DOI is responsible for supply side logistics of
    taking the oil RIK at offshore leases and accomplishing delivery of the
    oil to the account of the DOE at onshore market centers. The DOE is
    responsible for taking onshore custody of the RIK oil and, through
    exchange contracts, accomplishing the actual delivery and physical fill
    at the SPR sites. Approximately 10 percent of RIK production is
    directly transported from offshore leases to the DOE at an SPR site.
        At current RIK delivery rates, the MMS expects to complete the RIK
    oil supply side deliveries to the DOE's account by the end of fiscal
    year 2005. However, the completion of supply side deliveries could be
    delayed somewhat due to interruptions of production caused by
    hurricanes and pipeline operation issues or by declines in physical
    production at the leases.
        Question. After SPR is filled, does the agency plan to continue to
    take the bulk of its Gulf of Mexico royalty production ``in kind''
    rather than ``in value?''
        Answer. The MMS has adopted an asset management strategy in
    administering mineral revenues. A key aspect of this strategy is the
    strategic utilization of two asset management options--royalty-in-value
    or RIK--for the purpose of increasing benefits to the Government. One
    of the important determinants in making the decision on which option to
    utilize is the opportunity to increase revenues to the Treasury.
    Because the oil markets play an important role in the economics of the
    decision making process, it is difficult to forecast how much of the
    Gulf of Mexico oil royalties will be taken in kind in fiscal year 2006.
    However, the MMS will be well positioned to continue to have a
    significant RIK program in the Gulf of Mexico that includes small
    refiners and competitive sales.
        Question. Since taking the royalty ``in kind'' eliminates, for the
    most part, questions over how to value the oil, does the agency believe
    that expanding the RIK program makes sense over the long term?
        Answer. The results of the current RIK program to fill SPR have
    been positive from the standpoint of taking oil in kind. However, we
    have not traded this oil for value on the open market. Therefore, we
    don't know if we can increase revenues to the Treasury. We continue to
    evaluate the RIK efforts; if the results continue to be positive, we
    believe there is a good future for the RIK program.

                       OIA/STATUS OF COMPACT NEGOTIATIONS

        Question. The current Compact of Free Association between the
    United States and the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of
    Micronesia expires at the end of this fiscal year. Negotiations have
    been going on for some time regarding a new Compact between the
    parties. Once these negotiations are concluded Congress will need to
    pass legislation to put the new Compact into effect. I am concerned
    that time is running out to get this legislation through the Congress
    by the end of the fiscal year.
        When will parties reach agreement on a legislative package that
    will be sent to the Congress?
        Answer. The State Department has generally reached agreement with
    the freely associated states and, in fact, a signing ceremony was
    concluded with the Republic of the Marshall Islands. The package has
    been transmitted to Congress.
        Question. Does the Administration have a plan if there is further
    delay and the new Compact can't be enacted by Congress before the end
    of the fiscal year?
        Answer. While it is not considered a good alternative, the
    Administration is prepared to deal with such an eventuality. There is
    sufficient budget authority in the President's fiscal year 2004
    proposal to work with the Congress on various options. In developing
    these options, it is extremely important to the Administration that the
    essence of the new agreement, including greater accountability and more
    targeted use of U.S. assistance, be incorporated. It is also important
    to the Administration that options deal with the problem of impacts to
    U.S. insular areas and, finally, that any considered options not be
    viewed as a disincentive to the quickest possible implementation of the
    new agreements.
                  fws/consultation on fuels reduction projects
        Question. A critical part of the National Fire Plan is the effort
    to reduce hazardous fuels on our forests and rangelands. Many of these
    projects require consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service under
    the Endangered Species Act before they can be implemented. In order to
    ensure adequate resources to accomplish this work, the Committee gave
    the Forest Service and other Interior Department agencies the ability
    to transfer fire funds to the Fish and Wildlife Service for
    consultations on these projects.
        How is this effort proceeding?
        Answer. The Service developed a cooperative agreement with the
    Bureau of Land Management shortly after passage of the fiscal year 2001
    appropriations bill to provide reimbursement for any consultation
    support provided to DOI bureaus in support of the National Fire Plan. A
    similar agreement was executed with the Forest Service shortly after
    passage of Public Law 107-13. Beginning in fiscal year 2001, the Fish
    and Wildlife Service recruited approximately 65 temporary/term
    employees to support an anticipated consultation workload increase
    associated with the National Fire Plan. The highest priority work for
    these new employees is to provide ESA consultation support to the
    Forest Service and DOI fire management agencies.
        Question. Has the Fish and Wildlife Service put in place adequate
    resources to ensure that fuels reduction projects receive their
    consultations in a timely manner?
        Answer. Yes. The biologists hired in fiscal year 2001 and 2002 to
    provide consultation services to the fire management agencies have been
    sufficient to respond to the consultation workload generated by
    projects supporting the National Fire Plan. We are not aware of any
    significant delays to National Fire Plan projects that were caused by
    section 7 consultations; however, some non-National Fire Plan projects
    may have been delayed as a result of the Service diverting consultation
    resources to National Fire Plan projects. On June 5, 2003, we proposed
    Joint Counterpart Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation
    Regulations to help streamline the National Fire Plan consultation
    process and increase the Service's capability to help focus on these
    non-National Fire Plan actions (68 Federal Register 33805).
        Question. How much money has been transferred to the agency for
    this work?
        Answer. To date, the USFS has made $7,500,000 available to the
    Service, and the BLM, $8,000,000.

                             GOING-TO-THE-SUN ROAD

        Question. The fiscal year 2003 bill included additional funds for
    staff and equipment at Glacier National Park. These funds will
    hopefully enable the Park to open the Going-to-the-Sun Road as quickly
    and as safely as possible each spring. Can you tell me whether these
    additional resources will be in place in time to have an impact on this
    year's road opening? Are funds included in the fiscal year 2004 budget
    to continue these enhanced operations next year?
        Answer. Glacier National Park staff has already begun seven-day-a-
    week operations on the west side of the Going-to-the-Sun Road. East
    side seven-day-a-week operations began May 10, 2003. In terms of
    equipment, Glacier NP has already contracted for an excavator to be
    used for snow removal this year. In addition, the park is leasing two
    additional pieces of snow removal equipment for this season. As part of
    the initiative to assure employee and visitor safety, the park will be
    procuring a GIS location system with funds received from Congress this
    fiscal year. Finally, this effort at Glacier NP is part of an overall,
    ongoing strategy to better manage the opening of the Going-to-the-Sun
    Road and the above-stated efforts will continue into fiscal year 2004
    and beyond.
        Prior to the enactment of the fiscal year 2003 bill, the fiscal
    year 2004 request identified a $500,000 operating increase for the
    Spring opening of Going-to-the-Sun Road. This recurring funding was
    included within the additional park funding provided by Congress for
    fiscal year 2003 and continues in fiscal year 2004 and beyond.
        Question. I know the Administration's budget request projects an
    increase for the park roads program to $300 million in fiscal year 2004
    as part of the reauthorization of TEA-21. Is it your understanding that
    this amount will be sufficient to complete the Going-to-the-Sun Road
    rehabilitation in a timely manner?
        Answer. The President's Budget for fiscal year 2004 articulated a
    Park Roads and Parkways Program (PRPP) funding level for National Park
    Service (NPS) of $300 million in fiscal year 2004, $310 million in
    fiscal year 2005, and $320 million annually in fiscal year 2006-2009.
    This would nearly double current funding levels of $165 million
    annually. Part of President Bush's ``Park Legacy Project'' is to
    address the NPS backlog of maintenance needs across the Service. A
    significant portion of the backlog is in roads.
        The NPS seeks to continue the progress made under the
    Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) to restore,
    build, and reshape its transportation system, by giving priority and
    focus to the following categories:
      --Category I ($270-$310 million/annually).--Restores the condition of
            the existing roads to ``good,'' system wide. Supports President
            Bush's commitment to address the NPS deferred maintenance
            backlog. Deploys sound asset management strategies to optimize
            life cycle cost.
      --Category II ($3-$10 million/annually).--Builds the next logical
            phase of the Congressionally mandated parkways. Continues
            construction of the Foothills Parkway ``missing link'' and
            begins the construction of multi-use trails around three urban
            areas along the Natchez Trace Parkway.
      --Category III ($20 million/annually).--Continues to plan and build
            alternative transportation systems. Deploys integrated visitor
            transportation systems using a combination of technologies,
            facilities, and community transport management strategies.
        Historically, these categories are administrative in nature only
    and are not legislatively directed to allow maximum flexibility to move
    dollars across categories to facilitate high annual obligation rates
    and to meet emergency and/or critical Service-wide priorities.
        Rebuilding the Going-to-the-Sun Highway is a complex multi-million
    and multi year-construction event with an identified need of some $150-
    $180 million. Much of this need goes beyond bridge and pavement
    condition. Latest studies reflect an ambitious schedule that would take
    approximately $18-$25 million annually over some eight years.
        Category I funds are distributed by formula based on miles,
    condition, average daily traffic and traffic accidents. The logic is to
    deploy sound asset management strategies to spend the dollars at the
    right time and at the right place to get the best return on available
    funds. The Service has many parks with large road maintenance needs.
    The Administration's proposed $270-$310 million annually means the
    Intermountain Region will receive some $60-$70 million annually, an
    increase of $30 to $35 million over the current level. Accordingly, the
    NPS is challenged with making headway with such large park needs as the
    Going-to-the-Sun Highway rehabilitation while balancing the mix of
    projects across the Service and Intermountain Region so as to not
    compromise President Bush's commitment to address the deferred
    maintenance backlog and ensure the system is in ``good'' condition
    system wide.
        The President's Budget would provide significant funding for the
    Going-to-the-Sun Road at a rate about as fast as could be efficiently
    obligated. Even at this accelerated rate, however, such an extensive
    project would be in all probability pushed past the end of the next
    Highway Trust Fund Reauthorization (fiscal year 2009).
        Question. Will the Administration's legislative proposal for TEA-21
    reauthorization include language that specifically addresses the needs
    of large projects like the Going-to-the-Sun Road?
        Answer. Currently, the Administration's legislative proposal for
    Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) reauthorization
    has not been completed and formally submitted to Congress. We
    understand the package will be forwarded in the middle of May 2003.
        The Administration's legislative proposal does not include specific
    language for large projects. The funding for the Park Roads and
    Parkways Program (PRPP) has historically not been legislatively
    identified for a specific area or category to allow flexibility across
    categories to facilitate high annual obligation rates and meet
    emergency and/or critical Service-wide priorities. The PRPP has been
    guided by program goals such as keeping the system from further
    deteriorating, completing four of the six Congressionally mandated
    parkways and completing pilot parks to explore and implement
    alternative transportation systems. The NPS has proposed to continue to
    focus on these three areas with the dollars made available. Given the
    large increases proposed, the PRPP will be able to address the needs of
    large projects, like the Going-to-the-Sun Road, without requiring
    specific language.

                       FORT PECK RESERVATION/DRY PRAIRIE

        Question. It is my understanding that the Office of Management and
    Budget has completed its review of the engineering report for the Ft.
    Peck/Dry Prairie water project in Montana.
        How soon will the engineering report be transmitted to Congress?
        Answer. The Final Engineering Report was transmitted to Congress in
    a letter signed by the Assistant Secretary for Water and Science on May
    6, 2003.
        Question. Will the Department be in a position to obligate funds
    this year? If not, why not?
        Answer. The likelihood is high that funds can be obligated this
    fiscal year. Contracts have been negotiated for obligation of funds and
    work plans are being developed by Fort Peck Tribe and by Dry Prairie.
    Funds may then be obligated for non-construction activities, a process
    that may take about a month to complete. Funds for construction
    activities may be obligated in August/September of 2003, which is after
    the Final Engineering report sits for a mandatory 90 days from the time
    it was transmittal to the Congress (May 6, 2003).
        Question. Can you tell me why no funds were requested for this
    project in the fiscal year 2004 budget request?
        Answer. It has been Reclamation's position, as articulated by the
    Commissioner of Reclamation on this and other rural water projects,
    that, given limited funding, Reclamation does not support starting
    construction of new projects to the detriment of projects already under
    construction.

                         PRESIDENT'S MANAGEMENT AGENDA

        Question. Pursuant to the President's Management Agenda, the
    Department has been studying whether or not it makes sense to outsource
    certain Federal jobs.
        Can you tell us where you are in the process?
        Answer. DOI has completed review/study of 1,079 FTE as of mid-April
    2003. We are in the process of conducting seven full A-76 competitive
    sourcing cost comparisons. DOI is on track to complete competitive
    sourcing studies on 15 percent (3,041) of the FTE listed in their
    fiscal year 2000 FAIR Act Inventory by the end of 2003.
        Question. How many positions has the Department decided to study?
        Answer. DOI has committed to a cumulative ``soft target'' of 25
    percent (5,068) by the end of fiscal year 2004.
        Question. When will these studies be completed, and when will
    decisions be made about whether to outsource?
        Answer. The study results of the remaining 1962 for fiscal year
    2003 will be completed by December 2003. The decision to remain in-
    house or contract with a private sector source will also be made around
    December 2003. The studies for fiscal year 2004 (an additional 2,027
    for a total of 5,068 FTE) will begin October 2003 and the results will
    be announced in first quarter fiscal year 2005 (October/November 2004).
        Question. What has been the cost of the studies throughout the
    Department?
        Answer. As of June, 2003, the Department's estimate on the cost of
    studies and other related costs for fiscal year 2003 was $3.3 million.
    This estimate includes the following:
        BLM--$886,000 in study costs as of June 2003
        OSM--zero as all studies were performed in house
        NPS--$1.6 million anticipated costs for 2003 as reflected in a July
    11, 2003 reprogramming
        BIA--$400,000 anticipated costs for 2003 (projected in June 2003)
        GS--$160,000 in study costs as of June 2003
        MMS--$74,000 in study costs as of June 2003
        FWS--$200,000 anticipated costs for 2003 (projected in June 2003)
        For internal purposes these amounts were reported to appropriations
    staff on June 6, 2003.

                 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT--CBM EIS FOR MONTANA

        Question. I have been following the BLM's multi-year effort in the
    preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement for the Powder River
    Region of Montana with a great deal of anticipation and interest. We
    have worked with the Department to secure additional funding above past
    budget request figures to ensure that adequate environmental studies
    would be completed and that the EIS would be done in as responsible a
    manner as possible.
        Could you update us on the status of the EIS, and when can we
    expect a record of decision?
        Answer. The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Final Statewide Oil
    and Gas EIS and Proposed Amendment to the Powder River and Billings
    Resource Management Plans was signed on April 30, 2003.
        Prior to signing the ROD, the Director of BLM resolved all
    protests, including 21 protest letters that addressed issues on the
    Montana side, 76 protest letters that addressed issues on the Wyoming
    side, and 98 letters that addressed issues in both states.
        In order to resolve the protests, the BLM needed to determine the
    validity of each protest filed, prepare a written decision, and set
    forth the reasons for the decision. The decisions were sent to the
    protesting parties by certified mail in April 2003.
        In addition, 400 faxes and 18,000 emails were received during the
    protest period. Since letters of protest were required to be sent to
    the Bureau Director, faxes and emails were not valid protests and did
    not require individual responses.
        Question. I assume we have completed the need for resource planning
    dollars for this specific EIS. Does the current fiscal year 2004 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 2004?
        Answer. The proposed funding for fiscal year 2004 will be adequate
    based on the number of Applications for Permit to Drill (APD) we have
    received so far in 2003 and expect to receive by the end of the fiscal
    year. The 2004 budget request also factored in the level of demand for
    2004 that was projected at the time the budget was formulated. If
    actual demand in 2004 deviates from this projection, BLM will consider
    any necessary budgetary adjustments to ensure appropriate support for
    development of Coalbed Natural Gas in the Powder River Basin of
    Montana.

               BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT--MONTANA GAS PERMITTING

        Question. Madam Secretary, in the face of natural gas prices
    skyrocketing once again to record levels, and questionable domestic
    energy security, I applaud your leadership to increase responsible and
    reasonable domestic production.
        It is my understanding that the funding increases for energy
    permitting that your Department has proposed--and this Committee has
    supplemented--are resulting in real results on the ground. I am told
    the Department is planning on announcing a substantial number of new
    gas leases being permitted in eastern Montana as early as this week.
        Could you please update us on the status of this increased
    permitting activity and give us a sense of whether other regions of the
    country are seeing similar results?
        Answer. In Montana, BLM expects to process 24 percent more APDs
    than in 2002. BLM has already processed 68 percent of the 279 APDs
    expected in 2003. The Miles City field office has in the last month
    received 99 APDs for coalbed natural gas.
        The following table shows the APDs processed in fiscal year 2002
    and so far in fiscal year 2003 relative to the fiscal year 2003 goal.
    It also gives an estimate of the number of APDs to be processed in
    fiscal year 2004 in Montana and other states with APD activity. This
    table reflects total oil and gas APDs, not just those associated with
    Coalbed Natural Gas.

                                            APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS TO DRILL
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Fiscal years
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                               2003 actual
                                                                      2002      (as of  6/      2003         2004
                                                                     actual       30/03)      planned     estimated
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    California..................................................          149           66          245          260
    Colorado....................................................          264          179          240          275
    Montana.....................................................          225          189          279          920
    New Mexico..................................................        1,134          912        1,185        1,335
    Utah........................................................          512          294          450          538
    Wyoming.....................................................        1,787        1,043        2,750        3,400
    Other states................................................          564           46          351          272
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------
          Total.................................................        4,635        2,729        5,500        7,000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. I am told that the Bureau of Land Management is
    interested in addressing the concern that some offices are seemingly
    much more inefficient than other offices in addressing the backlog of
    energy applications.
        Can you speak to the Bureau's work to explore methods to increase
    efficiency and predictability in the permitting process?
        Answer. BLM holds its field managers accountable for annual
    workload targets and timeliness of responses to authorization requests
    from industry. BLM is using cost management data along with the 2002
    customer survey results to pinpoint where APD processing delays are
    occurring and to identify how to prevent any further delays. In
    addition, the BLM is taking several steps which will improve the APD
    processing time frames. On April 14, 2003 the BLM Washington Office
    issued 5 Instruction Memorandums (IMs) on APD process improvement.
    These IMs cover Conditions of Approval, Cultural Resources, revision of
    Onshore Oil and Gas Order No.1 which specify minimum standards of
    performance for oil and gas operators, Comprehensive Strategies, and
    revision of the Oil and Gas ``Gold Book'', a reference book used by oil
    and gas operators to comply with surface use standards for oil and gas
    operations.
        The IM on Conditions of Approval (IM 2003-146) asked the Field
    Offices to supply the Washington Office with copies of conditions of
    approval currently being used. The Washington Office will then develop
    standard conditions of approval and guidance on how to develop
    reasonable and enforceable conditions of approval. This will help oil
    and gas operators by eliminating inconsistencies across the Bureau.
        The IM on Cultural Resources (IM 2003-147) identifies some ``best
    practices'' being used in some Field Offices concerning Cultural
    Resources. All Field Offices are instructed to use these ``best
    practices'' to help streamline the APD processing time frames.
        In July 2003, over 50 percent of pending permit applications were
    incomplete. BLM is revising Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1 (IM 2003-
    151) and the Oil and Gas ``Gold Book'' (IM 2003-153), two references
    used by oil and gas operators to comply with standards concerning
    surface use for oil and gas operations. Clarifying these two references
    will make it easier for oil and gas applicants to submit a complete
    application, thus reducing APD delays.
        The IM on Comprehensive Strategies (IM 2003-152) outlines some
    strategies Field Offices can employ to streamline the APD processing
    time. This IM publicizes to all BLM Field Offices some ``best
    practices'' for APD processing being used by other BLM Field Offices.
            pilt--proposed movement from blm to the department level
        Question. Madam Secretary, this year's request includes a proposal
    to move funding for PILT out of the BLM account and shift the program
    to the Department level.
        Setting aside the request's decrease of $18.5 million from the
    fiscal year 2003 enacted level, which concerns me greatly, could you
    explain the Department's proposal to shift this program to the
    Department level?
        Answer. PILT payments are principally based on public lands in
    local jurisdictions that are Federally-administered by U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service, National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, and other
    Federal agencies, in addition to the BLM. Funding for PILT is not
    singularly attributed to one Department agency. The program is being
    consolidated at the Department level in recognition of the fact that
    PILT payments are made not only for BLM lands, but also for the lands
    of these other Federal agencies, and to ensure that appropriate
    emphasis can be directed to this program.
        Question. The Interior Appropriations Act has historically capped
    the administrative costs for the PILT program at $400,000? Will the
    Department be able to live within this cap, or hopefully reduce the
    administrative costs further?
        Answer. Yes, the Department will be able to continue administration
    of the PILT program at the $400,000 level.
                 bureau of land management--energy and minerals
        Question. Madam Secretary, I notice your budget for the BLM
    essentially asks for level funding for Energy and Minerals production,
    rather than including a substantial increase, as has been the case in
    the past two requests.
        I whole-heartedly applaud your efforts to increase domestic
    production, but I am curious if the lack of increase in this year's
    request for Energy and Minerals was based upon budget limitations or
    the reality that we are doing everything we can to address the current
    permitting backlogs and related activity.
        Answer. Funding increases in the last two years have brought BLM's
    Energy and Minerals program up to $106 million in 2003, an increase of
    34 percent over the 2001 level of $79 million. These increases--which
    have been generally in line with the Administration's requests and
    reflect the high priority the Administration places on energy
    development--have been built into the ``base'' for the fiscal year 2004
    request. The fiscal year 2004 budget request for the BLM's Energy and
    Minerals Management program is adequate to reduce the current APD
    backlog, based on the estimated number of APDs that the Bureau expects
    to receive during 2003 and 2004. The BLM has had indications that some
    operators are planning to submit large numbers of APDs in the future,
    especially in the Powder River Basin and in other areas with potential
    coalbed natural gas development. However, based on past experience, the
    BLM cannot count on this increase in activity. It is not uncommon for
    an operator to tell the Bureau that plans for the following year
    include drilling large numbers of wells, only to have the operator
    change his/her priorities the following year, and not drill any of the
    wells that were planned. The BLM has planned for a 27 percent increase
    in activity over 2003. An increase greater than 27 percent would likely
    result in a growing APD backlog, while an increase of less than 27
    percent would allow BLM to further reduce the existing backlog beyond
    what has been anticipated in 2004. Also, to the extent that some of
    BLM's efforts to improve efficiencies are successful, BLM could see
    additional reductions in the APD backlog.
        Question. Could you detail some of the initiatives that the BLM
    will be undertaking in fiscal year 2004 that are designed to increase
    domestic energy production while also diversifying our energy
    portfolio?
        Answer. The National Energy Policy specifically directs BLM to
    address several key issues that are vital to the current and future
    status of the Nation's energy program. In response, the BLM has
    developed a plan that will continue to be implemented in 2004. In
    Alaska, BLM will conduct a second biennial lease for oil and gas in the
    northeast sector of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A). BLM
    is also pursuing the expansion of the area offered for lease to include
    the northwest and southern section of NPR-A. BLM plans to increase
    support for coalbed natural gas development in areas beyond the Powder
    River Basin and to continue support for active coal leases to provide
    these fuels that are so vital for power generation.
        In order to respond to the demand for diverse energy sources, the
    BLM plans to process and approve twice the number of geothermal permits
    to drill in 2004 that are processed in 2003. Also, the BLM will
    concentrate on processing geothermal applications for development on
    U.S. Forest Service public lands in California, Oregon, and Washington,
    and clear new areas managed by the Bureau for geothermal leasing in
    Utah, New Mexico, Idaho, and Arizona. BLM's efforts are expected to
    result in a 15 percent increase in geothermal power plants.
        In Idaho, Utah, and Nevada, BLM plans to update land use plans and
    perform environmental studies needed to respond to applications for
    wind energy development. BLM staff will also be responding to demand
    for access across BLM lands for transmission lines and pipelines
    related to renewable and non-renewable energy development. BLM
    recognizes that timely issuance of these right-of-ways is important to
    the economic viability of these projects.
        BLM is also incorporating in Resource Management Plans the
    information contained in a new report titled, ``Opportunities for Near-
    Term Geothermal Development on Public Lands in the Western United
    States''. This report (released in April 2003) identifies 35 ``top
    pick'' sites in six western states for near-term development of
    geothermal energy for power generation. Of the 35 sites, ten are in
    Nevada, nine are in California, seven are in Oregon, and three each are
    located in New Mexico, Utah, and Washington. The report was prepared
    for the BLM and the Department of Energy by the National Renewable
    Energy Laboratory.
        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. BLM field offices work closely in the development of land
    use plans, which provide the framework for managing the exploration and
    development of energy. In addition, State governments are often
    cooperating agencies in the preparation of major environmental impact
    statements (EIS). In the case of the coalbed natural gas development
    EISs, both Montana and Wyoming State agencies assisted in the
    preparation or review of these important environmental documents. State
    agencies with permitting authority, such as Montana's Board of Oil and
    Gas Conservation (MBOGC) and Montana's Department of Environmental
    Quality, are closely involved in establishing operating requirements
    and mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate hazards associated
    with coalbed natural gas development. BLM and MBOGC review and approve
    Water Management Plans for each project in order to support the goal of
    developing coalbed natural gas in an environmentally sound manner.
                    bureau of land management--fire funding
        Question. Your budget request includes a $36 million increase for
    fire suppression activities. I support your desire to bolster this
    account to avoid the inefficient process of routinely borrowing against
    other Department accounts to offset suppression costs.
        Can you explain the projections the Department used to support this
    increase?
        Answer. The budget request for suppression operations assumes that
    2004 will be an average year for wildland fire activity. The request is
    based on the most recent 10-year average cost for fire suppression
    operations, as adjusted for inflation. For the 2004 request, the 10-
    year period covers the years 1993 through 2002. The actual cost for
    fire suppression for each year was converted into 2002-comparable
    dollars, using the approved Gross Domestic Product non-Defense
    deflators as the basis for the adjustments. The inflation-adjusted
    costs were added together, and the sum was divided by ten to calculate
    the annual average of $195.3 million.
        Question. We have had numerous discussions within this
    Subcommittee, and in both the Energy and Natural Resources and Budget
    Committees, to address the problem of borrowing against other accounts
    to fight fires. This practice functionally crippled the U.S. Forest
    Service last year and caused some problems for Interior as well.
        Could you explain how the Department was impacted, and what steps
    have been taken to minimize the disruption to core programs?
        Answer. The impact of borrowing funds from other accounts to pay
    for wildland firefighting has not disrupted Interior operating
    programs. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to draw on
    construction and land acquisition accounts with significant unobligated
    balances. Borrowing from these accounts has enabled Interior to avoid
    borrowing from operating accounts that could impede or disrupt on-the-
    ground operational activities such as resource protection, park and
    refuge operations, and BIA school operations.
        The Departments of the Interior and Agriculture are in the process
    of developing a large fire cost reduction action plan. The plan will
    respond to Congressional direction included with the 2003 appropriation
    and will build upon previous reports by the National Academy of Public
    Administration and the National Association of State Foresters. It will
    address the roles of agency line officers and incident commanders as
    well as changes in wildfire situation analyses, financial management,
    and operational actions. We expect that the recommendations in the
    draft plan will result in operational savings that will result in
    savings to the taxpayer and a reduced need to rely on transfers from
    other accounts for emergency funding.

                          TRUST REFORM REORGANIZATION

        Question. Last year the Department proposed an organizational
    restructuring to handle the Department's Indian Trust responsibilities.
    This proposal met with concern by some in the tribal community and a
    robust consultation process was the result.
        Could you update the subcommittee on your current actions to
    organize the Department's trust reform responsibilities and give us a
    roadmap of what you feel are the next logical steps to be pursued by
    the Department?
        Answer. The new organizational structure for the BIA and OST
    provides a single executive sponsor for trust reform; enhance
    beneficiary services; ensure accountability; and emphasize Economic
    Development, Self-Governance and Self-Determination activities.
        Both BIA and OST are working aggressively to implement the
    reorganization. The Departmental Manual to formalize the reorganization
    was issued on April 21, 2003. OST and BIA are determining personnel
    selections for key management positions. OST has initiated recruitment
    of Trust Officers to be placed in, or in close proximity to, the BIA
    agencies with the highest level of trust activities and recurring trust
    income. BIA and OST have established a joint implementation
    coordination team that meets regularly to discuss issues related to
    implementing the reorganization as efficiently and effectively as
    possible.
        The reorganization focuses on the BIA and OST fiduciary
    responsibilities to tribal and individual Indian beneficiaries. The BIA
    will retain its responsibilities relating to land and natural resource
    management because of its demonstrated expertise in this area of the
    trust. OST will retain its financial trust asset management and
    statutory oversight duties, and expand its role to provide beneficiary
    representation in all aspects of fiduciary operations and oversight.
    OST's Trust Officers and Regional Trust Administrators will provide
    local presence to support beneficiary services and ensure the proper
    management of fiduciary trust assets.
        The reorganization of trust functions in the BIA and OST was
    developed after detailed analysis of the prior organization and a
    yearlong consultation process with tribal leaders. This was, perhaps,
    the most extensive consultation effort ever undertaken by the senior
    management level at the Department on any issue relating to Indian
    Country. Over 45 meetings with tribal leaders provided a range of
    proposals and recommendations. The new organization reflects a
    synthesis of the views heard during the consultation process. It will
    meet fiduciary trust responsibilities, be more accountable at every
    level, and operate with people trained in the principles of fiduciary
    trust management.
        The Department recently issued a Comprehensive Trust Management
    Plan to address trust reform. In addition to work outlined in the Plan
    to move forward on trust improvement initiatives, the Department is
    also actively engaged in the historical accounting for individual
    Indian account holders. Completion of a yearlong project to document
    trust business processes provides the Department with the information
    necessary to begin a major re-engineering task of these processes. The
    re-engineering or ``To-Be'' process as it is known is an integral part
    of the Comprehensive Trust management Plan.
        Question. Do you have any recent indication from the Court that
    moving forward with the reorganization is timely, or adequate to
    address the current problems?
        Answer. We have not received any response from the Court regarding
    the reorganization.

                        FISH AND WILDLIFE GRANT PROGRAMS

        Question. The Department has proposed two new grant programs over
    the last two years called the Landowner Incentive Program and the
    Private Stewardship Grants Program. There were some difficulties
    establishing eligibility requirements and criteria for allocating these
    funds.
        What is the status of these two programs now? Are funds getting out
    the door?
        Answer. The Secretary announced the approval of State Landowner
    Incentive Program proposals from 42 States in the amount of $34.8
    million on February 25, 2003. Funds will be made available through
    grants to these States once they submit their complete package of grant
    agreement papers and the Service signs them.
        Of the 42 States, 39 have programs approved for Tier 1 grants
    (emphasis on building a program infrastructure), and 22 are approved
    for Tier 2 grants (on-the-ground conservation work). As of May 28, four
    Tier 1 LIP grants were signed and are now active in the States of
    Idaho, Minnesota, Montana, and Nebraska. A Tier 2 grant is active in
    Minnesota.
        The Service has received additional grant documentation from eight
    other States for Tier 1 grants (Arkansas, Delaware, Maine, New Jersey,
    South Carolina, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin), and two States for
    Tier 2 grants (Nebraska and South Carolina). The Service anticipates
    these additional 10 programs will be awarded grants in June. Most of
    the remaining States are nearing the end of their State fiscal years
    (June 30), and the Service expects most will establish grants for their
    approved programs later in the summer.
        The grant awards for the Private Stewardship Grants Program were
    announced on May 28, 2003. More than $9.4 million will be awarded under
    this innovative program to individuals and groups to undertake
    conservation projects on private lands for endangered, threatened, and
    other at-risk species. The Fish and Wildlife Service spent additional
    time working with States and potential grant applicants to help them
    understand the new program and its requirements. Project proposals were
    originally due to the Service's Regional Offices by December 1, 2002,
    but after many applicants requested more time, the due date was
    extended to January 15, 2003, providing the public more than 100 days
    to develop and submit project proposals. We do not anticipate having
    such a long application period this year, and anticipate being able to
    award grants at an earlier date in the spring of 2004.
        Question. How many projects have been funded thus far?
        Answer. Of the 42 States approved for Landowner Incentive Program
    grants to fund their programs, the States of Idaho, Minnesota, Montana,
    and Nebraska have Tier 1 grants in place; Nebraska and South Carolina
    have Tier 2 grants. Tier 1 grants are small (up to $180,000), and
    emphasize agency infrastructure and capability building. Most on-the-
    ground conservation projects will be conducted in the 22 States
    approved for the larger Tier 2 grants. The Service will act to award
    grants for these approved programs once it receives the State
    documents. We awarded approximately $9.4 million to about 113 projects
    in some 42 states ranging from Alaska to New York.
        Question. Will the Committee have the track record of
    accomplishments that we can evaluate how to fund these programs in
    fiscal year 2004?
        Answer. While some Landowner Incentive Program projects will be
    initiated in the States this summer, the Service will not receive the
    first annual performance reports for these grants until the summer or
    fall of 2004. These reports will describe accomplishments and are due
    after the first year of the project period. As a point of interest,
    there are 28 States and 6 Territories that did not receive any Tier 2
    conservation project funding in fiscal year 2003. Many of these are
    eager to gain initial funding to start projects with private landowners
    in their jurisdictions.
        The Fish and Wildlife Service will be able to provide the Committee
    with a list of projects selected for funding through the Private
    Stewardship Grants Program including information on the objectives to
    be reached through the funding of each project. At a later date, a full
    analysis of the accomplishments of implementing these projects under
    the Private Stewardship Grants Program can be provided.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens

                           ALASKA CONVEYANCE PROGRAM

        Question. An issue of concern to myself and Senator Lisa Murkowski
    is the pace of the Bureau of Land Management's Alaska Conveyance
    program. As you know, the BLM was tasked with completing work on Native
    allotments and land selections mandated by both the Alaska Statehood
    Act of 1959 and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. That
    task has not been completed.
        This delay has severely impacted the ability of the State of Alaska
    and our Native groups from developing their resources and furthering
    the economic development of the State. Language included in the fiscal
    year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Bill directs the Bureau to develop a
    plan to ensure that allotments and conveyances are completed by 2009. I
    would like to get your commitment that the BLM will abide by its
    obligations and complete the land conveyance program by 2009.
        I know that Senator Murkowski is committed to assisting you and the
    BLM in this effort through her membership on the Energy and Natural
    Resources Committee, and I commit to providing the BLM the resources it
    needs to develop this plan.
        Answer. BLM is developing the plan required in the 2003 Omnibus
    Appropriations bill, and is exploring options for improving the
    conveyance process. A Senate hearing on this issue is scheduled to take
    place in Anchorage on August 6, 2003.

                ALASKA NATIONAL INTEREST LANDS CONSERVATION ACT

        Question. Another issue is the National Park Service's proposed
    regulations concerning the issuance and administration of commercial
    use authorizations in national parks. As expressed to you in a February
    6, 2003 letter from Senator Murkowski, Congressman Don Young, and
    myself, these proposed regulations fail to comply with the Alaska
    National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980. The 1980 law is the
    controlling authority on public lands in Alaska and any Park Service
    regulations must conform with this law. I would like your assurance
    that the Department and the Park Service are committed to working with
    the State of Alaska, interested parties, and Alaska Native Groups in
    developing regulations that are consistent with the 1980 law.
        Answer. The draft regulations were published for comment in the
    Federal Register (Volume 67, Number 229) on November 27, 2002 as 36 CFR
    Part 52. Though the draft regulations do not reference the Alaska
    National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA), it has
    always been our understanding that they must conform to ANILCA as they
    are applied in Alaska. The draft regulations implement Section 418 of
    the National Park Service Concessions Management Improvement Act of
    1998 (16 USC 5901 et seq.). Section 415 (c) of the same law states:

        ``ANILCA.--Nothing in this title amends, supersedes, or otherwise
    affects any provision of the Alaska National Interest Lands
    Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.) relating to revenue-producing
    visitor services.''

        Comments were received from organized groups, their members,
    individual operators, and from within the NPS. The National Park
    Service intends to establish a multi-disciplinary work group under the
    umbrella of the Secretary's Concession Management Advisory Board
    (Board), covered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, to review
    the comments and develop a second draft rule. The work group will
    consist of interagency personnel, representatives of private sector
    interested parties including affected commercial operators in Alaska,
    and designated officials of the Board. This approach will allow for
    consideration of the business need for a predictable, stable platform
    while ensuring consistency with the preservation and conservation of
    park resources. Recommendations of the work group will roll-up to the
    full Advisory Board in a public meeting and this consultation will
    occur prior to drafting the next published rule.

                              DENALI NATIONAL PARK

        Question. Additionally, Denali National Park recently issued its
    draft backcountry management plan. I am concerned that some of the
    alternatives, if implemented, would restrict public access to our
    parks. Access to public lands is an issue I have struggled to protect
    first as a Solicitor in your Department, in the Alaska State House, and
    in my 34 years in the Senate. I will oppose any plan which imposes
    unnecessary limits on the public's right to visit their parks.
        I understand that Denali's Superintendent and his staff have held
    public hearings and meetings on this management plan. I encourage these
    efforts in order to ensure that the final plan balances the protection
    of our natural resources with the public's right to access for
    recreational, economic, and social purposes.
        Answer. Public enjoyment of Denali National Park and Preserve is
    extremely important. The National Park Service emphasizes this point in
    the first chapter of the park's Draft Backcountry Management Plan. One
    of the primary objectives of the new plan is to: ``provide for the
    public's maximum freedom of use and enjoyment of the park's backcountry
    and wilderness in a manner that is consistent with park purposes and
    the protection of park resources and values.'' Consistent with this
    objective, the National Park Service does not intend to impose
    unnecessary limits on the public's right to visit or enjoy their park.
        Meeting the Congressional direction to provide for enjoyment while
    at the same time protecting Denali National Park and Preserve's
    resources and values, requires the National Park Service to manage
    access and use. This management is not intended to unnecessarily
    restrict the public's right of access. Quite the opposite, careful
    implementation of the alternatives in the draft plan will provide for
    more visitor access, and will accommodate greater numbers of visitors
    than are accommodated today under current management strategies. The
    National Park Service will carefully evaluate, and appropriately
    incorporate, all of the public comments received on the draft plan to
    ensure that the final plan balances the protection of our natural
    resources with the public's right to access for recreational, economic,
    and social purposes.
        The alternatives in the Draft Backcountry Management Plan were
    developed in collaboration with the public over the past four years.
    The National Park Service first held a series of public scoping
    meetings in 1999 in Anchorage, Fairbanks, Talkeetna/Trapper Creek, and
    McKinley Village to define issues and impact topics to address in the
    plan. Approximately 150 people attended the meetings and the NPS
    received 65 written comments. The NPS next sent a preliminary
    alternatives newsletter to 2,000 addresses on the park mailing list in
    January 2001, outlining ideas for alternatives. This newsletter was
    followed up with open house meetings in Anchorage, Fairbanks,
    Talkeetna/Trapper Creek, Cantwell, and Healy. After receiving comments
    on the newsletter and in the meetings, the NPS continued to meet
    frequently and solicit feedback from interest groups representing such
    diverse park constituencies as aviation, snow machine users,
    mountaineering guides, conservation organizations, and the State of
    Alaska. Information from these ongoing contacts shaped the alternatives
    in the draft plan printed in February 2003.
        After publishing the draft plan, the National Park Service held six
    informational workshops in Fairbanks, Anchorage, Wasilla, Talkeetna/
    Trapper Creek, Cantwell, and Healy during March 2003 to help the public
    understand the draft plan and its implications. These workshops were
    followed in April by public hearings in each of those communities and
    in Lake Minchumina. In addition, all individuals who had previously
    expressed interest were personally notified by mail and telephone of
    the draft plan's release.
        Opportunities for public comment were available through May 30,
    2003 by mail, e-mail, and directly through the park web site as well as
    at the public hearings. Park staff will continue contacts with
    interested groups and individuals as they produce the final plan.

                              SPRUCE BARK BEETLES

        Question. I am pleased with the proactive stance the administration
    has taken in the area of wildfire prevention and suppression through
    the Healthy Forests Initiative. In recent years, we have witnessed
    catastrophic fires, which burned over 7.1 million acres, affecting
    several regions in the United States, including Alaska.
        In Alaska, we have a particular problem with spruce bark beetles,
    which have decimated spruce forests in the Kenai Peninsula area along
    the Kachemak Bay Watershed and the Copper River Basin near Wrangell-St.
    Elias National Park and Preserve. The spruce bark beetle problem along
    with an extremely dry winter season in Alaska raises serious concerns
    for this coming fire season. I hope that your efforts in fire
    prevention and suppression will include funding to address Alaska's
    spruce bark beetle problem.
        Answer. The State of Alaska is currently undergoing one of the
    largest spruce bark beetle infestations ever observed. As much as four
    million acres of forestlands, across all ownerships, have been affected
    during the last 15 years, of which only 100,000 acres are managed by
    the BLM. Only 10,000 acres of the infested lands managed by the BLM are
    accessible and could be harvested with timber sales. Although some of
    this infected timber has been offered for sale by BLM, the sales have
    not sold due to poor market conditions. The majority of the timber has
    deteriorated to the point where it has no value as a commercial
    product.
        The Bureau recognizes that the dry winter and the build-up of fuels
    resulting from this beetle outbreak creates some formidable challenges
    for this fire season and for years to come. The Bureau and its partners
    are prepared to meet this challenge and protect the communities and
    resources in Alaska. The BLM is currently working with rural
    communities in Alaska to reduce the threat of wildfire, including
    providing financial and technical support to the communities and their
    fire departments, collaboratively identifying conditions and planning
    actions to reduce those threats, and reducing hazardous fuels within
    the wildland-urban interface. Where spruce bark beetles have killed
    timber in these areas, BLM will continue to try to find markets for the
    material as it is removed during fuel reduction treatments.

                        FEDERALLY-OWNED LAND STATISTICS

        Question. As you know, we have begun the fiscal year 2004
    appropriations process. It has come to my attention that the Committee
    does not have the most current data for public lands being administered
    by the Department of the Interior. In order to appropriately allocate
    scarce resources toward the management of the public lands, I request
    that the Department provide the Committee with statistics on Federally-
    owned land by agency in each State and territory by acreage and
    percentage of State total area. These statistics should also include
    the total wilderness areas within each State.
        Answer. The Department will compile this information and transmit
    it to the Subcommittee under separate cover.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici

                       CROWNPOINT INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

        Question. The Crownpoint Institute of Technology (CIT) is one of
    only two tribal vocational-technical schools in the country. CIT plays
    a critical role in training Native American students for employment.
    The school has a successful program in which an average of 87 percent
    of its students is placed in jobs upon graduation. A successful post-
    secondary vocational-technical school such as CIT is a tremendous
    resource for Native Americans.
        Unfortunately, the President's fiscal year 2004 budget request does
    not include specific funding for CIT.
        Given the important and specific roles the two vocational/technical
    schools play on educating young Native Americans, why has specific
    funding for CIT been deleted?
        Answer. One of the Department's strategic goals is to support
    development of quality communities for tribes by improving education.
    An important component of this goal is supporting higher education to
    provide students with the knowledge and skills they need to become
    successfully employed. The Bureau currently operates two fully
    accredited post-secondary schools, Southwestern Indian Polytechnic
    Institute (SIPI) and Haskell Indian Nations University, and provides
    funding for 25 Tribally controlled colleges and universities.
        CIT is not bureau operated nor is it eligible for funding under the
    authority of the Tribally Controlled Community College or Universities
    Assistance Act, as amended. CIT is eligible for funding under the Carl
    D. Perkins Act, as amended, and receives funding under authority of the
    Act through a grant program administered by the Department of
    Education. The Department of Education provided $6.955 million under
    this authority to post-secondary schools in fiscal year 2003, of which
    CIT received $3.8 million.
        Question. What considerations would you take into account when
    determining funding allocations for schools like CIT?
        Answer. The Bureau takes into consideration education funding
    priorities for the existing K-12 programs, eligible TCCCs, and Bureau
    post-secondary schools. While CIT is meeting an important and unique
    need for those students who attend it, the Bureau takes into
    consideration authorizing legislation. Currently, there is no statutory
    authorization for the Bureau to fund schools like CIT, which is neither
    Bureau operated nor eligible for funding under the authority of the
    Tribally Controlled Community College or Universities Assistance Act,
    as amended (Public Law 95-471.). Public Law 95-471 permits each Tribe
    to apply for operating grants for a single TCCC. CIT is a Navajo
    school. CIT is ineligible for TCCC funding because another Navajo
    school, Dine College, currently receives funding under authority of
    Public Law 95-471.
        CIT is eligible for funding under the Carl D. Perkins Act, as
    amended, and receives funding under authority of the Act through a
    grant program administered by the Department of Education. The
    Department of Education provided $6.955 million under this authority to
    post-secondary schools in fiscal year 2003, of which CIT received $3.8
    million.

                           INDIAN SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION

        Question. Secure, modern, and pleasant school facilities are
    critical to the education of all students. To that end, I am pleased to
    see that President Bush sustains the current level of commitment to
    replace deteriorated BIA schools through new construction with his
    request of $292.6 million. These funds are critically needed to
    continue to address the backlog for repairs, renovation, and
    replacement for all federally owned and operated BIA elementary and
    secondary schools.
        While I am pleased with the overall request, I am concerned that
    the $131.4 million proposed for the replacement of schools does not
    specify the dollar amount going to each project. New Mexico has five
    schools on the replacement list for fiscal year 2004--Isleta Elementary
    School; Mescalero Apache Elementary School; Pueblo Pintado Community
    School; Navajo Prep School, Phase II; and Wingate High School, Phase
    II.
        Specifically, could you address my concerns that the failure to
    delineate specific funds for the listed schools may lead to unnecessary
    confusion, delay, and at worst, failure to provide adequate funding for
    the projects?
        Answer. During formulation of the 2004 Budget, the Administration
    began using the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) to identify
    strengths and weaknesses of programs and to inform budget, management,
    and policy activities regarding recommendations. The process generated
    extensive information on program effectiveness and accountability
    including the need for additional performance measures. One of the
    principal PART findings for Indian School Construction program was that
    it had limited flexibility to adjust funds appropriated to a specific
    project when there are delays or changes due to planning or design
    which impact the original cost estimate for the project. The fiscal
    year 2004 President's Budget reflects a policy change to no longer
    provide cost estimates for individual projects for replacement schools
    or facilities improvement and repair until the planning documents and
    design for the projects are developed to the point where adequate
    information is available to make a reasonably accurate cost estimate.
    This will greatly improve accountability for program funding.
        Question. Generally, would you please describe the efforts of the
    Department of the Interior to replace aging structures that pose a
    health and safety threat and make learning difficult?
        Answer. The Bureau has undertaken an intense effort on the
    President's commitment to reduce the maintenance backlog and has
    developed a five-year Maintenance and Construction Plan to address
    aging structures. Each fiscal year plan includes the projects of
    greatest need in priority order with special focus first on critical
    health and safety. The Bureau has also developed a Facilities
    Management Information System (FMIS) to improve the management of
    deferred maintenance, major facilities improvement and repair, and
    replacement school construction projects. The system effectively tracks
    improvements and facility conditions associated with health, safety,
    disability access, classroom size, computer, and communications
    technology space. The data in FMIS is used to determine funding for the
    highest priority items in the maintenance backlog of health and safety
    deficiencies.

                 SANTA FE INDIAN SCHOOL RECONSTRUCTION FUNDING

        Question. The President requested, and the Congress approved, $23.2
    million for Santa Fe Indian School in fiscal year 2002, and another
    $15.3 million in fiscal year 2003. In addition, the Santa Fe Indian
    School requires $9.2 million to complete its replacement project. There
    was to be a phase 3 to the project that included a gym and health
    facility, an administrative building, and site modifications. The Santa
    Fe Indian School was notified that phase 3 would not be funded and that
    no funding would be in the fiscal year 2004 budget as anticipated.
        Considering the stated goals of the President's Indian Education
    Initiative and No Child Left Behind programs, could you explain why the
    budget request did not include funding to complete the Santa Fe Indian
    School replacement project as planned?
        Answer. Schools compete for ranking on the BIA priority list for
    replacement school construction. Higher rankings are given to schools
    with critical health and safety needs and for which current facility
    program space is insufficient for current approved education program
    offerings.
        When evaluating the Santa Fe Indian School Phase 3 construction
    project proposal, it was determined that Santa Fe Indian School is
    located within walking distance of a U.S. Indian Public Health Service
    hospital, an administrative building exists on site, the status of the
    current gym does not warrant complete replacement, and the needed site
    work was for sidewalk, curb, and gutter improvements. Based on this
    assessment, other schools more effectively competed for school
    replacement construction funds.

                SOUTHWESTERN INDIAN POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE (SIPI)

        Question. The Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute (SIPI) in
    Albuquerque, New Mexico is a national vocational-technical school that
    enrolls approximately 750 students representing 100 Indian tribes from
    across the nation. SIPI provides Indian students with post-secondary
    educational opportunities and technical job skills.
        The Administration's fiscal year 2004 budget request of $5.593
    million for the post-secondary schools of SIPI and the Haskell Indian
    Nations University in Kansas does not reflect the funding needed to
    implement the new funding formula that would bring parity in funding to
    the two institutions. SIPI and Haskell collaborated on the new formula,
    which was enacted in the Omnibus Appropriations bill for fiscal year
    2000. The formula language was again included in the 2001
    Appropriations Act to direct the allocation of increased operating
    funds for the unmet needs identified for both SIPI and Haskell.
        The BIA has now adopted the SIPI/Haskell funding formula as its
    model for all post-secondary school funding proposals, yet it has never
    been implemented. SIPI would require a total of $10.641 million in
    fiscal year 2004 to implement the new funding formula. There are
    concerns that without this funding the SIPI will be unable to fill key
    faculty positions, update its library, maintain the college's
    information infrastructure system, meet new educational demands, and
    strengthen student support services.
        Why has the BIA-adopted funding formula not been fully funded?
        Answer. To meet the needs of each of the post-secondary
    institutions, BIA has allocated funds proportional to their enrollment.
    The formula that was developed by SIPI and Haskell was to be applied to
    any increases in funding levels.
        Unfortunately, the Department of the Interior is faced with making
    difficult choices in setting priorities for funding for the post-
    secondary institutions. Funding has been relatively flat for the past
    several years. One of the Department's strategic goals is to support
    development of quality communities for tribes by improving education.
    In the 2004 budget, funding increases were targeted to the primary and
    secondary education levels--areas of higher priority to the Tribes on a
    nationwide basis.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Robert F. Bennett

                    OIL AND GAS PERMITTING ON FEDERAL LANDS

        Question. A recent report by the Independent Petroleum Association
    of Mountain States shows that companies looking for oil and gas on
    Federal leases contend with increasing uncertainties and, in many
    cases, extreme delays in trying to acquire the necessary permits to
    conduct activities. Using BLM's own data, the average APD now takes on
    average 137 days to be approved and in some cases have taken over 365
    days to approve.
        If the statute states that a typical APD should be approved within
    30 days, and the average approval time is 107 days beyond that, please
    identify the primary obstacles that exist in approving an APD in a
    timely manner.
        Answer. There is no statutory requirement that BLM approve an APD
    within 30 days. APD processing times are prescribed in BLM's own
    regulations (43CFR 3162 and Onshore Oil and Gas Order#1 issued under
    43CFR 3164). The BLM has promulgated regulations that state:
        ``III D. Processing Time Frames. The following table summarizes the
    major time frames involved in processing most APD's:

                     APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO DRILL OPTION
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action item                              Days
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Onsite inspection................  Within 15 days after receipt of the
                                        APD.
    Requirements to be imposed when    Developed onsite, or within 5 working
     APD is approved.                   days thereafter.
    Complete processing of APD.......  Within 30 days of the APD's receipt,
                                        provided that it is technically and
                                        administratively complete at the end
                                        of the 30-day period (includes the
                                        above 15-day and 5-day periods).
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            NOTICE OF STAKING OPTION
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action items                             Days
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Onsite inspection................  Within 15 days after receipt of the
                                        NOS.
    Requirements for inclusion in APD  Furnished onsite or within 5 working
                                        days thereafter.
    Complete processing of APD.......  Within 10 days of the APD's receipt,
                                        provided that it is technically and
                                        administratively complete at the end
                                        of the 10-day period.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The above time frames, together, comprise the total period during
    which the BLM anticipates it will be able to process approximately 90
    percent of all APD's. However, the 30 days may not run consecutively .
    . . .''

        BLM has self imposed a 30 day time frame for the processing of most
    APDs. As stated in BLM's Onshore Oil and Gas Order#1, these 30 days may
    not be consecutive. If an incomplete APD is received, the Bureau must
    wait to complete the processing of the permit until the operator
    submits all required information. The BLM does not include the days
    between the initial receipt of the application and the day when all
    required information is submitted in the 30 day processing time frame,
    according to Onshore Oil and Gas Order#1. Since fiscal year 2000, the
    Bureau has approved 38 percent of the APDs within the 30 day time
    frame. Although the BLM is not currently meeting its objective of 90
    percent, it continues to explore alternatives for increasing this
    percentage.
        The BLM is revising Onshore Oil and Gas Order#1 to clarify the
    requirements of a complete application. This clarification should
    reduce the number of incomplete APDs submitted and decrease overall
    processing times.
        Other factors that may extend the processing times beyond the 30
    days include the need to: (1) complete any supplemental NEPA analysis,
    (2) consult with other surface managing agencies (primarily Forest
    Service), (3) obtain any necessary cultural clearances, and (4)
    maintain staffing support for ADP processing.
        Applications for oil and gas development that are proposed over
    large acreages may require the development of an Environmental Impact
    Statement to fulfill National Environmental Policy Act requirements.
    For example, the Bureau spent two years completing the EIS that
    examines the impacts of coalbed natural gas development in the Powder
    River Basin. Some BLM Field Offices had not been accepting any new APDs
    for coalbed natural gas, due to the existing large backlog of APDs. Now
    that the Powder River Basin EIS is completed, Field Offices will be
    able to begin processing the backlogged APDs and accept new
    applications. The processing of APDs will be extended any time a major
    field development EIS is required.
        In situations where BLM is required to approve surface disturbance
    for another surface-management agency, such as the Forest Service,
    additional time may be needed to allow BLM to coordinate with the other
    agency. BLM is working with other surface-management agencies to
    improve coordination and consistency and reduce the time it takes to
    complete the APD process on non-BLM lands.
        Cultural clearances can also extend time frame for APD processing.
    If a cultural clearance is required, and a cultural clearance report
    has not been completed prior to submission of the APD, delays can be
    expected. It typically takes a minimum of 30 days from submission of a
    cultural clearance report to the State Historic Preservation Officer to
    get concurrence that historic and cultural resources are being
    protected. Onshore Oil and Gas Order#1 encourages operators to check
    with the BLM at least 15 days before submitting an APD or NOS to
    determine if a cultural clearance will be required.
        The Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 requires
    BLM to post all APDs for at least 30 days prior to approval. The
    process could be extended as a result of this requirement.
        Due to unanticipated changes in demand in the last few years,
    staffing has not kept pace with workload in some BLM Field Offices.
    Additional funding provided in 2002 and 2003 budgets and continued in
    the President's Budget for fiscal year 2004 funds increased staffing.
        Question. What steps can be taken administratively to improve this
    process? What realistic legislative remedies might exist that would
    provide additional resources to improving the permitting process?
        Answer. The BLM is taking several steps to improve the APD
    processing time frames. On April 14, 2003, the BLM Washington Office
    issued five Instruction Memorandums (IMs) on APD process improvements.
    These IMs cover Conditions of Approval, Cultural Resources, revision of
    Onshore Oil and Gas Order No.1, Comprehensive Strategies, and revision
    of the Oil and Gas ``Gold Book''.
        The IM on Conditions of Approval (IM 2003-146) directed BLM field
    offices to supply the Washington Office with copies of conditions of
    approval currently being used. The Washington Office is developing
    standard conditions of approval and guidance on how to develop
    reasonable and enforceable conditions of approval.
        The IM on Cultural Resources (IM 2003-147) identifies some ``best
    practices'' being used in some BLM field offices concerning cultural
    resources. All field offices are instructed to use these ``best
    practices'' to help streamline the APD processing time frames.
        The IM on Revision of Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1 (IM 2003-151)
    and the IM on Revision of the Oil and Gas ``Gold Book'' (IM 2003-153)
    initiates the rewriting of two references used by oil and gas operators
    on standards concerning surface use for oil and gas operations. These
    revisions will provide oil and gas applicants with improved direction
    on application requirements.
        The IM on Comprehensive Strategies (IM 2003-152) outlines ``best
    practices'' strategies that field offices can implement to streamline
    the APD processing time.
        Currently, the BLM does not require any legislative remedies to
    improve APD processing. As the BLM progresses with APD streamlining
    efforts, Congress will be notified if new legislation is determined to
    be necessary.
        Question. Finally, please provide the Committee with a recommended
    funding level that would be expected in order to bring the fiscal
    resources in line with the demands in the field.
        Answer. The 2004 President's Budget request includes an increase of
    $350,000 to bring the fiscal resources in line with current APD demands
    and $2.5 million for inspections, enforcement, and monitoring
    associated with this level of energy development.

                   FEDERAL PERMIT STREAMLINING PILOT PROJECT

        Question. A pilot project has been suggested as a means of helping
    to streamline the Federal permit process for energy related projects.
    While it does not specifically address APD backlogs, it is my
    understanding that a pilot project has been included in the Senate
    Energy Committee's proposed energy bill.
        Please comment on the proposed pilot program to streamline federal
    permit processing currently under consideration before Congress.
        Answer. The proposed program in Section 122 of the Senate Energy
    Bill would establish a Federal Permit Streamlining Pilot Project. This
    proposal has also been known as the ``Tiger Team Proposal''. Section
    122 calls for Federal agencies to assign on a non-reimbursable basis
    employees to serve under BLM Field Managers in six offices. These six
    teams would work on proposed energy projects, planning and
    environmental analyses. We have several comments on this section.
        Governors should be encouraged to support pilot projects in their
    respective States by signing the Memorandum of Understanding that
    defines the arrangement in the pilot States.
        Currently, the Energy Bill proposes that six offices participate in
    the Federal Permit Streamlining Pilot Project. The Bureau recommends
    that the pilot project be implemented in only one office, Buffalo,
    Wyoming. This team would work on reducing the backlog in the Powder
    River Basin. Once the team has completed that task, it would then work
    in other offices to reduce the APD backlog.
        Interagency teams should include personnel from the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or other agencies
    within the Department of Interior, and the USDA Forest Service, that
    the BLM is required to contact as part of the NEPA process for oil and
    gas operations.
        Question. What impact, if any, might this pilot program have upon
    addressing the issue of the APD backlog?
        Answer. Initially this pilot program will have little effect on
    handling the existing APD backlog, because most of the backlog of
    permit processing was caused by issues that are currently being
    addressed (e.g. Powder River Basin EIS), or are due to the submission
    of incomplete applications by operators. In the future, the pilot
    program could resolve or prevent backlogs from occurring.
        Question. Please comment on the feasibility of developing a similar
    pilot program specifically for Federal oil and gas permitting within
    BLM to address APD permit backlogs.
        Answer. The BLM has been looking into the idea of a pilot program
    where a team of specialists within the BLM would be available to Field
    Offices to assist with processing oil and gas operations backlogs
    related to Federal permitting. The team could be centrally located, or
    could be dispersed in several field offices, but when a Field Office
    requires assistance, the team would be temporarily relocated to that
    office. It is believed that this approach would enable the BLM to
    accelerate the processing time of APDs and other related oil and gas
    applications.
        Question. Would such a program be effective in reducing the
    backlog, and providing greater predictability in the permitting
    process? Is it feasible that such a program might be put together in a
    timely manner and begin to take effect within weeks of being funded by
    Congress?
        Answer. Yes, it is believed that such an approach could reduce or
    eliminate the present backlog of APDs within two years, though the
    effects of new demand during that two-year period cannot be estimated.
        Question. Has BLM taken steps to develop a ``best practices''
    program for BLM Field Offices to share information, processes, and
    expertise in the permitting process? If so, what is the status of the
    program?
        Answer. BLM has been using ``best practices'' of Field Offices to
    improve BLM management of the public lands nationwide. In the past, the
    BLM did not effectively highlight ``best practices'' to other Field
    Offices. The BLM is working to improve the dissemination of information
    concerning ``best practices''.

                             MOJAVE DESERT TORTOISE

        Question. The recent GAO report regarding the efforts to recover
    the Mojave desert tortoise stated that at least $100 million has been
    spent since its first listing. However, the GAO was unable to identify
    any Fish and Wildlife Service documentation regarding its population
    trends or whether any of that money has been effective in recovering
    the species.
        What is the Department's response to the report and what is being
    done to provide some direction to this extraordinary amount that is
    being spent on the species' recovery?
        Anwer. The Department concurs with the recommendations in GAO's
    final report, Research Strategy and Long-term Monitoring Needed for the
    Mojave Desert Tortoise Recovery Program. Expenditures for the desert
    tortoise include those for habitat acquisition, research, surveys, plan
    development, habitat enhancement, and agency staff time. Habitat
    acquisition, the largest expenditure category, has contributed
    significantly to the protection of biologically important areas
    necessary to achieve recovery objectives. Although recovery actions
    have been implemented, tortoise habitat and populations may not respond
    in a measurable way for several to many years afterward. We acknowledge
    that information on the status of tortoise populations and habitats
    affected by land management actions is limited; however, collection of
    population trend data is in progress under the direction and oversight
    of the Service. We have been working with many partners and
    stakeholders to establish a collaborative process for implementing
    recovery actions through a science-based adaptive management approach
    that all interested parties can embrace. The Desert Management
    Oversight Group provides a structure for the implementation of recovery
    and research priorities, and the Service has completed a more effective
    expenditures reporting system for the next fiscal year.
        Question. Many restrictions have arisen as a result of the desert
    tortoise, including grazing reductions and development restrictions.
    This is a burden that falls heavily upon the local communities.
        Answer. The Service and other federal agencies have employed
    several tools to implement the Endangered Species Act while
    accommodating existing land use practices as much as possible. Regional
    habitat conservation plans have been implemented in Nevada and Utah to
    allow development and facilitate recovery of the species with active
    community involvement. Federal agencies have purchased cattle grazing
    allotments from willing sellers and worked with local groups to reduce
    the impacts of activities on lands with tortoise habitat. We are
    assessing further options to conserve the desert tortoise while
    minimizing economic impacts. In January 2003, the Service appointed the
    Recovery Plan Assessment Committee and initiated reassessment of the
    1994 Recovery Plan. During the reassessment process, we will evaluate
    new information on the status and conservation needs of the tortoise,
    and ensure that research is applied towards management needs as
    recommended by the GAO.
        Question. What is being done on the federal end by the Service to
    set goals and track the population trends and recovery of the species
    so that at some point in the future the species might recover and be
    [de]listed?
        Answer. The Service recently met with stakeholder groups and
    federal, state, and local partners to discuss development of a recovery
    strategy and direction for the revised desert tortoise recovery plan.
    Workshops are being held to address issues such as disease, predation,
    and population monitoring. The Recovery Plan Assessment Committee will
    evaluate the delisting criteria and consider the appropriateness of
    designating the existing recovery units as distinct population
    segments. If designated as such, any given distinct population segments
    may be delisted independently by achieving its stated recovery
    objectives. Development of a statistically valid monitoring program for
    a wide-ranging species that occurs underground most of the year has
    proved to be challenging. However, we are pursuing implementation of a
    line distance sampling technique to obtain statistically valid
    population data and track population trends across the range of the
    species.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan

        Question. The Administration's fiscal year 2004 budget request for
    the Payment-in-Lieu-of-Taxes program (PILT) is $200 million. This
    amount is $18.5 million below the fiscal year 2003 enacted level, a cut
    of 8.5 percent. Why has the administration sought to cut this program?
    What was the Department's request for the PILT program to the Office of
    Management and Budget? How much will North Dakota receive under the
    fiscal year 2003 enacted level of $218.5 million? How much would North
    Dakota receive under the President's budget request of $200 million?
        Answer. Although the fiscal year 2004 President's Budget request
    for PILT of $200 million is $18.5 million below the fiscal year 2003
    enacted level, it is $35 million more than the fiscal year 2003 request
    of $165 million. The Department's request to OMB is part of the
    Administration's pre-decisional budget process and is therefore not
    subject to release. Under the fiscal year 2003 enacted level of $218.5
    million, North Dakota will receive an estimated $1 million in PILT
    payments. Under the President's budget request of $200 million, North
    Dakota would receive an estimated $800,000.
        Question. The Department of the Interior has indicated that an
    additional $2 million is needed in fiscal year 2003 to pay for court-
    ordered endangered species listing actions. While the Department has
    provided the Committee with documentation of the shortfall in listing
    funding, no formal request has been made to bridge this gap. Does the
    Department have a solution to this problem?
        Answer. The White House formally requested that the Congress adopt
    a technical amendment to raise the cap for listing from $9 million to
    $11 million and the sub-cap for critical habitat from $6 million to $8
    million. If this is approved, the Department intends to ask the
    Committee's approval for a reprogramming of $2 million in funds from
    other endangered species program elements to listing. This will fund
    our fiscal year 2003 listing shortfall. In addition, the President's
    budget contains an increase in the listing budget of about $3.3
    million--which includes an increase of $3.8 million for critical
    habitat for already listed species and a decrease for other listing
    activities of $600,000.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Burns. Thank you all very much. The subcommittee
    will stand in recess to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Thursday, May
    22, in room SD-124. At that time we will hear testimony from
    the Honorable Spencer Abraham, Secretary, Department of Energy.
        [Whereupon, at 11:09 a.m., Thursday, April 10, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Thursday,
    May 22.]

      DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2004

                                  ----------

                             THURSDAY, MAY 22, 2003

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

                              DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                            Office of the Secretary

    STATEMENT OF HON. SPENCER ABRAHAM, SECRETARY

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS

        Senator Burns. We're going to call the committee to order
    this morning, Mr. Secretary, thank you for coming. I've got a
    brief statement on my opening and then the ranking member,
    Senator Dorgan, will be along soon and we will take his
    statement and if he has questions, we will allow him to do
    that. He's running on a tight tether today, and I understand
    you are too. And I think we are going to have a stack of votes
    this morning, and with the President being in HC-5, once you
    get into the bowels of that building, it takes a while to free
    yourself.
        First of all, we're glad to see you here to discuss the
    budget this morning for the Department of Energy. I know we
    struggled a bit to get this hearing on your schedule and I know
    you made some changes to accommodate us, we appreciate that.
        The Department's request for activities under the
    subcommittee's jurisdiction represents an effective cut of
    around $120 million. That is a considerable reduction for
    energy activity. Of course the reason it falls under this
    committee is because of the vast amount of our energy found on
    public lands under our jurisdiction. We can quibble over
    transfers and deferrals, but I think it's fair that we discuss
    some of these reductions as that is the reason we hold these
    hearings.
        Within the total you have requested, there are some very
    healthy increases in some selected programs. The budget
    increases weatherization by $65 million, in keeping with the
    President's intention to double the program. The budget
    includes $40 million for the National Climate Change Technology
    Initiative for climate change-related research, $23 million of
    which is under this subcommittee's jurisdiction. And the budget
    increases fuel cell research within the Office of Energy
    Efficiency by $22 million, and includes the increases to
    support the President's Freedom Car Initiative.
        We are anxious to hear more about these proposals, Mr.
    Secretary, and I expect you will find at least conceptual
    support for many of them from this subcommittee. The problem is
    that the budget also includes fairly severe cuts in other
    important programs. The oil and gas programs within the Office
    of Fossil Energy have been cut in half. The fuels program
    within the Office of Fossil Energy has been completely
    eliminated, and the Industries of the Future program has been
    reduced about two-thirds.
        We recognize, Mr. Secretary, that you are compelled to
    operate under some fairly restrictive budget constraints and we
    are certainly not opposed to reducing some programs in favor of
    others as national priorities change, and as successes and
    failures in your research programs become known.
        But I think what you will find concerns us most is the
    severity of some of these reductions, and the fact that some of
    them may result in us failing to capitalize on important
    research that has been supported by this committee for many,
    many years, and the research done in those areas has been
    fairly sizable. It is important, Mr. Secretary, to maintain a
    robust and balanced R&D program in the Department, one that
    enhances our Nation's energy security and enables our economy
    to grow without sacrificing environmental quality, and I think
    the focus today will be whether your budget request is adequate
    to sustain such a program.
        Your testimony will help us as we begin to draft this
    appropriations bill under some very tight constraints and
    again, we appreciate you being here this morning. I think it
    will also help our deliberations on the energy bill, which I
    hope the Senate will return to after the Memorial Day recess.
        I now turn to our ranking member, my good friend from North
    Dakota, Senator Dorgan. Good morning.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN

        Senator Dorgan. Senator Burns, thank you very much, and
    thank you for holding this hearing.
        Senator Burns. You didn't bring any more weed this morning?
        Senator Dorgan. Since we're dealing with the Energy
    Department, I should have brought a gallon of gas perhaps, but
    the chairman is referring to a noxious weed that I brought to
    the last hearing, but I am not going to do that in the future.
    I didn't know it was very effective.
        Let me thank the Secretary for being here. The Secretary
    and I had a chance to visit yesterday, and I know that you are
    under certain restraints, that there really isn't any way that
    you could tell us or the audience, or for that matter the press
    what you really think of the Office of Management and Budget.
    So, I will not ask you about that, but let me raise a couple
    issues, some of the same issues that Senator Burns raised.
        You know I'm concerned about the decrease for energy
    conservation research, I talked to you about that yesterday. I
    think cutting energy conservation research is moving in exactly
    the wrong direction. I appreciate that the funding for the
    larger energy efficiency and renewable office funded in the
    energy and water bill is up slightly less than 1 percent, but
    renewable energy research, while important in its own right, is
    not a substitute for efforts focused on conserving the amount
    of energy we use. We use a prodigious amount of energy in this
    country as I've stated, and it is exactly the same calculation,
    and we consume 25 percent of the world's energy, which points
    to our need to focus on research and development efforts in
    reducing the amount of energy consumption, so I'm concerned
    about that.
        My colleague Senator Burns said that the budget severely
    undercuts fossil energy R&D, which accounts for 85 percent of
    the energy resources in this country. Over half of our
    electricity comes from coal, and oil and natural gas account
    for almost 100 percent of our transportation energy needs.
    Because of this, environmentally sound approaches to the
    management of fossil energy certainly is essential to our
    national energy security.
        Now, we need money for new initiatives, but money for new
    initiatives should not come from other initiatives that are
    also very important. We talk about a hydrogen economy and fuel
    cells, and I am very appreciative of the present research in
    that area and this is a direction we ought to head, I don't
    think you can overstate the importance of that. It is very
    important. I have said that we need an Apollo-type program, a
    program that is bold and aggressive, and I suggested around
    $6.5 billion over a period of years. But having said all that,
    I'm very impressed that the administration put itself on record
    saying let's move in this regard. So the question isn't the
    direction so much as it is velocity, and I hope that we can
    wrap this up into an Apollo-type program. But we should not be
    believing that even as we move in that direction we are going
    to somehow diminish the use of coal, oil and natural gas long
    into the future, and the ability to do that in a thoughtful way
    requires that we have adequate research.
        As Senator Burns knows, we have a Commerce Committee
    hearing ongoing at the moment and I have another appropriations
    subcommittee as well, so I will not be able to stay for
    questions, Mr. Secretary, but you and I covered most of our
    concerns yesterday in the meeting in my office. And again, I
    was pleased to serve with you in the Congress, here in the
    Senate, and I am really pleased you are where you are.
        Secretary Abraham. Me as well, thank you, Senator.
        Senator Burns. Thank you, Senator Dorgan. Mr. Secretary, we
    look forward to your statement.

                   SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. SPENCER ABRAHAM

        Secretary Abraham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and you and the
    ranking member, we obviously served together for a number of
    years and have come to these projects we work on together from
    a background of previous successful collaboration, and I look
    forward to continuing that again this year.
        Mr. Chairman, what I propose is that I submit most of the
    testimony I have here for the record rather than in an oral
    presentation, give a very brief overview so that we can move
    ahead with the hearing.
        Our fiscal year budget for the Department of Energy, both
    the component within this subcommittee as well as the component
    within the Subcommittee on Energy and Water is a request for
    $23.4 billion, and we believe it will allow the Department to
    help address a number of issues that relate to America's safety
    and security. This amount is $1.3 billion above the fiscal year
    2003 budget request, which is a 5.9 percent increase overall.
        We do recognize, Mr. Chairman, the critical contribution of
    energy on national defense, that the environment and science
    and technology make to a prosperous as well as a peaceful
    future, and I think this budget continues that work. With
    regard to our energy work, the energy sector, this budget
    submission is collectively between both subcommittees $2.5
    billion. We think it will allow us to continue our wide-ranging
    efforts that will lead to the eventual transformation of our
    energy economy.
        I think the most exciting work and promising areas of long-
    term research and technology expansion either fall wholly or in
    large part within the province of this subcommittee, so I think
    not just this year but in the years ahead, we are going to see
    a great deal of activity going on in programs that this
    subcommittee has appropriations responsibility for.
        Our fossil energy promotes this administration's belief
    that coal must be a critical part of our long-term energy
    future. We recognize coal is abundant, it is comparatively
    inexpensive and is going to be used here and around the world.
    Our administration appreciates environmental concerns regarding
    coal and will devote technology to answer those concerns and to
    guarantee the future widespread use of coal. That's the
    rationale between the President's Clean Coal Power Initiative,
    which seeks $2 billion over 10 years to companies that work on
    and test technologies that improve power plant generation and
    emission of coal.
        In addition, we recognize carbon management requires
    special attention and that's why our budget this year features
    a 60 percent increase for research into carbon sequestration,
    which in my view and I think in our judgment will be a key to
    finding methods and technologies to reduce, avoid or capture
    greenhouse gas emissions. More importantly, it is that interest
    as much as any which was behind our recently announced coal-
    powered generation project of the future, we call it Future-
    Gen, which will lead us to operate the world's first coal-
    fired, emission-free power plant. Future-Gen will take on the
    challenge of cutting electricity emissions and sequestration of
    greenhouse gasses and promote the increased use of hydrogen in
    meeting future energy needs. It is one of, I think, the most
    bold steps we can take towards a pollution-free energy future.
        In addition to the game-changing research in the clean coal
    area, we are likewise engaged in another initiative that in my
    judgment will lead us to a transformation in the energy world
    with the development of hydrogen fuel cells, as Senator Dorgan
    referred to earlier, as a power source. Hydrogen is the most
    abundant element in the universe, with nearly a limitless
    supply, and the use of hydrogen eliminates many of the
    consequences currently associated with fossil fuels. Our
    administration is very optimistic about the use of hydrogen as
    the transportation fuel of the future. As the President noted
    in his State of the Union address, we are similarly exploring
    the use of hydrogen to generate electricity to heat our homes
    and power our businesses, proposing to spend about $1.7 billion
    dollars on hydrogen fuel cell research and development, and the
    development of the transportation applications of hydrogen.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        I can think of no other program with the potential payoff
    for our Nation's security, our economic security, our foreign
    policy and especially for the environment as the work we're
    going to be doing on hydrogen. I think some day people may look
    back on that initiative as one of the greatest achievements of
    this time, and perhaps connect it up to the activities of this
    subcommittee. We look forward to working with the committee on
    these exciting new ventures as well as our ongoing work related
    to weatherizaton assistance programs, natural gas, and a host
    of other topics that time doesn't permit me to go into
    discussion at this moment of these various other initiatives,
    as well as the ones I mention in my written testimony. I look
    forward in the Q and A session to having the chance to respond
    to any questions that you might have.
        [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Hon. Spencer Abraham

                                  INTRODUCTION

        Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, it is a pleasure to
    be here today to discuss the President's fiscal year 2004 Budget
    request for the Department of Energy (DOE).
        The total fiscal year 2004 Budget request for the Department of
    Energy is $23.4 billion (excluding $123 million advanced appropriated/
    deferred from fiscal year 2003). This amount is $1.2 billion above the
    fiscal year 2003 appropriated level. This Administration recognizes the
    critical contribution our work on defense, energy security, the
    environment and world-leading science and technology makes to a
    peaceful and prosperous future. Of the total $23.4 billion request,
    $1.7 billion is requested for programs funded in the Interior and
    Related Agencies Appropriation under the jurisdiction of this
    Subcommittee. The $1.7 billion Interior Appropriations request is $76.7
    million less than appropriated in fiscal year 2003.
        The total fiscal year 2004 Budget continues the Administration's
    commitment to ensure national defense and safeguard the Nation's energy
    security through advances in science and technology, as well as fulfill
    our obligation as the environmental stewards to our communities. While
    DOE's national policy objectives have not changed, this budget reflects
    a new approach toward conducting business at the Department of Energy.
    Reengineering efforts that we began in fiscal year 2002 have taken
    shape: programmatic activities are better focused to achieve primary
    mission objectives, budget priorities are set with improved measurable
    performance criteria, and corporate management initiatives reflect
    aggressive implementation of the President's Management Agenda.
        The President's fiscal year 2004 Budget for the Department of
    Energy reflects, and addresses, the critical challenges we face today
    and will continue to face in the coming decades. I have charted a
    course for the Department of Energy that emphasizes DOE's critical
    contributions to the Nation's national security and provides forward-
    reaching solutions to America's energy problems. My priorities are to
    meet our responsibilities to maintain the nuclear stockpile; expand and
    make more comprehensive our non-proliferation activities; accelerate
    the environmental cleanup program; develop 21st century cutting edge
    advanced fuel cell and alternative energy technologies; maintain coal
    as a major, low-cost, domestically produced, energy resource through
    the Coal Research initiative; build and maintain a stable and effective
    national defense program to respond to the guidance in the Nuclear
    Posture Review with special emphasis on revitalizing laboratory and
    production plant infrastructure; continue our leadership to ensure
    nuclear power remains a key energy resource; and maintain a world class
    scientific research capability. The fiscal year 2004 Budget is focused
    to deliver on these priorities.
        As part of the Department's Strategic Planning process these
    priorities translate into six overlapping Departmental goals that form
    our core mission of National Security. All of the Department's planning
    and budgeting for fiscal year 2004 drives toward these six goals:
      --Maintain a safe, secure and reliable nuclear deterrent
      --Control nuclear proliferation
      --Reduce dependence on energy imports
      --Achieve a cleaner, healthier environment
      --Improve our energy infrastructure to ensure the reliable delivery
            of energy, and
      --Maintain a world-class scientific research capability
        Formulation of this year's budget reflects significant management
    changes occurring within the Department of Energy. Guided by the
    President's Management Agenda and my management reforms started in
    fiscal year 2003, this budget implements integrated, long-term program
    planning and performance accountability. The Department is implementing
    a five-year programmatic and planning framework to provide an
    unprecedented opportunity to consider future impacts in determining
    this year's funding priorities. This budget was formulated to deliver
    measurable results to reach the Department's strategic goals. This
    achievement is a significant step toward reaching my key goal to focus
    DOE activities to adhere to the primary mission of national security.
    By streamlining program activities and management structures, the
    Department of Energy will more effectively and efficiently manage and
    produce the results expected by American taxpayers.
     president's management agenda and national energy policy coordination
        Rising to the challenge of the President's Management Agenda, the
    Department is beginning to improve how it manages, budgets, and plans
    for all programs, projects, and activities. By improving management,
    performance, and accountability, the Department is striving for a level
    of performance that keeps DOE programs safe, on track, and on budget. A
    system of scorecards is being used to evaluate the effectiveness of
    various programs and allocate resources to achieve this end.
    Performance measures are improving to ensure that they are specific,
    quantifiable, concise, comprehensive, and relevant to the American
    taxpayer. Also, in accordance with the President's commitment to an
    expanded and effective electronic government, DOE is centrally managing
    information technology investments to reduce waste, increase
    productivity, and provide increased corporate services at lower cost.
        Research and Development Investment Criteria.--The President's
    Management Agenda calls for consistent and sufficient evaluation of
    future research and development (R&D) investments and past performance.
    In response, the Department developed internal guidance for programs to
    score their R&D activities against the Administration's applied R&D
    investment criteria. This approach focuses R&D dollars on long-term,
    potentially high-payoff activities that require Federal involvement to
    be both successful and achieve public benefit. The Department will
    continue to work to develop consistent scoring and benefit estimation
    methods, to permit comparison of applied R&D programs across the
    Department.
        The applied R&D scorecard process is an important way the
    Department is integrating performance into the budget. The scorecard
    process is in its second year of development. The goal is to develop
    highly analytical justifications for applied research portfolios in
    future budgets. This will require the development and application of a
    uniform cost and benefit evaluation methodology across programs to
    allow meaningful program comparisons.
        The Department's Science programs also participate in the
    government-wide effort to evaluate basic research efforts against the
    criteria of quality, relevance, and performance. As part of this first
    year effort for basic research programs, the Office of Science has
    incorporated the principles of the investment criteria into the
    formulation of its Congressional budget narrative.
        Program Assessment Rating Tool.--In addition to the use of R&D
    investment criteria, the Department implemented a new tool to evaluate
    the management effectiveness of selected programs. The Program
    Assessment Rating Tool (PART) was developed by the Office of Management
    and Budget (OMB) to provide a standardized way to assess the
    effectiveness of the Federal Government's portfolio of programs. While
    OMB's objective for fiscal year 2004 was to evaluate 20 percent of each
    government agency, the Department of Energy reviewed nearly 60 percent
    of its activities through the PART process. The Departmental elements
    that participated were Environmental Management, Science, Fossil
    Energy, Nuclear Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the
    Power Marketing Administrations, and the National Nuclear Security
    Administration.
        The structured framework of the PART provides a means through which
    programs can assess their activities differently than through
    traditional reviews. While some of the programs received less than
    favorable scores, the information exchange between the Department and
    OMB proved quite valuable. The current focus is to establish outcome-
    and output-oriented goals, the successful completion of which will lead
    to benefits to the public, such as increased national security and
    energy security, and improved environmental conditions. The Department
    will incorporate feedback from OMB into the fiscal year 2005 Budget and
    planning process, and will take the necessary steps to continue to
    improve performance. The results of the review are reflected in the
    Department's fiscal year 2004 Budget. The refocusing of the Fossil
    Energy Oil and Gas program was supported by the results of the PART
    review.
        National Energy Policy Office.--The Department of Energy has
    established a National Energy Policy Office to provide strategic
    direction within DOE and overall coordination within the Federal
    Government with respect to implementing national energy plan
    recommendations and activities to assure dependable, affordable, and
    environmentally responsible production, delivery, and use of energy.
    This Office's mission is to achieve measurable performance results and
    consistency in implementing our national energy goals through effective
    policy development, planning and management strategies that are
    integrated into DOE's budgeting process and that foster interagency and
    intergovernmental coordination, generate public-private collaboration,
    and enhance international cooperation. Through such coordination and
    integrated policy planning and budgeting, the Office will assure
    performance results that advance and safeguard our national energy
    security objectives by assuring access to reliable and affordable
    energy supplies through a balanced and diversified portfolio of energy
    sources and modernization of energy infrastructure; securing continuous
    improvement in energy efficiency and conservation through technology
    research development and deployment to manage effectively and extend
    our energy resources, reduce demand and lower costs; assuring
    environmental progress and sustainable growth; and assuring that a
    robust market guides pricing, technology deployment, energy efficiency,
    fuel selection and energy systems.
           interior and related agencies appropriation budget request
        I would now like to address some of the specifics of our fiscal
    year 2004 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations request.
        In total for fiscal year 2004, we are requesting $1.7 billion. This
    amount is $76.7 million less than appropriated in fiscal year 2003. By
    appropriation, we are requesting $519.3 million for Fossil Energy
    Research and Development; $16.5 million for Naval Petroleum and Oil
    Shale Reserves; $36.0 million for the 6th payment in the Elk Hills
    School Lands Fund; $875.8 million for Energy Conservation; $1.0 million
    for Economic Regulation; $175.1 million for Strategic Petroleum
    Reserve; $5.0 million for the Northeast Home Heating Reserve; and $80.1
    million for the Energy Information Administration. In addition, fiscal
    year 2003 appropriations action advance appropriated $36.0 million for
    the 5th payment in the Elk Hills School Lands Fund and deferred $87.0
    million of Clean Coal Technology balances into fiscal year 2004. This
    brings the fiscal year 2004 total to $1.8 billion.
        I would now like to address some specifics of the Fossil Energy,
    Energy Conservation, and Energy Information Administration budget
    requests.

                          FOSSIL ENERGY BUDGET REQUEST

        Mr. Chairman, when he took over as Assistant Secretary for Fossil
    Energy last year, I asked Assistant Secretary Mike Smith to realign the
    Fossil Energy program to focus virtually and exclusively on supporting
    three of the President's top energy and environmental initiatives:
    Clear Skies, Climate Change, and Energy Security.
        To be included in the fiscal year 2004 Budget, Fossil Energy
    programs must either support the development of lower cost, more
    effective pollution control technologies or help diversify the Nation's
    future sources of clean-burning natural gas to meet the President's
    Clear Skies goals; expand the Nation's technological options for
    reducing greenhouse gases either by increasing power plant efficiencies
    or by capturing and isolating these gases from the atmosphere; or
    measurably add to the Nation's energy security by providing a short-
    term emergency response (e.g., Strategic Petroleum Reserve) or a
    longer-term alternative to imported oil (e.g., hydrogen and methane
    hydrates).
        President's Coal Research Initiative.--The fiscal year 2004 Budget
    continues to meet the President's commitment to spend $2 billion on
    clean coal research over 10 years by providing $320.5 million for the
    President's Coal Research Initiative. Since our budget testimony last
    year, the Department has made significant progress on a new generation
    of environmentally-clean coal technologies.
        Our ``first round'' solicitation in the Clean Coal Power
    Initiative--the centerpiece of the President's clean coal commitment--
    attracted three dozen proposals for projects totaling more than $5
    billion. On January 15, 2003, we announced the first winners of this
    competition--eight projects with a total value of more than $1.3
    billion, more than one billion dollars of which would be provided by
    the private sector. Industry has again stepped up to the table,
    offering both good ideas and significant private sector cost-sharing.
        In fiscal year 2004, we are requesting $130.0 million as the next
    ``installment'' of the Clean Coal Power Initiative. At the present
    time, our plans are to issue competitive solicitations every 2 years--
    the next one in the fall of 2004. As in the initial solicitation, we
    propose to combine 2 years of appropriations (and any available funds
    from prior solicitations) because of the size and scope of the
    projects.
        The President's Clean Coal Power Initiative is especially
    significant because it directly supports the President's Clear Skies
    initiative. The first projects, for example, included an array of new
    cleaner and cheaper concepts for reducing sulfur dioxide, nitrogen
    oxides, and mercury--the three air pollutants targeted by the Clear
    Skies initiative. To ensure that even more effective pollution control
    concepts continue to emerge as candidates for future clean coal
    competitions, we are also requesting $22.0 million for research into
    even cleaner and more affordable innovations for existing plants.
        Several of the recently-selected Clean Coal projects also help
    expand the menu of options for meeting the President's climate change
    goal of an 18 percent reduction in greenhouse gas intensity (carbon
    equivalent per GDP) by 2012, primarily by boosting the efficiencies of
    power plants (meaning that less fuel is needed to generate electricity
    with a corresponding reduction in greenhouse gases). To position even
    more advanced, high efficiency power generating concepts for future
    development and testing, we are requesting $64.0 million to continue
    research into integrated gasification-combined cycle and a companion
    effort in high-performance, multi-fuel-capable turbines. A key aspect
    of these advanced power concepts--which will make up key modules of our
    ``Vision 21'' emission-free power plant of the future--is that they
    emit carbon dioxide in a way that makes the greenhouse gas easier to
    capture.
        Carbon management will become an increasingly important element of
    our coal research program. Carbon sequestration--the capture and
    permanent storage of carbon dioxide--has emerged as one of our highest
    priorities in the Fossil Energy research program--a priority reflected
    in the proposed budget increase to $62.0 million in fiscal year 2004
    from a fiscal year 2003 appropriated level of $39.9 million.
        Carbon sequestration, if it can be proven practical, safe, and
    affordable, can dramatically enhance our long-term response to climate
    change concerns. It could offer the United States and other nations one
    approach for reducing greenhouse gases that would not necessitate
    changes in the way we produce, deliver, or use energy.
        Beginning in fiscal year 2004, one of the cornerstones of our
    carbon sequestration program will be a national network of regional
    partnerships. This Secretarial initiative, which I announced in
    November, will bring together the Federal Government, state agencies,
    universities, and private industry to begin determining which options
    for capturing and storing greenhouse gases are most practicable for
    specific areas of the country. We hope to start at least five of these
    partnerships in fiscal year 2004.
        Our sequestration budget also includes support for the President's
    National Climate Change Technology Initiative Competitive Solicitation
    program. Funding from the Fossil Energy program will be combined with
    funding from the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology and
    the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy to competitively
    fund technology R&D with the greatest potential to reduce, avoid, or
    sequester gas emissions.
        Another aspect of the President's Coal Research Initiative is the
    production of clean fuels from coal. Hydrogen has emerged as a major
    priority within the Administration and the Department of Energy as a
    clean fuel for tomorrow's advanced power technologies (such as fuel
    cells) and for future transportation systems. Within the Fossil Energy
    program, we have allocated $5.0 million for research into new methods
    for making hydrogen from coal.
        To provide fundamental scientific knowledge that benefits all of
    our coal technology efforts, our fiscal year 2004 Budget also includes
    $37.5 million for advanced research in such areas as materials, coal
    utilization science, analytical efforts, and support for coal research
    at universities (including historically black and other minority
    institutions).
        Other Power Systems Research and Development.--We are also
    proposing $47.0 million for continued development of fuel cells with an
    emphasis on lower-cost technologies that can contribute to both Clear
    Skies emission reductions, particularly in distributed generation
    applications, and Climate Change goals by providing an ultra-high
    efficiency electricity-generating component for tomorrow's power
    plants. Distributed power systems, such as fuel cells, also can
    contribute to the overall reliability of electricity supplies in the
    United States and help strengthen the security of our energy
    infrastructure.
        Natural Gas Research.--The President's Clear Skies Initiative also
    provides the rationale for much of the Department's $26.6 million
    budget request for natural gas research. Clear Skies legislation is
    likely to further increase demand for this clean-burning fuel; even in
    the absence of new environmental requirements, natural gas use in the
    United States is likely to increase by 50 percent by 2020.
        Our natural gas research program, therefore, is directed primarily
    at providing new tools and technologies that producers can use to
    diversify future supplies of gas. Emphasis will be increased on
    research that can improve access to onshore public lands, especially in
    the Rocky Mountain region where much of our undiscovered gas resource
    is located. A particularly important aspect of this research will be to
    develop innovative ways to recover this resource while continuing to
    protect the environmental quality of these areas.
        We also plan to establish a new industry-led, university consortia-
    based program to develop breakthrough technologies that can help assure
    a continued supply of affordable natural gas beyond 2015. The focus of
    this program will be on projects that could revolutionize the way
    natural gas is supplied in the United States--a focus that is well
    beyond the type of research industry is now doing.
        Natural gas storage will also assume increasing significance in the
    United States as more and more power plants require consistent, year-
    round supplies of natural gas. Toward this end, we will initiate a
    nationwide, industry-led consortium that will examine ways to improve
    the reliability and efficiency of our Nation's gas storage system and
    explore opportunities for LNG facility sitting.
        The most significant change in our Natural Gas Research program is
    the new work we are proposing in hydrogen. In keeping with our energy
    security goal of finding alternatives to traditional transportation
    fuels, we are proposing to spend $6.6 million to study innovative
    methods to produce hydrogen from natural gas. We will ask industry,
    academia, and our national laboratories to submit new ideas on hydrogen
    production and related research. Since the byproduct of gas-to-hydrogen
    processes will likely be carbon dioxide, this effort will also include
    research on ways to capture this greenhouse gas. This work will be
    closely coordinated with other efforts in the Office of Fossil Energy
    to capture and sequester carbon dioxide.
        Over the long-term, the production of natural gas from hydrates
    could have major energy security implications. Hydrates--gas-bearing,
    ice-like formations in Alaska and offshore--contain more energy than
    all other fossil energy resources. Hydrate production, if it can be
    proved technically and economically feasible, has the potential to
    shift the world energy balance away from insecure sources of supply.
    Understanding hydrates can also improve our knowledge of the science of
    greenhouse gases and possibly offer future mechanisms for sequestering
    carbon dioxide. For these reasons, we are continuing a research program
    to study gas hydrates with a proposed funding level of $3.5 million.
        Oil Technology Development.--The President's National Energy Plan
    calls attention to the continued need to strengthen our Nation's energy
    security by promoting enhanced oil (and gas) recovery and improving oil
    (and gas) exploration technology through continued partnerships with
    public and private entities.
        At the same time, however, we recognize that if the Federal oil
    technology R&D program is to produce beneficial results, it must be
    more tightly focused than in prior years. Consequently, our fiscal year
    2004 Budget request of $15.0 million reflects a reorientation of the
    program toward those areas where there is clearly a national benefit
    rather than solely a corporate benefit.
        One example is the use of carbon dioxide (CO2) injection
    to enhance the recovery of oil from existing fields. CO2
    injection is a proven enhanced oil recovery practice that prolongs the
    life of some mature fields, but the private sector has not applied this
    technique to its fullest potential due to insufficient supplies of
    economical CO2. A key Federal role to be carried out in our
    proposed fiscal year 2004 program will be to facilitate the greater use
    of this oil recovery process by integrating it with CO2
    captured and delivered from fossil fuel power plants.
        We will also refocus much of our Oil Technology program on a new
    Domestic Resource Conservation effort that will target partnerships
    with industry and universities to sustain access to marginal wells and
    reservoirs. These aging fields account for 40 percent of our domestic
    production, yet contain billions of barrels of oil that might still be
    recovered with ever-improving technology. A high priority effort in
    fiscal year 2004 will be to develop ``micro-hole'' technology. Rather
    than developing just another new drilling tool, the Federal program
    will integrate ``smart'' drilling systems, advanced imaging, and
    enhanced recovery technologies into a complete exploration and
    production system. Micro-hole systems may offer one of our best
    opportunities for keeping marginal fields active because the smaller-
    diameter wells can significantly reduce exploration costs and make new
    drilling between existing wells (``infill'' drilling) more affordable.
    Using breakthrough technology like this to keep marginal fields in
    production preserves the opportunity to eventually apply even more
    advanced innovations that could recover even larger quantities of
    domestic crude that traditional oil recovery methods currently leave
    behind.
        Other Fossil Energy R&D.--Our budget also includes $124.3 million
    for other activities in our Fossil Energy program, including $92.8
    million for headquarters and field office salaries, $3.0 million for
    plant and capital improvements, $9.7 million for environmental
    restoration, $6.0 million for Federal matching funds for cooperative
    research and development projects at the University of North Dakota and
    the Western Research Institute, $2.8 million for electricity and
    natural gas import/export responsibilities, and $10.0 million for
    advanced metallurgical research at our Albany Research Center. The
    increase in funding at the Albany Center (up from $6.0 million in
    fiscal year 2003) reflects the Center's growing role in developing
    better materials for fuel cells and in studying new mineral carbonation
    concepts for carbon sequestration.

                               PETROLEUM RESERVES

        The Strategic Petroleum Reserve and Northeast Home Heating Oil
    Reserve are key elements of our Nation's energy security. Both serve as
    response tools for the President to use to protect U.S. citizens from
    disruptions in commercial energy supplies.
        Strategic Petroleum Reserve.--The President has directed us to fill
    the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to its full 700 million barrel
    capacity. The mechanism for doing this--a cooperative effort with the
    Minerals Management Service to exchange royalty oil from Federal leases
    in the Gulf of Mexico--is working well. We have been able to accelerate
    fill from an average of 60,000 barrels per day at the start of the
    President's initiative to a planned rate of 130,000 barrels per day for
    deliveries beginning this month.
        Because of the President's ``royalty in kind'' initiative, we have
    achieved the Reserve's highest inventory level ever, now at 600 million
    barrels. Our goal remains to have a full inventory of 700 million
    barrels by the end of calendar year 2005.
        Our fiscal year 2004 Budget for the SPR is $175.1 million, all of
    which is now in our facilities development and operations account. We
    do not require additional funds in the oil acquisition account because
    charges for transporting ``royalty in kind'' oil to the SPR are now the
    responsibility of the oil supplier. Also, because we have the authority
    to ``borrow'' funds from other Departmental accounts to support an
    emergency SPR drawdown, we no longer require the same amount of standby
    funding in this account. This has allowed us to use $5.0 million in
    funds previously appropriated for this purpose to support a portion of
    our fiscal year 2004 Fossil Energy R&D budget request.
        Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve.--We are requesting $5.0 million
    for the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve, a decrease of $1.0 million
    from the fiscal year 2003 appropriated level. The decrease reflects
    cost savings realized from recompeting our commercial storage
    contracts. The 2-million-barrel reserve remains ready to respond to a
    Presidential order should there be a severe fuel oil supply disruption
    in the Northeast. A key element of this readiness is a new online
    computerized ``auction'' system that we implemented during the last
    year to expedite the bidding process. Installing and testing the
    electronic system (including tests with prospective commercial bidders)
    has been a major element of the Office of Fossil Energy's role in
    implementing the ``e-government'' initiatives in the President's
    management agenda.
        Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves.--The fiscal year 2004
    Budget request of $16.5 million is a decrease of $1.2 million from the
    fiscal year 2003 appropriated level. The Rocky Mountain Oilfield
    Testing Center (RMOTC), established at the Naval Petroleum Reserve No.
    3 in Wyoming, will be closed, resulting in a $3 million per year cost
    savings. RMOTC is more appropriately a private sector activity. We also
    intend to transfer the Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 2 in California to
    the Department of the Interior by the end of fiscal year 2003, although
    the transition and certain environmental compliance activities will
    continue into fiscal year 2004. We further expect to be able to reduce
    our funding requirements for equity redetermination studies for the
    Government's portion of the Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 1,
    which was divested in 1998. Of the four producing zones for which final
    equity shares had to be finalized, three have been completed; the
    fourth (the Shallow Oil Zone) is expected to be finished in fiscal year
    2005.

                       ENERGY CONSERVATION BUDGET REQUEST

        For our Interior appropriation funded programs in fiscal year 2004,
    we are requesting $875.8 million, $16.0 million less than appropriated
    in fiscal year 2003. The decrease reflects a shift in priorities among
    activities supported by the different appropriations, consistent with
    the Administration's R&D investment criteria and PART results, as I
    will describe through my testimony.
        Mr. Chairman, our fiscal year 2004 Budget reflects the new
    organization within EERE. Two years ago, EERE was divided into 31
    programs, in 17 offices, stovepiped into 5 market sectors. There were
    multiple overlapping layers of management and duplicative and
    inconsistent business systems that generated significant inefficiencies
    and made it difficult to ensure accountability.
        In response to the President's Management Agenda, we launched a
    dramatic restructuring of the EERE program in April 2002. This
    restructuring eliminated the 5 market sectors and 17 offices,
    streamlined 31 programs into 11, eliminated up to four management
    levels, and centralized administration functions into a single support
    organization with a focus on developing consistent, uniform, and
    efficient business practices. This is the most dramatic restructuring
    of EERE in at least 12 years and arguably in its history.
        The restructuring combined all the hydrogen and fuel cell
    activities, formerly scattered across 2 market sectors and 3 programs,
    into a single program for greater efficiency and synergy. It also
    combined all the bioenergy-related activities, formerly scattered
    across 3 market sectors and 3 programs, into a single program focused
    on advanced biorefineries.
        The fiscal year 2004 Budget is fully aligned with EERE's new
    management structure and strategic goals and together they will provide
    greater synergy and increased efficiency and productivity in the R&D
    and deployment activities lead by EERE.
        EERE's R&D and technology deployment efforts supported by the
    fiscal year 2004 Budget will provide Americans with greater freedom of
    choice of technology, while providing increased energy security, and
    reducing financial costs and impacts on the environment.
        Mr. Chairman, the Energy Conservation budget request has been
    developed with these challenges and opportunities in mind.
        FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies.--The FreedomCAR and Vehicle
    Technologies (FCVT) Program is developing more energy efficient and
    environmentally friendly highway transportation technologies to help
    reduce United States petroleum consumption. The long-term aim of the
    program is to develop ``leap frog'' technologies such as hydrogen-
    fueled vehicles to provide Americans with freedom of mobility along
    with energy security, lower costs, and lower environmental impacts.
    Program activities include research, development, demonstration,
    testing, technology validation, technology transfer, and education that
    could achieve significant improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency and
    displacement of oil by other fuels which ultimately can be domestically
    produced in a clean and cost-competitive manner.
        In fiscal year 2004, the Department is requesting $157.6 million, a
    decrease of $19.7 million below the fiscal year 2003 appropriated level
    for the FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies program. The FreedomCAR
    portion of the budget is $91.1 million, an increase of $5.5 million
    above the fiscal year 2003 appropriated level. All funding for
    transportation fuel cell and hydrogen infrastructure activities is
    included in the Hydrogen, Fuel Cells, and Infrastructure Technologies
    program to accelerate RD&D activities to support both the FreedomCAR
    partnership and President's new Hydrogen Fuel Initiative.
        Fuel Cell Technologies.--In fiscal year 2004, we are requesting
    $77.5 million, an increase of $22.4 million above the fiscal year 2003
    appropriated level for Fuel Cell Technologies from Interior
    Appropriations. The fiscal year 2004 Budget supports fuel cell cost
    reduction and initiation of a fuel cell vehicle test and evaluation
    program.
        Americans currently depend on foreign sources for 55 percent of our
    oil-a dependence that is projected to rise to 68 percent by 2025. Since
    two thirds of the oil we consume is used for transportation, we must
    focus on alternative means of fueling transportation from domestic
    resources if we ever expect to reverse this trend.
        Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles require no petroleum-based fuels and
    emit no pollutants or carbon dioxide. Their development and commercial
    success would remove personal transportation as an environmental issue
    and substantially reduce our dependence on foreign oil
        The hydrogen needed to fuel these vehicles is domestically
    available in abundant quantities as a component of natural gas, coal,
    biomass, and even water through electrolysis using renewable or nuclear
    power. The challenge is to economically produce, deliver, store, and
    distribute hydrogen for use as a consumer fuel, and to engage the
    broader oil, energy, and power companies in this effort. To meet this
    challenge, the President's fiscal year 2004 Budget proposes a new
    Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, a $1.2 billion effort over five years, which
    will accelerate research and development activities to solve technical
    challenges in hydrogen production, delivery, storage, and distribution.
    When the vision of the President's Fuel Initiative is achieved,
    hydrogen will power the fuel cells that provide energy for our cars,
    trucks, homes, schools, and businesses.
        To support FreedomCAR and the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, we need to
    make significant research and development investments to develop
    vehicles powered by hydrogen fuel cells and the infrastructure to
    support them. The government will be to help fund and coordinate the
    high-risk R&D work of numerous private sector partners and our National
    network of science laboratories. Government coordination of this
    undertaking will help resolve one of the difficulties associated with
    development of a commercially viable hydrogen fuel cell vehicle: the
    ``chicken and egg'' question. Which comes first, the fuel cell vehicle
    or the hydrogen production and delivery-refueling infrastructure to
    support it? The President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, in conjunction
    with the FreedomCAR partnership, answers the question by proposing to
    develop both in parallel; that is, to augment the already significant
    investments in vehicle technologies with new investments in hydrogen
    and fuel cell technologies. By so doing, Federal investments can help
    advance commercialization of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and
    infrastructure by 15 years, from 2030 to 2015.
        These efforts will enable the development of hydrogen fuel cell
    vehicles for the showroom floor by 2020. Success of these programs will
    begin to eliminate the need for imported oil, while simultaneously
    reducing emissions and greenhouse gases from America's transportation
    fleet without affecting the freedom of personal mobility we demand.
        Weatherization and Intergovernmental Activities.--In fiscal year
    2004, we are requesting $357.0 million for Weatherization &
    Intergovernmental Activities, $42.5 million more than appropriated in
    fiscal year 2003.
        The Weatherization and Intergovernmental Program activities support
    the President's National Energy Policy recommendations for rapid
    deployment of clean energy technologies and energy efficient products.
    The program's funding request also supports the President's commitment
    to increase funding by $1.4 billion over 10 years for the
    Weatherization Assistance Program, which improves the energy efficiency
    of dwellings occupied by low-income Americans.
        Our Weatherization Assistance Program request ($288.2 million,
    $64.7 million above the fiscal year 2003 appropriated level), supports
    weatherization of approximately 126,000 low-income homes. Based on
    historical data, the program anticipates that low-income families will
    save $1.80 in energy costs for every dollar invested over the life of
    the efficiency improvements. The Weatherization Assistance Program was
    assessed using the Administration's PART and was rated Moderately
    Effective.
        Our fiscal year 2004 request for other subprogram activities within
    the Weatherization and Intergovernmental Program are as follows: State
    Energy Program Grants ($38.8 million, $5.9 million less than
    appropriated in fiscal year 2003), State Energy Activities ($2.4
    million, $3.0 million less than appropriated in fiscal year 2003), and
    Gateway Deployment ($27.6 million, $13.3 million less than appropriated
    in fiscal year 2003). Within Gateway Development, there are several
    program shifts. For example, to avoid duplication of efforts, funding
    for International Market Development activities is now requested within
    the International Renewable Energy Program in the Energy and Water
    appropriation. The National Industrial Competitiveness through Energy,
    Environment, and Economics (NICE3) activity is terminated because the
    activities are within industry's capability and do not match up well
    against the Administration's R&D investment criteria. Other activities
    are being refocused to ensure program performance can be meaningfully
    evaluated.
        Building Technologies.--EERE's buildings technology R&D programs
    address technologies, techniques and tools to make residential and
    commercial buildings, both in existing structures and new construction,
    more energy efficient, productive and affordable. Strategies include
    system R&D to reduce overall residential and commercial building energy
    use, R&D focused on energy end uses such as water heating, food
    refrigeration, and clothes washing, and the development of building
    energy efficiency codes and national equipment energy efficiency
    standards. The Buildings program was assessed using the PART and was
    rated Adequate. Recommendations included refocusing R&D funding on
    long-term, high-risk, potentially high-payoff activities; evaluating
    potential duplication of Building program activities funded via the
    Energy and Water appropriation; and developing better performance
    measures. The request begins to address these recommendations.
        Our fiscal year 2004 Budget for the Interior-funded portion of the
    Building Technologies program is $52.6 million, $6.8 million less than
    appropriated in fiscal year 2003. The funding supports a portfolio of
    activities that includes solid-state lighting, energy efficiency
    improvement of other building components and equipment, and their
    effective integration using whole-building-system-design techniques, as
    well as the development of codes and standards.
        Emerging Technologies R&D.--In fiscal year 2004, we are requesting
    $21.8 million to conduct building components and equipment R&D. This
    amount is $9.4 million below the fiscal year 2003 appropriated level.
    The request reflects a redirection of near-term, low risk R&D in space
    conditioning and appliances to longer-term, higher-risk activities with
    a greater potential public benefits. For example, we are proposing a $5
    million investment to expand our Solid State Lighting research
    activities. Solid State Lighting represents a promising, new approach
    to efficient lighting systems. Our Solid State Lighting research will
    create the technical foundation to revolutionize the energy efficiency,
    appearance, visual comfort, and quality of lighting products by
    achieving efficiencies upwards of 70 percent (source efficiency).
        Residential Buildings and Zero Energy Buildings R&D.--The fiscal
    year 2004 Budget is $15.2 million, an increase of $2.9 million from the
    fiscal year 2003 appropriated level. The Department will pursue systems
    research on five promising technology areas, enhance activities to
    apply practices and approaches developed through Building America to
    existing residential buildings.
        Equipment Standards and Analysis Program.--We are requesting $9.0
    million, compared with $9.6 million in our fiscal year 2003
    appropriated level. The Department will continue the development of
    equipment test procedures and standards. We will be completing analyses
    that will add new products to the lighting and appliance standards
    program.
        Industrial Technologies.--The Industrial Technologies program
    partners with energy-intensive industries to develop and apply advanced
    technologies and practices that reduce industry's energy consumption
    and improve environmental performance. In fiscal year 2004, we are
    requesting $24.0 million, compared with the $62.1 million appropriated
    in fiscal year 2003, for the Industries of the Future (IOF) (Specific)
    programmatic area. The request reflects a determination that the
    program supports some activities for which the private sector has
    sufficient incentive to pursue without Federal support. The Department
    has re-focused its R&D efforts to higher priority technologies within
    the EERE portfolio, including hydrogen and advanced fuel cell
    technologies. The activities that continue in the IOF (Specific)
    programmatic area will focus on bringing existing projects to
    successful commercialization and pursuing longer-term, higher-risk
    activities with significant potential public benefits that industry
    would not undertake alone. We are also requesting $34.4 million, $2.1
    less than appropriated in fiscal year 2003, for the IOF (Crosscutting)
    programmatic area, which includes Industrial Materials of the Future
    ($13.6 million); High Efficiency Combustion Systems ($2.0 million);
    Sensors and Control Technology ($3.8 million); and Industrial Technical
    Assistance ($14.8 million).
        Biomass.--For the first time we have brought a diverse industry
    together and produced a vision and R&D roadmap that has increased the
    level of industry investment. This roadmap has allowed us to begin the
    process of rebuilding the program and focusing on the most promising
    long-term opportunities for these technologies. We have improved our
    collaboration with other Federal agencies, especially the Department of
    Agriculture (USDA). In addition, the Farm Bill provided direction and
    mandatory funding to USDA to work with DOE in advancing biomass
    technologies. Our fiscal year 2004 request for Interior-funded portion
    of the biomass program is $8.8 million, compared with $24.6 million
    appropriated in fiscal year 2003. The request supports continuing R&D
    on the thermochemical and bioconversion process, and evaluating
    opportunities for the production of fuels and chemicals from
    intermediates (``platforms'') such as sugars from biomass and starch
    crops, synthesis gas from biomass gasification, and biomass oils. The
    request terminates black liquor gasification activities, which do not
    align well with the R&D investment criteria, as sufficient incentive
    exists for industry to pursue these activities alone.
        EERE bioenergy activities were integrated into one office to help
    focus resources on a limited and more coherent set of goals and
    objectives, increasing collaboration with industry, reducing overhead
    expenses, and exploiting synergies among similar activities in support
    of a future biorefinery industry. This focus on a clear set of goals,
    substantial leveraging of research funding with industry, and the
    transfer to industry of a number of demonstration activities that
    industry should continue to pursue without federal support is reflected
    in our request.
        Power.--Our Distributed Energy Resources Program leads a national
    effort to develop a flexible, smart, and secure energy system by
    integrating clean and efficient distributed energy technologies
    complementing the existing grid infrastructure. The program is
    supporting regional and state strategies to ensure electricity and
    reliability. By producing electricity where it is used, distributed
    energy technologies can increase grid asset utilization and reduce the
    need for upgrading some transmission and distribution lines. Also,
    because distributed generators are located near the point of use, they
    allow for the capture of the waste heat produced by fuel combustion
    through combined heat and power (CHP) systems. In fiscal year 2004, we
    are requesting $51.8 million, compared with $61.1 million appropriated
    in fiscal year 2003. The program is following an RD&D model, similar to
    Advanced Turbine Systems subprogram, completed in fiscal year 1999, in
    pursuing activities in microturbines, reciprocating engines, thermally
    activated devices and other areas. The program expects to meet the
    performance milestones for efficiency, environmental emissions and cost
    effectiveness for microturbines and reciprocating engines through cost-
    shared RD&D and down selecting among several different approaches.
        Federal Sector.--The Federal Government is the Nation's single
    largest energy consumer. It uses almost one quadrillion British thermal
    units (Btu) of energy annually, or about 1 percent of the Nation's
    energy use. In fiscal year 2000, the Federal Government spent about $4
    billion in energy to heat, cool, light, and conduct operations in
    500,000 buildings. 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 2004, we are requesting $20.0 million
    for the Federal Energy Management Program to continue meeting the goals
    of reducing Federal energy consumption.
        Program Management.--The Energy Conservation Program Management
    budget component provides executive and technical direction,
    information, analysis, and oversight required for efficient and
    productive implementation of those programs funded by Energy
    Conservation appropriations in EERE. In addition, Program Management
    supports all Headquarters staff, six Regional Offices, the Golden Field
    Office in Colorado and several DOE employees at three Operations
    Offices to plan and implement EERE activities as well as facilitate
    delivery of applied R&D and grant programs to federal, regional, State,
    and local customers. In fiscal year 2004, we are requesting $76.7
    million for these activities, which is fairly level with the fiscal
    year 2003 appropriated level.
                energy information administration budget request
        For the Energy Information Administration (EIA), we are requesting
    $80.1 million, the same level as appropriated in fiscal year 2003. 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, and
    the maintenance of modeling systems for both near- and mid-term energy
    market analysis and forecasting.
        In fiscal year 2004, EIA's priority is to maintain high-quality
    core energy data programs and forecasting systems needed to provide
    timely data, analysis, and forecasts. EIA will complete the update and
    overhaul of its consumption surveys. EIA will continue to overhaul the
    electricity surveys and data systems to accommodate changes in the
    deregulated energy industry and improve data quality and accuracy in
    the petroleum, natural gas, and electricity areas.
        EIA continues to aggressively expand the availability of electronic
    information and upgrade energy data dissemination, particularly on the
    EIA Web site. The increased use of electronic technology for energy
    data dissemination has led to an explosive growth in the number of its
    data customers and the breadth of their interests, as well as an
    increase in the depth of the information distributed. During fiscal
    year 1997, EIA established a goal to increase the number of users of
    its Web site by 20 percent annually. In each of the succeeding years
    EIA has managed to either meet or exceed this commitment, with a 39
    percent increase in fiscal year 2002 while delivering more than 2,400
    gigabytes of information.
        EIA also has increased dramatically the distribution of its
    information by becoming the dependable source of objective energy
    information for the news media. By using this distribution channel EIA
    has ensured its energy data to be widely seen and used by the general
    public at minimal additional cost to the Federal Government.
        In May 2002, on short notice, and with no new budget resources,
    EIA, at my direction, began operation of a new weekly survey of natural
    gas in underground storage after the American Gas Association stopped
    operation of its weekly survey. This survey is the Nation's only weekly
    gas supply data and is crucial to decisions of supply planners in
    industry and utilities as well as to analysts assessing the current
    natural gas supply and demand situation, especially prior to the winter
    heating season.
        EIA culminated a three-year effort to revise its electric power
    data collection forms with a new set of surveys. The new surveys will
    collect information necessary to understand and evaluate many of the
    changes that have occurred in the electric power industry due to
    restructuring and retail competition by collecting additional
    information from the growing percentage of nonutility generators. EIA
    added to its E-Government initiatives by incorporating Internet data
    collection with this set of surveys.
        In the area of improving data quality, EIA has reprocessed twelve
    years of electricity data from nonutility generators and has revised
    its Annual Energy Review to present this data according to industry
    conventions, moving nonutility power producers' consumption from the
    industrial sector to the electric power sector. The revised data uses
    natural gas consumption supplied by nonutility electric generators in
    place of natural gas pipeline deliveries, providing a better
    representation of natural gas consumption. These revisions will be
    extended to other EIA publications this year.
        With increasing frequency, EIA has been requested by the
    Administration and Congress to produce comprehensive service reports
    that analyze current energy issues of major importance. The number and
    sophistication of these analytical requests have grown, often requiring
    EIA to postpone work on vital quality assurance activities, and
    requiring negotiation with the requestor on delivery dates and the
    scope of the study and final report. As in past years, EIA fulfilled
    several requests for special studies and investigations for the
    Administration and Congress. During fiscal year 2002, EIA expended
    nearly $2 million in resources to complete the 93 special reports and
    analyses during the fiscal year. In particular, EIA was asked by
    several Members of Congress to evaluate the impact of several
    provisions of the proposed House and Senate Energy Bills on energy
    demand, supply, prices, and on the economy. These analyses were often
    referred to Congressional floor debates and many were cited in revision
    to the proposed Senate bill. If this level of demand continues, EIA is
    expected to exceed $2 million in fiscal year 2004 to fulfill these
    requests for analyses and reports on topical energy issues.
        Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my
    prepared statement. I would be happy to answer any questions you may
    have at this time.

        Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. We have been
    joined by the ranking member, and former chairman of the full
    committee, Senator Byrd this morning. Senator Byrd, if you have
    a statement, we would entertain that at this time.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT C. BYRD

        Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and thank
    you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
    hearing today so that the members of this subcommittee have an
    opportunity to review and discuss the administration's fiscal
    year 2004 budget request for the Office of Fossil Energy, the
    Office of Energy Efficiency, the Energy Information Agency, and
    the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I appreciate your willingness
    to ensure the Secretary's appearance this morning. He's kind of
    hard to get hold of, but you brought him in. You are from the
    west, and when you go after them, you get them, right?
        Senator Burns. I wish I could say that about my fishing.
        Senator Byrd. Much of the $1.7 billion appropriated to the
    Energy Department through the Interior bill is directed towards
    research and development activities. These programs,
    particularly the fossil energy programs, are the linchpin to
    ensuring our Nation's energy security. Mr. Chairman, 52 percent
    of the electricity generated in this country comes from a coal-
    fired power plant, and close to 100 percent of our
    transportation comes from oil and natural gas. Obviously, the
    importance of fossil fuels to our national and economic
    security cannot be overstated.
        Yet despite those facts and contrary to all the rhetoric
    that we hear coming from this administration, what is being
    proposed for the Office of Fossil Energy is simply disastrous.
    This budget cuts coal research 10 percent below the fiscal year
    2003 enacted level. It cuts natural gas research and
    development by 43 percent. It cuts oil research and development
    by 64 percent. And it would put 150 of the brightest fossil
    energy scientists out of work at the very moment we should be
    redoubling our efforts to find resources in an environmentally
    sound manner.
        Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you throughout
    the appropriations process to see what can be done to rectify
    these shortsighted and negative proposals. I know that
    resources will be particularly tight for fiscal year 2004, but
    this budget request cannot be adopted in its present form
    without doing serious damage to our Nation's energy security
    efforts. I would urge you and all the members of the
    subcommittee to resist going down that path.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Burns. Thank you, Senator.
        We discussed this when the Secretary was in my office, and
    we're going to find a way to get the job done the way it should
    be done. I'm always amazed at the mindset of some folks. The
    majority of our oil and gas is found on public lands. Yet, we
    vote every day to take those lands and those areas where that
    resource is found completely off the board when it comes time
    to inventory what we have in the event that we need them. So
    this thinking on oil and gas runs counter to some ideas here on
    the Hill of what we should be using.
        We spend a lot of money every year on the Strategic
    Petroleum Reserve, and send millions of barrels of oil down
    there, we simply buy it and put it in the ground. That's a cost
    to the taxpayer. The taxpayer is paying nothing for the natural
    reserves that we find on some of our outer continental shelf
    and our public lands. It is already there because Mother Nature
    stores it, but we are denied the right to inventory it and
    recover it, if it has to be recovered.
        About 2 weeks ago we had the opportunity to drive the fuel
    cell automobiles that General Motors had out here. I will tell
    you that looking at the numbers, and looking at the work that's
    being done, we are closer to a hydrogen society than we think
    we are. The work that's being done in hydrogen fuel cells is
    starting to see some results. So I'm very encouraged about
    that. Also the Secretary and I think there is a great
    possibility with Future-Gen.
        We have tons and tons of coal, and we should not back off
    in working on the technology to make it more feasible, to make
    it more acceptable to the environment, and to look at this
    great product we have because it is a source of the cheapest
    power that we produce today other than hydro. Hydro is the only
    one that can come close to that. So, Mr. Secretary, we talked a
    little bit about Future-Gen and its proposals, we look forward
    to working with you on that, and of course we also have some
    very distinct ideas on where it should be located, but
    nonetheless I think it is a bold step as far as our concerns.
        In the area of conservation, I believe you are aware of the
    solid-state lighting initiative which this subcommittee
    supported with an appropriation of around $3 million last year.
    You have requested $5 million for this program and there is
    significant promises that lay ahead in solid-state lighting and
    we've been a witness to a lot of that research and development.
    I understand the Department has investigated and calculated
    these potential benefits while developing a road map for the
    solid-state lighting program. Would you want to share with the
    committee your conclusions or have you drawn any conclusions,
    or where are you in that particular program?
        Secretary Abraham. Well, I think, Mr. Chairman that the
    conclusions we have to this point is we believe it is possible
    to produce higher quality lighting using advanced solid-state
    technology that could produce a 70 percent improvement over the
    best fluorescent lighting today. We are seeking about a 21
    percent increase in the lighting R&D budget from what we had
    submitted in 2003, in part to accommodate an increase in next-
    generation solid-state lighting.
        So you know, I think the percentage of total electricity
    used in this country that's attributed to lighting is about 22
    percent of all of our electricity demand level, so if we can
    make gains in efficiency or breakthroughs in this area, it has
    a much broader application than a lot of the other things in
    which we do research. So I think we are exploring creating a
    more formal public/private kind of partnership and try to focus
    more on this issue. And I know that in the energy bill, this
    has come up as an area in which the Congress will want to take
    a lead in setting out a formalized process for this and it is
    an area where real potential exists.
        Senator Burns. For the information of the committee, we are
    talking about the use of fiber optics for the purpose of
    lighting. Senator, this can even be done through your drapes.
    They can change the tone of light and the amount of light. The
    folks who work what they call the midnight shift now, but in
    your day we worked graveyard, if you remember.
        Senator Byrd. The hoot owl.
        Senator Burns. The hoot owls. They can now make lighting in
    a plant to simulate a morning light, noon light, and an
    afternoon light, even though it's dark outside. It's a
    marvelous breakthrough. There is a consortium of manufacturers
    who have come together to support this lighting initiative.
    It's just like the Secretary says, when you talk about the
    possibility of a 70 percent savings in lighting costs alone in
    this country, you're talking about a big chunk of conservation.
    I really hope that the Department of Energy will take a closer
    look.
        According to the budget justification, a rather small off-
    highway vehicle R&D program is being terminated because other
    research opportunities have higher impact on energy savings. In
    looking at the Department's own R&D road map off-highway,
    however, I find that off-highway uses account for 20 percent of
    the fuel used in the transportation sector. That is a huge
    amount and I don't think there are a lot of people that
    understand how much off-highway fuel is used in this country.
    Can you reconcile these figures with the energy use and the
    emissions with your decision to terminate a $3.5 million
    program?

                  OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE R&D PROGRAM TERMINATION

        Secretary Abraham. As I understand, the principal focus of
    the work that has been done has been related to railroad
    applications, and I think in that area the amount of actual
    demand or the use of oil is pretty small compared to the daily
    total consumption of the country, which is about a quarter-
    million barrels a day out of 12 million barrels a day of
    imports alone. So in terms of the priority somebody has to set
    when somebody sets a budget, we looked at that percentage
    versus the percentage that goes to the rest of the
    transportation sector and made the judgment that even if we
    were highly successful in the improvement of R&D in this area
    that it wouldn't have in terms of application that big of an
    effect, and I think that's the basis of that conclusion that
    you read.

                                GASOLINE PRICES

        Senator Burns. I think even though we're going into the
    vacation season gasoline prices are on everybody's mind. We saw
    the spike in February, and it's settled down to around $27 or
    $28 a barrel now. They tell me the domestic supplies are lower,
    our domestic production keeps going down. OPEC made an
    announcement the other day that they were going to watch their
    supplies. Can you give us an update on these fluctuating oil
    prices? And have you drawn any conclusions about what we should
    be doing about them?
        Secretary Abraham. Let me talk about the sense of the
    market for a minute and then what we should be doing. On the
    market itself, there is no question that we went through a
    period here over the last 4 or 5 months that was sort of the
    perfect storm in terms of problems. Just an incredible
    combination of events happened in a very short period of time.
    One of them was the strike in Venezuela, which took about 3
    million barrels of production out for a very long time, and
    much of the Venezuelan oil comes to the United States, that's
    one of our major supply sources. We also had a cold winter
    which made the demand go up during the winter heating season.
    We had in Nigeria a period of civil unrest that threatened some
    of the employees that worked in the oil sector there and they
    pulled people out of the fields and caused production in
    Nigeria to drop for a period. And we had the period leading up
    to the war in Iraq, we had the war, and since its beginning of
    course and even today, the production from Iraq was essentially
    halted. So this was a pretty amazing period of events.
        In one sense we saw some spikes in the market and you
    referred to them, we saw the market go from the mid-20s to even
    a little bit higher, to spike up into the high-30s for a brief
    period of time right before the war, I think the top limit it
    hit was $39.99 a barrel. And it has now come down and is
    stabilizing in the mid-to high-20 range. We would like probably
    less of that, to see, you know, obviously less of that
    volatility.
        On the other hand, if you compare this period to three
    similar periods in which a lot of international crises were
    taking place, from the last 30 years, the spike was
    substantially lower. In 1973 during the oil embargo that took
    place, prices spiked four-fold. In the 1979-80 period during
    the revolution in Iran, prices more than doubled. From the
    Persian Gulf War in 1990, 1991, prices doubled. But here they
    went up for a shorter period of time and by a much smaller
    amount.
        As a consequence, we have seen gasoline prices, the
    projection for gasoline prices for the summer based on our
    energy administration reduced substantially. At one point we
    were pointing to a summer-long average of almost $1.70 a
    gallon, and now it's $1.46 a gallon. We would like to see
    gasoline prices lower than that, but that's comparable or lower
    than two of the last three seasons, so in that sense we are a
    little more optimistic today than we would have been just 1 or
    2 months ago.
        What we would like to do in the long term is much more
    important, and I think the subcommittee cares how we address
    this. One, the chairman has talked about with me and talked
    publicly at some length about the need to diversify our
    international source of supply.
        Senator Byrd makes a good point. We will try to get our
    national labs focused on this challenge.
        So to complete the thought I was on before, Senator, the
    issue you have raised on a number of occasions about the
    diversification of where we have energy partnerships is
    important and Russia is one area I know you're interested in,
    and is one focus of our attention as well. Last year we hosted
    a summit between Russian energy companies and American energy
    companies, tried to bring them together to create an
    opportunity for people to become familiar with new project
    opportunities in Russia and the Caspian region generally. There
    is a lot of infrastructure that needs to be built in order for
    those resources to become available to the world market, but we
    see that as an opportunity. We see in Africa as well as our own
    hemisphere areas where greater production is possible. That's
    one part of the solution.
        A second part of the solution is the need to proceed
    producing more here at home, and the debate the Senate last had
    on the war and other production issues is critical to that.
        Finally, we try to look ahead, how can we reduce our
    dependence on foreign oil, and that's really the reason that
    the hydrogen proposal that we're talking about this morning, we
    see it as a way to address both the dependence on imports on
    the one hand and the environmental issues that relate to
    internal combustion engines on the other. And we are very
    confident that the research we're proposing and would be
    carried out with Congress's support to develop not just a fuel
    cell operating vehicle but the infrastructure to support it has
    the potential by 2020 to produce the capability to literally be
    operated on hydrogen fuel cells. The source of the hydrogen
    could be domestic in nature and it would change the game
    completely in terms of the dependence issue on the one hand and
    the issue of the environmental concerns on the other.
        The one thing I always point out to people is that these
    issues keep coming up. Every time there is a spike in energy
    prices, we all look for answers and then when the prices go
    back down it seems that the people sort of forget about it for
    a while and yet, the cycle continues. And whether it's a series
    of issues like the ones we have had this year or others, it's
    going to keep going in that sort of pattern until we get past
    this debate if we are successful, which I think we can be on,
    the hydrogen fuel cell initiative.
        Senator Burns. Senator, do you have a statement? I was
    going to go to Senator Byrd for his questions.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

        Senator Domenici. I have a brief statement. First, I want
    to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome the Secretary. It's
    good to have you here and great to be with you again. I am
    interested in the President's budget for fossil energy R&D and
    energy conservation programs of the Department, and related
    programs. It has been 2 years since President Bush submitted
    his comprehensive energy plan, and we renewed our commitment to
    passing a comprehensive energy act. I look forward to Senate
    action on Senate bill 14, which is pending on the calendar, and
    I thank you for the help you gave us in preparing that bill.
        I also thank Senator Byrd and his staff and others for the
    significant help they gave us for preparing the coal provisions
    of that bill, which we think are mighty powerful for America's
    future. I believe the programs under the jurisdiction of the
    Interior Subcommittee are critical to our Nation's future. The
    administration's proposal to develop a hydrogen-powered car
    through the FreedomCAR and FreedomFuel initiatives with about
    $1.5 billion spread over the next 5 years hold significant
    promise for the future and again, Senator Byrd, we will find
    provisions for that in Senate bill 14 as a part of a Senate and
    congressional policy, with some changes.
        The Clean Coal Power Initiative and the Coal Research and
    Technology Initiative in which DOE proposes to invest $2
    billion over 10 years focuses on our most abundant energy
    resource. Coal is necessarily part of our energy future, and we
    want it to be clean coal. Investments in more efficient energy
    technologies for industry, the building sectors, and
    transportation have big payoffs for the country.
        Conservation is an important component of our energy
    security. The administration plans to double the funding for
    weatherization assistance over 10 years will greatly advanced
    this goal.
        There are many good initiatives in the President's budget,
    and most necessarily come at the expense of our ongoing
    programs. You know of my concern, Mr. Secretary, over the
    repeat of the administration proposals to significantly reduce
    our investments in oil and gas technologies. These are not big
    programs but over a number of years they have contributed
    significantly to new technology by which we are discovering oil
    and gas underground. The budget proposes funding oil at 65
    percent below the currently enacted level and gas by 44 percent
    below the enacted level. Those are the funding levels.
        Congress has traditionally restored funding to these
    programs and I suspect, even though the budget is tight, that
    we will try again to set our priorities in these appropriations
    bills. It will be tough for us to provide funding for all the
    initiatives, but we are up to the task, and with the ranking
    member understanding these issues as he does, I believe somehow
    or another we are going to come through with a good
    Presidential budget being made better by this subcommittee.
        So I join my colleagues in welcoming you, Mr. Secretary,
    and look forward to an exchange of views. Before I am finished
    today, I will cite a technology that's going on in a little
    community in New Mexico and that I'm going to invite you to
    come and see. When it comes to the issue of clean coal, it is
    truly a marvel. We can't quite get it exposed, but it's
    something that the world should know about. I yield.
        Senator Burns. Senator Byrd.
        Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
    Senator Domenici, for the good work you're doing, and you have
    made my statement already but I'm going to make it again,
    because I know the Secretary wants to hear it.

                       FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH BUDGET CUTS

        Mr. Secretary, 2 years ago, the administration ignored its
    own campaign rhetoric and proposed an 18 percent cut in funding
    for fossil energy research. At that time, I remember that
    speech that the President made in West Virginia, and that's why
    you're sitting right here today. He made that speech in West
    Virginia, he was going to add $2 billion to fossil energy
    research, so here you are. But for that, and his outreach to
    the steelworkers in West Virginia, he wouldn't be President and
    you wouldn't be Secretary.
        So at that time, you explained away the inconsistencies
    between the rhetoric and the reality by telling us that you
    were new to the job and that you did not have complete control
    of the budget. You told us just wait a year and we would see
    concrete evidence that the administration was truly committed
    to the kind of research needed to secure our national energy
    security.
        Last year, the President's budget proposed a 16 percent cut
    in the fossil energy account. You told us then, with all due
    respect, that despite its actions, the administration was
    indeed devoted to fossil energy research but that the Assistant
    Secretary was new to his job and did not have complete control
    of the budget. You also said that he was undertaking a top-to-
    bottom review of all fossil energy programs and that that
    policy review would drive future budget requests.
        Now today, here comes the Secretary before us to present a
    budget request which again cuts fossil energy research by 16
    percent overall, including 13 percent from the Clean Coal
    program, 44 percent from natural gas research, and 58 percent
    from oil research. I think these requests constitute prima
    facie evidence that this administration lacks a coherent and
    comprehensive national energy plan. I can't believe that these
    cuts are based on sound policy decisions. Nor do I believe that
    anyone can seriously argue that in a $2.2 trillion Federal
    budget, $600 million invested in research that will allow us to
    utilize our most abundant energy resources in a sound manner is
    too much. Thus, I question you, Mr. Secretary.
        Can you point to anything in your top-to-bottom policy
    review that would suggest, even suggest a need for the level of
    cuts that this administration has proposed?
        Secretary Abraham. Well, let me try to preface my remarks
    if I could take a little additional time on this response by
    saying this administration absolutely is committed to and is
    working hard on programs that relate to maintaining the
    strength of coal and/or fossil fuels as part of our energy mix,
    and there should be no misunderstanding of that.
        Second, I want to also sort of talk briefly about the
    commitments we are making and the programs we are trying to
    launch.
        Third, I want to put in context, although just for your
    consideration, the chronology of how some of these budgets have
    been put together.
        Let me talk about the program, Senator. We obviously are
    demonstrating a greater level of commitment to putting the
    fossil fuel, and particularly the coal sector, to bring it into
    the 21st century and maintain it as a strong part of our energy
    mix. I base it on the rhetoric of people who accuse us of being
    far too committed to coal in the future. In fact, when we
    announced our hydrogen fuel vehicle program, people assailed it
    because they said you were going to burn dirty coal to create
    hydrogen.
        Our position is that for coal to succeed and survive and be
    successful, we have to address some of these environmental
    concerns, and we concluded that the carbon sequestration is a
    key component of that long-term vision for the use of coal.
    That's why that program is increased by 60 percent. That's a
    result of the review which we conducted.
        I am also convinced that we have to go beyond the
    laboratory and demonstrate to the world the capabilities that
    we have and the ability that we will have to actually operate a
    totally clean power plant, coal-based electricity generation
    facilities that sequesters 100 percent of the carbon. That's
    why we launched a $1 billion program in the new Future-Gen
    proposal which over the next decade and perhaps 10 or 12 years
    will be, I think the most ambitious new program in the area of
    fossil fuel that is being undertaken anywhere in the world. In
    fact, since we announced it, we have had many numerous nations
    contact us to ask if they can participate.
        Now, you have to----
        Senator Byrd. Mr. Secretary, my time is limited. You are
    still cutting the budget. Now, is there anything in the policy
    documents or in the administration's national energy policy
    that would convince Congress to massively scale back our
    national commitment to fossil energy research?
        Secretary Abraham. Let me apologize. I was taking extra
    time and I hope it won't come off Senator Byrd's time.
        Senator Burns. Nothing comes off his time.
        Senator Byrd. You see what respect age brings you. I am the
    ancient gnome of the Capitol.

                     PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL [PART]

        Secretary Abraham. Let me try to focus on that specific
    issue. First, in determination of some specific conclusions,
    one of the things which was included in the process of putting
    this budget together was the result of a series of analyses
    called PART scores, that analyzed various Department of Energy
    programs. It was a review conducted by the Office of Management
    and Budget, and regrettably from our point of view, the scores
    with respect to our natural gas and oil technology programs
    deemed those programs as currently constituted ineffective.
    After that process, with the programs in those areas deemed to
    be literally ineffective in their performance, not every part
    of them, but substantial parts of them, I did not feel I could
    come to this committee or the public and say we are asking for
    large amounts of money to support programs that have been rated
    as ineffective. We are in the process of reconfiguring those
    test programs.
        Second, I would say to the committee if the chronology
    could be thought about, we submitted this budget before this
    committee and this Congress passed its budget, and now the
    comparison to what was the enacted level of 2003 is being used
    to say that we proposed big cuts. And granted, there were marks
    in the House and Senate at the time, but we didn't have a final
    budget. We are proposing in R&D for fossil energy a $40 million
    increase over what we proposed last year.
        I would also note that we had available to us last time
    when we submitted our budget for our 2003 request, we had
    available advanced appropriations which we could include in
    that request. We still submitted a budget with an R&D----

                            FOSSIL ENERGY OMB BUDGET

        Senator Byrd. Mr. Secretary, would you provide the
    committee with the fossil energy budget submission that your
    Department presented to OMB, so the committee can compare it
    with what the administration has requested?
        Secretary Abraham. I don't know if such documents are
    normally provided in this kind of setting and I would have to
    check on whether that kind of document is provided.
        Senator Byrd. What I'm trying to get at is, I'm trying to
    get at what you really told the Office of Management and
    Budget--I suppose Mr. Mitch Daniels is still at the helm--what
    you really told OMB you needed and what, how we can compare
    that with what the administration requested. Perhaps then we
    will be in a position to make an adjustment that will help you
    meet your needs. And that's what the people I think want to
    see, they want to see careful handling of their money, but they
    also want to see research go forward so their children can be
    encouraged by the needs are that are going to confront them.
    Can you provide that?
        Secretary Abraham. Senator, I can't recall which documents
    we have made available or would make available. That which has
    been made available in the past, I will make available. I can't
    recall which of these sorts of submissions have ever been
    submitted to Congress.
        Senator Byrd. I can assure you that's not the first time
    that question has been asked and I can also assure you that the
    Appropriations Committee has been provided with the answers to
    such questions as they have been propounded to various
    department heads in the past. I have been around here 50 years
    and this is something the committee needs to know. See what you
    can do and see if you can provide that for the record.
        [The information follows:]

                 Non-Release of Department's OMB Budget Request

        According to the Office of Management and Budget [OMB], the advice
    and counsel leading up to the recommendations that form the basis of
    the President's budget are part of the internal deliberative process of
    the executive branch. Similar to the pre-mark up activities of any
    congressional committee, the initial views and positions within the
    executive branch vary widely relative to the outcome in the President's
    budget. In order to assure the President the full benefit of advice
    from the agencies and departments, the administration treats these
    working papers, such as the Department's OMB budgets, as pre-
    decisional, internal documents. Therefore, the Department's OMB budget
    is not releasable outside of the executive branch.

        Senator Byrd. Is my time up?
        Senator Burns. It is, and I would call on Senator Domenici.

                                   CLEAN COAL

        Senator Domenici. Mr. Secretary, I want to compliment the
    administration on the continuing commitment to the Clean Coal
    Power initiative and to the Clean Coal Power and Coal Research
    initiative in the 2004 budget. I believe we should capitalize
    on our greatest strength in coal and nuclear, in both areas and
    address the risk areas. I think you are handling these in the
    right way now and I compliment you for it.
        I would like to assure you that coal initiatives will
    address issues associated with mining as well as the subsequent
    combustion process. For example, I want to cite this for you
    and for you, Senator Byrd. There is a small company in New
    Mexico in the city of Raton which has worked with a Russian
    institute through your Department's Initiatives for
    Proliferation Prevention to develop instruments that allow
    remarkable refinements in coal and how it is mined.
        This instrument, which actually mounts itself on a drill
    head, enables the drill to automatically, believe it or not,
    leave the last few inches of the top and bottom of the coal
    seam in place. The majority, it happens, of all the heavy metal
    contaminants are in those few inches of coal. Can I repeat? The
    majority of the metal contaminants, which are the worse, are in
    those few inches. This machine goes through the mine and leaves
    that there, never touches it, and it's geared to it, it's
    instrumented to it, it's all technology. What comes out is coal
    that is far less contaminated. Thus, the burden of what you
    have to do with it to clean it is dramatically reduced.
        I continue to believe that we should focus on research and
    development in clean coal. I like the big picture, let's
    produce a machine. I think the same way about nuclear, let's
    produce the new nuclear machine. But at the same time, there is
    research of this type and many like it, and I would like to
    call it to your attention because I believe it has some
    fantastic potential for America. I would hate to see it used
    exclusively in Russia for the next 8 or 10 years before we take
    a look. So I leave that with you and I will call it to your
    attention again, Mr. Secretary.
        Secretary Abraham. Thank you.

                                   FUEL CELLS

        Senator Domenici. On oil and gas research, I'm disappointed
    in the request. I told you about it, but I believe we will work
    together on this committee to see what we can do about it.
        On fuel cells, the administration's proposed initiatives
    for fuel cells and hydrogen R&D have been very well received in
    the scientific community and in the Congress. The so-called
    FreedomCar and other things that go with it are excellent
    ideas. There is a serious question about whether that program
    is going to get us where we want to be fast enough, but in an
    economy where we don't have all the money in the world to
    spend, I believe for an initiative just announced to have $1.4
    billion is an excellent start.
        A recent report of the National Research Council raised the
    issue, essentially saying that in its assessment, that a number
    of the fuel cell demonstration projects seemed to be getting
    ahead of our progress on essential fuel cell R&D. Mr.
    Secretary, do you share my concern that we need more
    fundamental R&D to make progress on fuel cell technology?
        Secretary Abraham. Yes, we do. The challenges we have on
    the hydrogen fuel cell and FreedomCar initiatives are multiple.
    We have a challenge in bringing down the cost of the fuel cell
    itself. The price has come down a lot in recent years, but it
    still has a long way to go.
        Second, we have an issue relating to storage. We have to be
    able to store sufficient power on the vehicle to enable the
    range that they think you should be able to drive, that's 300
    miles, and there is research involved there. We have the
    production of the hydrogen, and one of the things that we are
    doing in this next 5-year period is to try to invest in a
    variety of production technologies, coal being a possible
    source, nuclear energy being a possible source, natural gas
    being a source, and renewable sources as well.
        Senator Domenici. Just for the record, I rode around in
    one. How much was the cost of that one?
        Secretary Abraham. The rental cost is in the $10,000 range.
        Senator Domenici. Aren't they worth more than a few million
    dollars each?
        Secretary Abraham. Yes.
        Senator Domenici. I would expect that if they are going to
    each cost $10 million, we will have to vote on whether we want
    to make any progress or not. Let me leave that.
        What is your assessment of research on liquid hydrogen,
    compressed gas, and carrier fuels that would transport hydrogen
    in vehicles?

                               HYDROGEN VEHICLES

        Secretary Abraham. At the end of the day, our belief is
    that some of these technologies, can work for near-term
    demonstrations of hydrogen vehicles. One of the major problems
    is that they, for example, the liquid tanks come nowhere close
    to meeting the volume targets, the issue I mentioned a moment
    ago. One of the ideas a few years ago was electric vehicles,
    and then people realized the distance you could drive was
    constrained. We recognize that for a hydrogen motor vehicle
    fleet to work, people have to see it as a comparable product to
    the product it's used to, it has to drive as far, sufficient
    power and size, but you have to be able to refuel and get home
    when you drive some place, and the storage issues are
    substantial for liquid tanks and compressed tanks.
        Fuels like gasoline or methanol can be used, you have to
    have an on-board processing unit, and the processors have been
    reduced dramatically in size. They are expensive and
    complicated projects, so again, we question whether either of
    these routes will get you to a vehicle comparably priced even
    after much development, which is why we tried to develop the
    fuel cell.

              FUEL CELL RESEARCH AT LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY

        Senator Domenici. I want to close my testimony here by
    making a suggestion to you. I note that the researchers at Los
    Alamos National Laboratory continue to make progress in fuel
    cell research, and I think you would concur in that statement.
    I think they are poised to be one of the centers of excellence
    in this area. I believe the Nation needs to create a center to
    integrate a number of the specialties to more easily develop
    commercially-ready fuel cell initiatives, and I think the
    Department ought to be thinking about a center, a focal point.
    I ask you to consider that and obviously in your consideration
    of it, if you might consider Los Alamos as a center of
    excellence to pursue more vigorously the various research
    moving efficiently towards a prototype and more ready-to-go-
    fuel cell.
        Secretary Abraham. The answer would be of course as we move
    through those considerations, both the question of one or more
    centers will be examined, and we already have I think very high
    regard for the work that has gone on and continues at Los
    Alamos in this area. What we're trying at this stage to do is
    to determine the road map in kind of the logistics. I think we
    have an excellent road map in terms of the research pathway
    forward. A key part of that is we really make sure that the
    money that's needed, I think 80 percent is the amount that we
    believe has to be focused on basic research with a smaller
    percentage, 20 percent or so in terms of demonstrations, and
    now that we have that pathway for it, I think how we execute
    the pathway is what is important.
        We definitely know what the research challenges are and we
    hope to keep people realistic about the time frame. People
    think that somehow in 4 or 5 years, we can mandate or force the
    marketplace to move faster than it is prepared to move and I
    think that will undermine the success of this transformation.
    It took many, many years and a trillion dollars to build the
    petroleum infrastructure we have today and it's going to take
    time with respect to a hydrogen fuel infrastructure, and if you
    try to short-cut that, it would be counterproductive.
        Senator Domenici. But Mr. Secretary, the objective of
    moving as rapidly as you can in the most efficient manner to
    get to a consumer-ready fuel cell system is something you must
    look at every day, because that may not happen by having
    diffuse research that's going on with everybody excited about
    their little business.
        Secretary Abraham. You are absolutely correct and there is
    no question that the time issue is critical in the following
    respect. This has always been 30 years away.
        Senator Domenici. It's not now.
        Secretary Abraham. I will say this. It will be 30 years
    away if we don't put it on a fast track, don't fund it and
    don't move with the vehicles at the same time. Because as I
    think many of you are already well aware, which is a challenge
    itself, is we can't just build the car when there isn't a fuel
    system, or a fuel system when there is no car. We really have
    to move them both.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.

                               HYBRID TECHNOLOGY

        Senator Burns. I want to follow up on that. You have cut
    Vision 21 on the hybrids and that tells me that the production
    or the results of that R&D has been on the negative side. Can
    you bring me up to date?
        Secretary Abraham. In the budget we submitted, we're
    seeking a higher amount than we did last year for hybrid
    technology because we do see developments in that area as still
    beneficial. However, we don't believe the hybrids are the final
    answer, we see this as a transitional step between where we are
    today with a basic, you know, internal combustion engine,
    traditional system and the day in 20 years or so when hydrogen
    vehicles are available. We would like to and believe there can
    be an expansion of other kinds of more fuel efficient vehicles
    and we see hybrids as a part of that transition, which is why
    you will see that we are proposing a slight increase in hybrid
    technology.
        Senator Burns. I am concerned about all these cuts in
    particular areas. I don't want you to weaken your hand when it
    comes to interagency governmental policy. I think you have to
    have a strong hand about interagency on these environmental
    issues, because I would like to see more cooperation between
    the Department of Energy and Department of the Interior.
    Sometimes those talks break down when we talk about either
    stationary or transportation fuels, so I would kick that up if
    we could. We are going to have new people to deal with at EPA,
    but this is very sensitive.
        I have some questions on off-shelf reserves. We talked
    about most of these issues privately, and I think we can deal
    with them. We look forward to working very closely with you as
    we develop this budget.
        Do you have any further questions, Senator Byrd?
        Senator Byrd. I do have some, Mr. Chairman. Shall I
    proceed?
        Senator Burns. You may.

                         CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM

        Senator Byrd. 2\1/2\ years ago, I referred to this earlier,
    candidate George Bush endorsed the Clean Coal Technology
    program, he committed to spend $2 billion over 10 years to
    support that program. That's $200 million a year, a very strong
    endorsement of coal, and I'm sure that's one of the reasons he
    was able to carry the State of West Virginia in the 2000
    election.
        But despite his promise, in fiscal year 2002 he only
    proposed $150 million, in fiscal year 2003 he again proposed
    $150 million, and this fiscal year 2004 budget proposes just
    $130 million. By my calculation, I use the old math, I don't
    think the new math will be far off the point, that's $170
    million behind on the promise. Rather than seeking $600 million
    for the Clean Coal program, as candidate Bush promised, the
    administration sought only $430 million, 38 percent less than
    what was pledged. That seems to be a credibility gap between
    what was said and what has taken place. What can you say, Mr.
    Secretary, to the people who heard Mr. Bush as a candidate
    proclaim if he was elected that he would spend $2 billion on
    the Clean Coal program, and does the administration have a plan
    to live up to its commitment?
        Secretary Abraham. I would state that we are $430 million
    ahead of where we were, and the administration has demonstrated
    those commitments, and in a variety of other regulatory debates
    that have gone on, that we are deeply committed, as I said
    earlier, to the coal sector and the role of coal in the energy
    mission. But I would just add to what I said earlier, that in
    addition to the Clean Coal Power initiative that you have
    discussed, there are 7 more years to go and we are mindful of
    the commitment that was made.
        We have just announced the Future-Gen program, which I
    believe will be a very substantial $1 billion program over the
    next 10 to 12 years, so it's my anticipation that the Future-
    Gen program will be running parallel to the Clean Coal Power
    initiative and the combination of these over this time frame
    will at least reach the level that the President committed and
    could conceivably be a fair bit higher than that level when the
    price tags are added up at the end.
        Senator Byrd. Mr. Secretary, you seem to be counting all
    coal research. Mr. Bush cited in specificity the Clean Coal
    program, not coal in general, he said Clean Coal. And so, there
    is a credibility gap. He wasn't talking about all coal, he was
    talking about clean coal research when he used that figure.

                                   FUTURE-GEN

        Secretary Abraham. Senator, again, I focus on our Future-
    Gen proposal as being the greatest enterprise that will be
    undertaken to demonstrate how we can generate power with coal
    in an environmentally clean fashion. It complements the Clean
    Coal initiative that you referenced and so I believe, as I
    said, over the 10 years, I mean, the combination of those
    programs will more than meet the $2 billion commitment the
    President made.

                     NATIONAL ENERGY TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY

        Senator Byrd. The administration's request for the Office
    of Fossil Energy contains $92.7 million for employee salaries
    and expenses. Most of those people are assigned to the National
    Energy Technology Laboratory headquartered in Morgantown, West
    Virginia. On the face of it, it would appear to be a $5.5
    million increase over the fiscal year 2003 enacted level. But
    just as it did last year, the administration has again double
    counted $14 million in employee salaries previously authorized
    under the Clean Coal acts. The true request, therefore, is not
    $92.7 million, but, rather, $78.7 million, an 11 percent cut
    that translates into a loss of 150 jobs.
        The country cannot afford to lose 150 of the brightest
    fossil energy scientists we have. I can assure you that I will
    do everything I can to see to it that this budgetary sleight-
    of-hand is reversed. In the meantime, would you please tell the
    committee the rationale for this decision, and is the
    Department of Energy responsible or as I would rather think,
    have you been dictated to by the Office of Management and
    Budget?
        Secretary Abraham. Senator, I take all the responsibility,
    because that's my job, and my only comment would be that we
    certainly will do our very best to address the issue of the
    work force. I'm happy to note that in addition to the money we
    had available to work with when we submitted the budget, the
    advanced appropriations which were included in the final
    enacted budget included an additional $80 million which we did
    not have access to when we made our submission for Clean Coal
    Technology. Obviously, the implementation of programs with that
    money will require us really to have more program direction and
    we'll work within that amount certainly to try to address the
    question of our work force.

                   FOSSIL ENERGY PROGRAM TOP-TO-BOTTOM REVIEW

        Senator Byrd. Last year when you testified before the
    subcommittee, you told the subcommittee that you had directed
    the new assistant secretary to conduct a top-to-bottom review
    of all programs under his jurisdiction. And on November 21,
    2002, you wrote to me that the committee would be fully briefed
    on the contents of the review as soon as it had been approved
    by the Office of Management and Budget. The approval has now
    taken place and I know our subcommittee has, in fact, received
    a copy of the review, but I don't believe our staff has been
    fully briefed on its contents, nor have they had the
    opportunity to ask questions about the review's many
    recommendations. For example, it would be helpful to know more
    about the management reforms that have been proposed on page 4
    of the review for the Office of Fossil Energy and the National
    Energy Technology Lab in Morgantown. Given the fact that any
    such reorganization would have to be approved by the committee
    before it could be implemented, it's important to have these
    matters discussed with our staff as soon as possible.
        Can you tell us when you anticipate having the fossil
    energy staff brief the subcommittee staff?
        Secretary Abraham. I believe, Senator, in fact your staff
    brought this specifically to my attention, or at least that
    there has been inadequate communication between our staffers,
    this week on Tuesday. I conveyed that to my staff on Tuesday.
    My understanding is there was conversation yesterday with an
    offer actually to come up yesterday to provide an initial
    opportunity to have discussions, but because of the hearing
    that was happening today, that was not feasible. So it's my
    understanding there will be a meeting next week. I don't know
    that that will satisfy all of the issues, but it will be a
    starting point of what I hope will be much more frequent
    discussion and dialogue between the staffs. And I would make
    clear to you as I did to your staff, that if there is an
    inadequate level of this communication, please bring it to my
    attention and I will be happy to address it.
        Senator Byrd. Very well, thank you. If you do intend to
    move forward with a reorganization, can you tell the committee
    whether you expect to formally seek the committee's approval?
        Secretary Abraham. I guess I'm happy to try to answer that,
    but I'm not sure I can answer it at this time. Perhaps the
    Assistant Secretary, who is here--within the next week would be
    a time frame in which the request should be forthcoming.

                          COMPETITIVE SOURCING PROGRAM

        Senator Byrd. Very well, thank you. Mr. Chairman, I have
    just a couple other quick ones, if I may.
        One of the government-wide initiatives that I am
    particularly interested in is the administration's competitive
    sourcing program. As I understand it, the Office of Management
    and Budget essentially scores each department and agency on how
    well it complies with the President's management agenda. The
    various agencies are encouraged to submit management plans to
    the OMB and to meet competitive sourcing targets outlined in
    the President's budget. I have been informed by officials at
    OMB that these plans, while submitted to OMB for approval, may
    be released to the public at the discretion of the agency or
    department head.
        If this subcommittee is to recommend the appropriation of
    nearly $1.8 billion to the Department of Energy for the
    programs under the committee's jurisdiction, I think it's
    reasonable to expect a full accounting of any management plan
    or competitive sourcing plan submitted to OMB for approval.
    Will you please tell the committee the status of your
    Department's competitive sourcing plan, and will you agree to
    make it available to the Congress when it is complete?
        Secretary Abraham. Senator, I would be happy to make it
    available if it is--unless there are constraints I am unaware
    of. If it is being made available by other agencies, we
    wouldn't have a different viewpoint on that, and I would be
    glad to also provide, if the committee would like, some kind of
    personal briefing on it by the folks who have been engaged in
    the competitive sources work.
        [The information follows:]
          U.S. Department of Energy, Revised Competitive Sourcing Plan

                                 [June 9, 2003]

                                   BACKGROUND

        The Department of Energy [DOE] listed 9,889 full-time equivalents
    [FTE] on its 2001 FAIR Act Inventory as ``commercial,'' or about 67
    percent of DOE's total civilian workforce of 14,717 FTE. These figures
    include 3,409 commercial FTE at the Power Marketing Administrations
    [PMA]. Since the PMAs are largely funded by ratepayers and are already
    subject to the competitive forces of the marketplace, the Department
    and the Office of Management and Budget [OMB] mutually agreed to
    exclude the PMAs from the competitive sourcing initiative.
    Consequently, the Department's overall goal is to study 3,230 positions
    or 33 percent of its commercially coded FTE. In March 2002, DOE
    commenced studies on 972 FTE. As a result of further review and
    analysis, the total number of FTE included in the Department's first
    round of studies has increased to approximately 1,100. DOE plans to
    study an additional 2,100 FTE in fiscal year 2004 and beyond to reach
    its OMB mandated objective. It is expected that the taxpayers will
    benefit from the initiative, regardless of who wins the competitions,
    as a result of reduced costs, greater effectiveness, and increased
    responsiveness.

                         SUMMARY OF THE MANAGEMENT PLAN

        The Department plans to meet its goals through the use of in-house
    and contract support resources. The Department assembled a team of
    management, human resources, financial, acquisition and functional area
    analysts and defined the conversion, public-private competitions and
    privatization initiatives necessary to meet DOE's fiscal year 2002 and
    fiscal year 2003 performance targets. The Department awarded
    Performance Based Service Contracts (PBSC) to support the development
    of the management studies and competitions. The provisions of OMB
    Circular A-76 govern DOE's studies and competitions. The Department
    will continue its on-going studies and will conduct feasibility studies
    to determine the specific activities and related FTE that should be
    studied in future rounds. Business case anaylses will be the
    methodology employed, as well as a determination as to the studies'
    resource impacts and the ability of the Department to sustain its
    mission.
        Below is a further breakout of the fiscal year 2002/2003 plan by
    Departmental function and FTE. The name of the individual responsible
    for the Department of Energy's Office of Competitive Sourcing/A-76,
    with telephone number, is also provided.
        Competitive Sourcing Project Manager: Dennis E. O'Brien, Office of
    Management, Budget and Evaluation/CFO
        Phone Number: (202) 586-1690
        The Department, on March 22, 2002, announced an initial list of 927
    FTE to be competed in fiscal year 2002/2003. As anticipated, the number
    increased to approximately 1,100. It is expected that the scope of the
    studies and changes to the baseline will occur as the teams continue to
    review the functions and FTE under study.
        Announced cost comparison functions: Financial Services, 150 FTE,
    Department-wide. Revised to 159 FTE; Information Technology, 420 FTE,
    Department- wide. Revised to 642 FTE; Human Resources (training), 98
    FTE, Department-wide. Revised to 130 FTE; Logistics, 190 FTE,
    Department-wide. Revised to 220 FTE; Personnel Security Investigators,
    27 FTE, Department-wide. Study Deferred; Paralegal Support, 21 FTE,
    Department-wide. Exempted from further study; Graphics, 13 FTE; and
    Civil Rights Reviews, 8 FTE.
        These figures do not include contractor positions that are also
    being studied by the A-76 Teams.
        Overall the Department expects to compete at least 30 percent
    percent of its adjusted 2001 FAIR Act inventory upon the conclusion of
    its first round of studies.
        We estimate that the one-time additional budgetary cost of
    conducting these competitions will be about $6M (based on an estimated
    cost of $7,700 per FTE for a multifunction/multilocation study
    subjected to a full public-private cost comparison and other associated
    study and acquisition costs).
        The Department has completed the initial overview training program
    for competition managers, program managers, selected employees, and
    labor organizations that focused on the A-76 process. The Department's
    training emphasized performance and delivering quality service in the
    most cost-effective manner.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Tasks                           Completion date
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Complete fiscal year 2001 FAIR Act           Completed.
     Inventory/Challenges/Appeals.
    Develop Competitive Sourcing Plan..........  Completed.
        Identify functions, locations and FTE..  Completed.
        Coordinate program with employee labor   Completed.
         organizations.
        Establish communication/training         Completed.
         program.
        Publish guidance for functions with 10   Completed.
         or fewer FTE.
        Publish guidance for cost comparisons..  Completed
        Create tracking and reporting database.  June 2003.
    Develop, plan and schedule fiscal year 2002/ Completed.
     2003 studies.
        Assemble team to review inventories/     Completed
         functions on sourcing plans.
        Review competitive sourcing plans and    Completed
         adjust as needed.
        Identify potential functional or         Completed
         geographic groupings.
        Determine schedule for function reviews  Completed
        Announce functions to be studied in      Completed
         fiscal year 2002/2003.
        Develop performance-based work           Completed
         statements for common functions.
    Issue Guidance for fiscal year 2002 FAIR     Completed.
     Act Inventory.
    Submit fiscal year 2002 FAIR Act inventory   Completed.
     to OMB.
    Establish Study Team Organizations.........  Completed.
    Select Study Team Support Contractors......  Completed.
    Develop and submit for Secretarial approval  Completed.
     individual study action plans.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

             FISCAL YEAR 2004/05 COMPETITIVE SOURCING/A-76 PLANNING

        DOE is initiating a feasibility study to determine the FTE to be
    competed in fiscal year 2004-2005. This study will encompass cost
    benefit tradeoff analyses, identification of potential functions/
    organizations and related FTE, identification of locations and
    recommended number of studies, identification of insourcing
    opportunities and characterization of mission/personnel and
    geographical impacts. The result will be the development of the most
    effective and efficient business case to support particular study
    areas.

                                   INSOURCING

        DOE has and will continue to explore insourcing opportunities when
    it is deemed appropriate to fulfill mission requirements and in cases
    where significant efficiencies and economies can be achieved. The
    Department received approval under the fiscal year 2001 Energy and
    Water Development Appropriations Act to federalize its Emergency
    Operations contractor workforce. To-date, this has resulted in a
    conversion of 30 contractor positions with an additional 5 positions
    expected to be federalized by the end of fiscal year 2003. Overall,
    this national security related initiative will result in a net savings
    of $1.7 million annually. These savings will be redirected to enhance
    emergency operations training and to provide additional technical
    assistance to the field. Also during fiscal year 2003 and 2004, DOE
    will be soliciting organizations to identify insourcing opportunities
    warranting an A-76 study. To date, potential insourcing opportunities
    have been identified and are being investigated in the function of
    aircraft maintenance.

        Senator Burns. I think that would be helpful.

                        CLEAN ENERGY TECHNOLOGY EXPORTS

        Senator Byrd. I have one last question. Congress has urged
    the administration to support increased opportunities to open
    and expand international energy markets and export U.S. clean
    energy technologies to developing countries and other nations
    abroad. These efforts are very important to help meet our own
    energy security needs, addressing related economic job
    creation, trade, environmental, and climate change objectives.
    Additionally, such efforts could significantly aid in meeting
    other nations' infrastructure and development needs while also
    increasing the deployment of a range of U.S. clean energy
    technologies, including clean coal technologies.
        The Clean Energy Technology Exports, or CETE, will help
    meet that challenge. It had its genesis within the Senate
    Appropriations Committee and has had broad bipartisan support.
    The administration has talked about such ideas on occasion, but
    despite such rhetoric, the participating Federal agencies have
    done little, if anything, to implement the strategic plan. It
    seems to me that someone is sitting on their hands and missing
    a critical opportunity.
        Because the Department of Energy is a leading agency
    involved in the implementation of the CETE initiative as called
    for by the Congress and released by the administration in
    October of 2002, what specific actions is your agency taking to
    work with the other Federal agencies and to engage
    nongovernmental organizations, private sector companies, and
    other international partners with regard to this plan? And can
    you tell the committee when the Appropriations Committee will
    receive the required annual CETE progress report that was due
    to this committee on March 1, 2003?
        Secretary Abraham. Senator, here is what I know we have
    done. We have created a new Office of International Energy
    Market Development, and acting separately the Fossil Energy
    Division has developed an international program for clean coal
    which will augment the efforts of that. We have now been
    designated to be a co-chair of the interagency working group to
    try to promote clean energy exports, so that gives us a greater
    role in being able to move this ahead, which we intend to do.
        Obviously, a lot of work that we are engaged in is
    applicable to sharing internationally. But if I could just go
    beyond the confines of that program to reassure you that this
    is a high priority that I have personally become engaged with.
    We have a lot of meetings both in Washington, and occasionally
    in multilateral and international settings with developing
    countries who are just starting to look at how they can address
    their growing demand for energy with environmental concerns,
    and we have been looking at a lot of bilateral working groups
    to try to provide that assistance on that basis as well.
        It is probably the single most frequently requested support
    that I receive when I am having a meeting with an energy
    minister from a developing country because they are challenged,
    they don't have the technology to do the sorts of things they
    want in an environmentally clean or effective way. So I see it
    as an area of substantial growth on the international side of
    what we do, even in addition to the program which you talked
    about.
        I'm not sure what the status of the March 1 report is and
    if somebody with me can answer that, and if they can't, we will
    get you an answer for the record immediately.
        [The information follows:]
                    Status of Clean Energy Technology Report
        The Department expects to submit the clean Energy Technology Report
    to Congress by the end of July 2003.

        Senator Byrd. Very well. If I have further questions, Mr.
    Chairman, I would like to submit them for the record.

                        SOLID STATE CONVERSION ALLIANCE

        Senator Burns. You might update us along the same lines
    with respect to the solid state conversion alliance. Can you
    update the committee on the progress of the program and how you
    propose allocating resources for fiscal year 2004, to ensure
    you have adequate resources for the team to fulfill its
    promises?
        Secretary Abraham. I will be happy to. I will comment in
    general here, I don't think there is at all disagreement as to
    the potential for solid state energy production the program is
    designed to achieve. I think we are in total agreement, as far
    as I can tell, which is, this is a program with which we are in
    agreement in terms of what the issue is, what is the pace at
    which we get there and what is the timetable that has the
    highest potential for success. So, I will be glad to get that
    information for the committee.
        [The information follows:]

                     Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance

        Overall, the Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance Program [SECA]
    is progressing extremely well. In fact, there is early interest from
    auto manufacturers in SECA type fuel cells as evidenced by BMW's
    arrangement with Delphi, one of the SECA industry team developers, to
    put a compact fuel cell unit for auxiliary power in the trunks of BMW
    vehicles by 2007.
        The SECA program is dedicated to developing innovative, effective,
    low-cost ways to commercialize solid oxide fuel cells [SOFCs]. The
    program is designed to move fuel cells out of limited niche markets
    into widespread market applications by making them available at a cost
    of $400 per kilowatt or less through the mass customization of common
    modules. SECA fuel cells will operate on today's conventional fuels
    such as natural gas, diesel, as well as coal gas and hydrogen, the fuel
    of tomorrow. The program will provide a bridge to the hydrogen economy
    beginning with the introduction of SECA fuel cells for stationary (both
    central generation and distributed energy) and auxiliary power
    applications.
        The SECA program is currently structured to include competing
    industry teams supported by a crosscutting core technology program.
    SECA has six industry teams working on designs that can be mass-
    produced at costs that are ten-fold less than current costs. The SECA
    core technology program is made up of researchers from industry
    suppliers and manufacturers as well as from universities and national
    laboratories all working towards addressing key science and technology
    gaps to provide breakthrough solutions to critical issues facing SECA.
        The SECA industry teams collectively are making very good progress.
    Delphi, in partnership with Battelle, is developing a 5 kW (kilowatt),
    planar, 700C-800C, anode-supported SOFC compact unit for the
    distributed generation [DG] and auxiliary power unit [APU] markets.
    Delphi is expert at system integration and high-volume manufacturing
    and cost reduction. They are focused on making a very compact and
    light-weight system suitable for auxiliary power in transportation
    applications.
        General Electric is initially developing a natural gas 5 kW,
    planar, 700C-800C, anode-supported SOFC compact unit for residential
    power markets. GE is evaluating several stack designs and is especially
    interested in extending planar SOFCs to large hybrid systems. They also
    have a radial design that can simplify packaging by minimizing the need
    for seals. GE has made good progress in achieving high fuel utilization
    with improved anode performance using standard materials by optimizing
    microstructure.
        Cummins and SOFCo (formerly McDermott) are developing a 10 kW
    product initially for recreational vehicles [RVs] that would run on
    propane using a catalytic partial oxidation [CPOX] reformer. The team
    has produced a conceptual design for a multilayer SOFC stack assembled
    from low-cost ``building blocks.'' The basic cell, a thin electrolyte
    layer (50-75 micron) is fabricated by tape casting. Anode ink is
    screen-printed onto the one side of the electrolyte tape, and cathode
    ink onto the other. The printed cell is sandwiched between layers of
    dense ceramic that will accommodate reactant gas flow and electrical
    conduction. The assembly is then co-fired to form a single repeat unit.
        Siemens Westinghouse Power Corp. [SWPC] is developing 5-10 kW
    products to satisfy multiple markets. SWPC has developed a new tube
    design for their 5 kW units that use flat, high power density [HPD]
    tubes. This allows for a shorter tube length and twice the power output
    compared to their current cylindrical tube. It also results in more
    efficient manufacturing, assembly, and better volumetric power density.
        The Department is requesting $33 million in fiscal year 2004 for
    the SECA Program from several research budget elements. Primary funding
    of $23.5 million will be provided from the Distributed Generation Fuel
    Cells Innovative Concepts budget line. This funding will be primarily
    for the six industry teams. In addition, $6.0 million for SECA from
    Fuel Cells Advanced Research will be used for the SECA core technology
    program, $1.5 million for SECA from Advanced Research--for research on
    materials for coal-based SECA systems, and $2.0 million for SECA from
    Advanced Metallurgical Research (Albany), for metallurgical research
    applicable to general SECA systems. Additionally, in fiscal year 2004,
    we will begin funding the two additional SECA industry teams just added
    in fiscal year 2003--Fuel Cell Energy and Acumentrics. These industry
    teams represent additional industry design alternatives that will
    enhance the prospects of success of SECA fuel cells for a broader
    market. The SECA program cost-share levels range from 20-50 percent.
    For the industry teams the cost share begins at 20 percent and ends at
    50 percent for later phases.

        Senator Burns. Okay, I think that takes care of just about
    all our questions. There will be a couple more coming up. And I
    want to thank Senator Byrd for being here this morning, and for
    you. We know the scheduling is tough. We will leave the record
    open for a couple weeks and hopefully after the break, we will
    begin finalizing these appropriations.
        Secretary Abraham. Senator, thank you.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Burns. There will be some additional questions
    which will be submitted for your response in the record.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                  Questions Submitted by Senator Conrad Burns
                         hydrogen transportation system
        Question. Your testimony refers to the difficult ``chicken and
    egg'' problem that confronts us as we discuss moving to a hydrogen-
    based transportation system. No consumer is likely to invest in
    hydrogen or fuel cell products without adequate fueling infrastructure
    in place, and nobody will invest in fueling infrastructure without
    customers. How do you think we get past this problem?
        Answer. Launching a hydrogen-fueled transportation system does face
    the classic ``chicken and egg'' question as it relates to fuel cell
    vehicles and hydrogen infrastructure. Establishing a new fuel
    infrastructure such as hydrogen will be complicated, yet it will need
    to be largely in place when widespread fuel cell vehicle introduction
    starts. Strong market signals will be needed for this infrastructure
    development to happen, making low cost hydrogen production and delivery
    technologies essential. Transition strategies will have to be developed
    that are far more effective than what has been used to foster markets
    for today's alternative fuels. The exact nature of those strategies
    will depend on infrastructure and vehicle technologies that are far
    from being fully developed. Therefore, the Department is working with
    all stakeholders to develop both the vehicle and the infrastructure
    technologies in parallel. DOE's planning efforts have included the
    FreedomCAR Partnership Plan, the National Hydrogen Energy Roadmap, and
    R&D plans. These documents describe how DOE will integrate its ongoing
    and future vehicle and hydrogen R&D activities into a focused effort.
    This coordinated DOE effort will improve the effectiveness and
    accountability of DOE's research, development and demonstration (RD&D)
    activities and strengthen its contribution to achieving the technical
    milestones on the road to a hydrogen economy.
        Question. What have we learned to date from efforts to get other
    alternative fueled vehicles into the marketplace?
        Answer. Our experience with alternative fuels tells us that the
    issue of reasonable fuel availability must be resolved before
    widespread acceptance of dedicated alternative fueled vehicles is
    possible. DOE learned that consumers find it simply more convenient to
    operate fuel flexible vehicles with petroleum-based fuels rather than
    alternative fuels because of the lack of alternative refueling
    stations. In addition, natural gas, methanol and ethanol vehicles are
    limited to niche markets or certain regions because fuel for these
    vehicles isn't available nation-wide.
        Because hydrogen is a universal energy carrier made from various
    primary energy resources, we think it can be a standardized national
    fuel. This assumes successful resolution of technical and cost
    barriers, and development of codes and standards. To address these
    issues, the Department is launching a transportation and infrastructure
    partnership with industry and local government agencies to demonstrate
    and evaluate fuel cell vehicles under real operating conditions to
    obtain cost, performance and reliability information, and hydrogen
    fueling stations to validate efficient, clean, and economical hydrogen
    production, storage, and delivery technologies, including standard
    vehicle refueling interfaces, safety practices, and codes and
    standards.
        Question. Some have suggested that natural gas might be a logical
    bridge to a hydrogen based transportation system. Is there merit to
    this suggestion, or are we likely to have to make the leap directly to
    hydrogen from today's gasoline-based system?
        Answer. Hydrogen does present a long-term solution to America's
    energy security needs, and can do so with significant benefits for the
    local and global environment. Hydrogen is an energy carrier, not an
    energy resource like natural gas, and can be produced from a variety of
    domestic feedstocks. This feedstock diversity is a benefit unique to
    hydrogen and means we would not be dependent on any one energy
    resource.
        In the near-term, natural gas will be an important hydrogen
    feedstock. It is a good choice for near-term hydrogen production
    because the distribution infrastructure exists, and because the
    economics are presently more favorable than that of other feedstocks.
        Hydrogen production is not expected to increase demand for natural
    gas by any more than 5 percent in 2025, due to the small number of
    vehicles expected to be on the road. The vehicle infrastructure needed
    for these demands will be small. It is envisioned that as the hydrogen
    fuel cell vehicle fleet increases, our ability to produce hydrogen from
    other sources will grow to match it. In the long-term, we hope to
    generate hydrogen through renewable energy and other carbon-free
    processes, such as nuclear energy.

    ADVANCED VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS--PARTNERSHIP FOR A NEW GENERATION
                       OF VEHICLES (PNGV) AND FREEDOMCAR

        Question. Your budget states that the FreedomCAR program will build
    on the successes of the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles
    (PNGV) program and learn from its failures. What were the successes of
    the PNGV program?
        Answer. PNGV provided the framework for government and industry to
    align previously independent research to address common societal goals.
    The partnership opened up new channels of communication between
    industry and government, which has provided both parties with access to
    more and better technical data.
        In its annual reviews of the PNGV, the National Research Council
    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'' (6th report--2000). 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.
        FreedomCAR will build on the technology advancements gained from
    successful PNGV R&D efforts. The new research portfolio, focused on
    longer range, higher risk research, will be applicable to a broader
    range of production vehicles.
        Question. What were PNGV's failures, and what have we learned from
    them?
        Answer. FreedomCAR is taking advantage of the technological
    progress made under the PNGV to build a stronger, better partnership
    more closely aligned with the Nation's needs. The centerpiece of the
    FreedomCAR Partnership is the effort to develop efficient, affordable
    fuel cell technologies that can help to reduce our Nation's petroleum
    consumption while eliminating vehicle emissions.
        One key improvement of FreedomCAR compared with PNGV concerns
    management structure. DOE, the agency that funded the majority of PNGV
    activities, now solely represents the government in the partnership,
    with consultation from other agencies as appropriate. The streamlined
    organizational structure improves communication with the industry.
        Another improvement is in the research time horizon and focus. The
    PNGV had a 10-year horizon and was aimed at a single vehicle platform,
    the mid-size sedan. In order to meet the accelerated 10-year horizon,
    some promising technologies (i.e., ultracapacitors) were prematurely
    downselected from the research portfolio. These technologies were
    unable to meet the requirements of the PNGV within the 10-year horizon.
    The single vehicle platform narrowed the research focus on a vehicle
    segment that was the highest selling segment at the start of the
    partnership but did not address the explosion in the sport utility
    vehicles.
        FreedomCAR is focused on performing R&D at the component and sub-
    systems level and leaves the vehicle integration of these technologies
    to the automakers, offering more flexibility. As in the PNGV,
    FreedomCAR places significant effort on the core technologies
    supporting hybrids, such as advanced materials and batteries, not only
    because the work is essential for the hydrogen vehicle but also because
    of the near-term benefits possible from petroleum-fueled power sources
    in hybrid.

                      TRANSITION OF TECHNOLOGIES TO MARKET

        Question. In several places your budget request terminates or
    reduces funding for activities that are closer to the deployment end of
    the R&D spectrum, choosing instead to focus resources on more basic,
    high-risk research. Generally speaking I understand this philosophy,
    but at some point we run the risk of investing in a lot of
    technological advances that will sit on the shelf without some
    additional support for deployment or demonstration. Do you think your
    budget request is balanced in this regard?
        Answer. Yes, I believe it is balanced. About ten years ago these
    programs made a similar (but opposite) shift in their balance, moving
    some resources from more basic work to near-term and deployment
    efforts. That was never intended to be a permanent change in balance.
    To some degree, we have been living off accumulated intellectual
    capital, and we now need to move the balance back toward more
    fundamental research in order to replenish those reserves and refill
    the technology pipeline. This is not a wholesale change in our R&D
    balance, however: we are continuing to propose substantial funding in a
    variety of deployment activities.
        Energy markets are changing and our energy policies have matured.
    The unusually low energy prices of the 1990s made it particularly
    difficult for new technologies to enter the marketplace successfully,
    and our energy policies were focused on showing action on near-term
    reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. While today's energy prices are
    not high in historical terms, they are high enough to create
    significant economic incentives for energy efficiency in applications
    such as industrial processes.
        The progress we made on advancing hybrid vehicle technology has
    caused almost every major automobile manufacturer in the world to turn
    their attention to such vehicles, and competitive pressures are now
    growing to the point where most major auto manufacturers have announced
    production plans for at least some forms of hybrid vehicles. But the
    types of hybrids currently being announced and produced use
    conventional engine technologies, and do not offer the really dramatic
    gains in efficiency that we believe are possible with advanced
    technologies such as fuel cells and unconventional lightweight
    materials.
        In many cases, including hybrid and electric vehicles, the
    technologies we are currently deploying run the risk of remaining
    niche-market products unless technology breakthroughs or leapfrog
    approaches make their performance and economics so compelling that they
    become mainstream.
        Our energy and climate-change policies are now focused on the 2015-
    2020 timeframe, and we have a renewed emphasis on energy security. In
    order to make a major market impact in that timeframe, products will
    need to be competitive in broad market segments, not just niche
    markets, which is driving our search for leapfrog technologies in
    activities such as the FreedomCAR Partnership, the Hydrogen Fuel
    Initiative, solid-state lighting for buildings, and distributed energy
    resources.
        Question. Take black liquor gasification, for example. We've
    invested significant funds to develop this technology in partnership
    with the pulp and paper industry, and the Department had expressed its
    intention to participate in at least three demonstrations of different
    gasification technologies. Now the budget proposes to terminate the
    program after only one partial demonstration. There is great potential
    for reduction in energy use and emissions if advanced technologies are
    deployed, but industry says the capital investment is simply too large
    to justify investing in an unproven technology. Is the industry just
    bluffing in your opinion?
        Answer. The Department did not request funds for the industrial
    gasification activities under the Interior Appropriation in fiscal year
    2004 based upon the state of technology advances made and a review
    using the Administration's R&D investment criteria, which helped guide
    this decision. The Department has invested substantially in R&D on the
    thermochemical conversion of biomass for producing power, fuels, and
    products that is directly applicable to the pulp and paper industry. We
    also are continuing with R&D on advanced technologies that will further
    lower the risk to industry for the deployment of these technologies.
    Additionally, we have committed available funds to complete our
    obligation for the black liquor gasifier demonstration at Big Island,
    VA.
        As discussed in the previous question, we believe that there are
    sufficient economic incentives for industry to adopt many new energy
    efficiency technologies such as black liquor gasification. When it
    comes to determining the appropriate Federal role in R&D, there is
    frequently an inherent tension between the Federal Government (acting
    as a prudent steward of taxpayer dollars while seeking to maximize
    benefits from a broad research portfolio) and industry (which seeks to
    minimize new technology development and acquisition costs in order to
    reduce outlays and achieve a greater financial return for its
    investors). Thus, while the Department does not wish to conclude that
    industry is ``just bluffing'' in this instance, we would note that we
    believe it would be shortsighted of industry should they decide not to
    bring this gasification technology to commercialization.
        Question. Do you think market forces will eventually compel
    companies to install these new technologies on their own, or that
    industry will be forced to do so because of regulatory pressure?
        Answer. Those factors and more will provide businesses with the
    incentive to use or market the technologies that we have been
    developing. Virtually all of our efforts are planned in conjunction
    with industry, and the ``road mapping'' process we have used means that
    we know the technologies we have developed are useful, and the roadmaps
    give the companies a good sense of how they can utilize the
    technologies for their own benefit. In the case of some industries,
    such as the automakers discussed above, it is competitive pressures
    that will lead to adoption of new technologies. In energy-intensive
    industries, such as pulp and paper and the ones we have worked with in
    our Industrial Technologies program, the companies would be financially
    shortsighted not to make use of the energy- and cost-saving
    technologies we have developed. In yet other industries, the regulatory
    pressures you allude to may become important--there is clearly more
    interest now among heavy truck and bus manufacturers in adopting more
    efficient, less-polluting engine technologies than there was prior to
    the recent tightening of heavy diesel emissions standards.

                            OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE R&D

        Question. According to the budget justification, the rather small
    Off-highway Vehicle R&D program is being terminated ``because other
    research opportunities have higher impact on energy savings.'' In
    looking at the Department's own R&D roadmap off-highway research,
    however, I find that off-highway uses account for 20 percent of fuel
    use in the transportation sector. I also find that of all mobile
    sources, large off-highway diesel engines contribute 20 percent of
    NOX emissions and 36 percent of particulate matter. Can you
    reconcile these figures on energy use and emissions with your decision
    to terminate a $3.5 million program?
        Answer. The definitions of ``Off-Highway'' and ``Non-Highway'' that
    DOE uses are found in the Transportation Energy Data Book, which is
    published annually by Oak Ridge National Laboratory for DOE. Off-
    Highway includes vehicles that are used in construction and
    agriculture. These vehicles accounted for 3.4 percent of transportation
    energy use in 2000. Non-Highway includes aircraft, marine vessels, rail
    and pipeline. These activities accounted for 21.1 percent of
    transportation energy use in 2000. The Off-Highway Vehicle R&D effort
    within the FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies Program was aimed at
    saving oil in vehicles that account for less than four percent of the
    oil used in transportation, therefore the potential oil savings would
    be small relative to potential oil savings achievable by shifting these
    funds to other aspects of our transportation sector R&D portfolio.
        While off-highway vehicles currently contribute a
    disproportionately large amount of NOx and PM, we anticipate
    that EPA's existing and proposed future emissions standards, to be
    phased in over the next decade, will result in a significant decline in
    criteria pollutant emissions from these sources.

                         ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF FUELS

        Question. Your budget also eliminates funding for analysis of the
    environmental impacts of fuels, deeming this activity to be in the
    purview of other agencies. While I would agree that DOE shouldn't be
    duplicating the efforts of EPA or other Federal agencies, I think there
    have been times that the Department has had differences with EPA about
    the environmental impacts of various fuels or technologies. Are you at
    all concerned that termination of this program will weaken your hand in
    inter-agency policy or regulatory discussions?
        Answer. DOE's and EPA's complementary efforts to research the
    environmental impacts of alternative fuels have been ongoing for many
    years at this point. DOE's work was intended to ensure that emerging
    technologies do not have unforeseen negative environmental impacts, as
    was the case with tetraethyl lead and MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl
    ether). In addition, DOE activities investigated the environmental
    effects of fuels derived from diverse feedstocks such as biorenewables,
    oil sands (tar sands), and even hydrogen. EPA's efforts focus on the
    determination of the impacts of current technologies and fuels on the
    environment.
        The DOE work provided a feedback loop to the management of our
    research and development efforts, but we believe that the topics have
    been quite thoroughly researched now. If such feedback is needed for
    additional fuels in the future, we feel we can rely on external
    organizations. EPA will continue to conduct the comprehensive
    evaluations necessary to support regulations. Since their research,
    rather than ours, has been what has driven regulations, we do not
    expect any regulatory impact from the termination of our program.

                              PERFORMANCE MEASURES

        Question. First of all, let me acknowledge the work that your staff
    has done to be responsive to this committee's repeated calls for
    better, more clearly written budget justifications. I'm not saying it's
    a perfect document yet, but this year's product is an improvement in
    many areas over past years. Some of the more interesting displays in
    the justification are your Government Performance and Results Act
    estimates that project the benefits of your R&D programs. I know this
    is a complex undertaking, but the numbers do raise some interesting
    questions. Among the Energy Conservation R&D programs, the Industrial
    echnologies program, the Vehicle Technologies program and the Buildings
    Technologies program are expected to produce by far the largest savings
    in energy use, oil consumption, and carbon emissions. In spite of this,
    the Industrial Technologies program is taking the largest cut of any
    program, and the vehicle and buildings programs are being reduced as
    well. How should we interpret this seemingly conflicting information?
        Answer. Potential benefits are but one consideration in making
    difficult allocation decisions. Other considerations include program
    performance, relative priority, and alignment with the Administration's
    R&D investment criteria, among others (see response to next question).
    One aim of the R&D investment criteria is to ensure an appropriate
    Federal role exists, and that there are market barriers causing
    underinvestment by the private sector. In the case of many Industry
    Program R&D activities, firms have the financial incentive to invest in
    energy efficient technologies that can reduce their costs. Thus, the
    seemingly conflicting information you describe can be explained by our
    determination that, despite potentially large benefits, many industry
    R&D activities benefit firms more than the taxpayer, so there is less
    of a Federal role in these activities.
        We would make two important notes. First, on the whole, the
    reductions you identified were more than offset by increases in other
    programmatic areas. For example, reductions for some activities in the
    FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies program were more than offset by
    increases in the Hydrogen (in the Energy Supply account) and Fuel Cells
    subprograms. This represents a shift in funding from near-term
    technology issues that industry is very capable of addressing, such as
    combustion engines and petroleum-based fuels, to more advanced
    technologies that offer greater energy and carbon-emissions benefits in
    the long term, such as fuel cells for hybrid vehicles. Second, we
    continue to improve our modeling assumptions and scenarios so that we
    can better compare potential benefits of technology investments within
    and between programs. This effort is a priority in helping to implement
    the Administration's R&D investment criteria.
        Question. Aside from the expected benefits in terms of energy
    savings and emissions reductions, what other inputs are used as you
    develop your budget request?
        Answer. We seek a portfolio balance among a number of criteria:
      --the energy savings and emissions reductions that you've already
            mentioned, plus
      --other benefits like:
        --energy security,
        --pollution reduction, and
        --net economic benefits to society;
      --program performance and alignment with the Administration's R&D
            investment criteria, which include many policy considerations
            such as:
        --the need for, or appropriateness of, a government role in a given
                technology (typically a clear public benefit with a market
                failure or friction that precludes optimal private
                investment);
        --plans for merit-based, competitive program execution;
        --industry's apparent commitment to adopting or marketing a
                technology (often as evidenced by their willingness to
                cost-share);
        --clearly-defined performance measures and decision-points for the
                R&D area;
        --a technology's or industry's track record of progress based on
                those performance measures; and
        --maintaining a portfolio balance of near-, mid-, and long-term
                technology RD&D in each of the major sectors of our
                economy.

                 FOSSIL ENERGY--DOMESTIC OIL PRODUCTION/IMPORTS

        Question. First, I would like to commend the Department's efforts
    to keep an eye on energy markets through the work of the Energy
    Information Administration. However, I am extremely concerned that the
    Department seemingly ignores its own information in the formulation of
    budget priorities. During the early stages of the recent war with Iraq,
    crude prices shot to $38 a barrel and have recently stabilized at a
    lower level. However, all indicators seem to illustrate crude prices
    are rising again and stocks are low. Can you update us on the current
    state of the highly fluctuating oil markets?
        Answer. We expect oil markets to continue to be volatile but well
    within the high and low limits established in the last two years.
    Supplies are dependent on the rate at which Iraqi exports return to
    market, the stability of West African production, recovery in
    Venezuela, the reaction of other non-OPEC producers to current prices
    and, of course, the level of exports from OPEC countries. Demand may
    also deviate from expectations, as the world's economies grow at rates
    different from projections. Given the current level of oil inventories,
    news will tend to move prices up and down rather quickly, but we do not
    expect them to approach either the highs set earlier in 2003 or the
    lows reached in early 2002.
        Question. This Subcommittee has an acute interest in energy
    production, as most domestic production comes from land and waters
    under our jurisdiction, and the Fossil Energy portfolio under DOE
    requires our close attention due to the Administration's lack of
    adequate commitment to domestic energy R&D. Can give us a sense of how
    current crude imports compare to prior years as a percentage of
    domestic consumption?
        Answer. In March 2003, the most recent month for which complete
    monthly data is currently available, the ratio of average U.S. crude
    oil imports to average domestic petroleum consumption (or products
    supplied) is estimated to have been 46.0 percent. The comparable
    percentage for March 2002 was 44.7 percent and for March 2001 it was
    48.3 percent. For the first three months of 2003, the ratio of average
    U.S. crude oil imports to average domestic petroleum consumption is
    estimated to have been 43.2 percent. The comparable percentage for the
    first three months of 2002 was 45.6 percent and for the first three
    months of 2001 it was 46.4 percent. For the years 1997-2002, the ratio
    of the annual average U.S. crude oil imports to annual average domestic
    consumption ranged from a low of 44.2 percent in 1997 to a high of 47.5
    percent in 2001, and for 2002 it was 46.3 percent.
        Question. It is my understanding the recent reductions in crude
    costs are directly related to increasing imports. Given these trends,
    can you explain why your budget reduces funding for the Fossil accounts
    focused on increasing domestic oil production by 65 percent from the
    enacted level?
        Answer. The Office of Fossil Energy has completed its Top to Bottom
    Review, and is beginning to implement it. The review provides a solid
    first step towards a new program direction, emphasizing results and
    focusing on customer groups in order to more effectively carry out the
    President's energy plan to increase energy security and improve the
    environment through his Clear Skies and Climate Change initiatives.
        Certain program areas and projects that do not address the specific
    goals of this new direction will be terminated. As stated in the
    President's Management Agenda, spending large budgets without a clear
    goal does not necessarily achieve good results.
        These changes were also in part a response to the results of the
    Investment Criteria Scorecards that were completed as part of the
    President's Management Agenda initiative for better R&D Investment
    criteria.
        Additionally, the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) was
    completed for all program elements. Analysis of PART showed that the
    program did not link annual activities and outputs to long-term
    benefits. These outcomes reinforced the new program direction.
        Question. Your own testimony before the House Interior Subcommittee
    last month states, ``Previous oil program funding was spread thinly . .
    .'' In my opinion reducing a ``spreadly thin'' [sic] budget by 65
    percent when it is the primary budget focused on enhancing domestic oil
    recovery technologies seems a little haphazard at best. Can you
    reconcile this proposed reduction with your written testimony for the
    House and trends in domestic production?
        Answer. The completed Top to Bottom Review, conducted by the Office
    of Fossil Energy resulted in a new program direction, emphasizing
    results and focusing on customer groups in order to more effectively
    carry out the President's energy plan to increase energy security and
    improve the environment through his Clear Skies and Climate Change
    initiatives.
        Certain program areas and projects that do not address the specific
    goals of this new direction will be terminated. As stated in the
    President's Management Agenda, spending large budgets without a clear
    goal does not necessarily achieve good results.
        These adjustments in the program's investment portfolio were also
    in part a response to the results of the Investment Criteria Scorecards
    that were completed as part of the President's Management Agenda
    initiative for better R&D Investment criteria.
        Additionally, the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) analysis
    completed for all program elements showed that the program did not link
    annual activities and outputs to long-term benefits. These outcomes
    reinforced the new program direction.
        Question. An alarming highlight of last month was what appears to
    be an all-time monthly record for gasoline imports. It is bad enough to
    be dependent upon other nations for raw natural resources, but it is
    even more alarming that we now are becoming increasingly dependent upon
    foreign nations to produce refined product. Can you explain whether
    this dependency on foreign gasoline is an anomaly or part of a trend?
        Answer. In almost every year, gasoline demand increases. This
    increase can either be supplied by more production from refineries or
    increased gasoline imports. In recent years, suppliers have more
    economically increased supplies through the use of imports. There are
    several reasons for this.
        First, for many countries, they produce more gasoline than they can
    consume. In Europe, for instance, diesel fuel and other middle
    distillates are the most important part of the barrel, and thus,
    surplus gasoline is produced. With the United States being the world's
    largest consumer of gasoline, it is thus not surprising that increasing
    amounts of gasoline arrive from Europe each year. In addition, if
    refiners were to increase gasoline production it would merely reduce
    the amount of other products that are produced, or else would require
    an increase in refinery throughput. The latter is an option only when
    refinery economics dictate that it would lead to increased income. This
    would usually require high product prices with comparatively lower
    crude oil prices. If, however, refiners kept the same throughput, but
    instead produced more gasoline at the expense of production of other
    petroleum products, that would dampen prospects for rebuilding low
    inventory levels for those products, e.g. distillate fuel.
        That being said, it is likely that product imports, including those
    for gasoline, will continue to increase over the next several years. Of
    course, the alternative is to get the increased supplies needed form a
    source that would be less economical, thus putting an additional strain
    on the U.S. economy.
        Question. What are the factors for this reliance and does the
    ongoing effort of the Department to divert domestic crude into the
    Strategic Petroleum Reserve have a tangible impact?
        Answer. North America and Europe have long been integrated markets
    for refined petroleum products. This integration has proved beneficial
    for both the United States and Europe, allowing the best possible
    utilization of refineries and inventories. At times the United States
    is an importer of products and at others it exports to Europe depending
    on market conditions. At the moment, Europe is increasing its
    consumption of diesel fuel relative to gasoline, thereby making its
    surplus gasoline available for export to the United States at
    reasonable prices. The fact that the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is
    acquiring crude oil probably has only a marginal impact on oil prices,
    and whatever that impact, it is the same for United States and foreign
    refiners. Therefore, whether the Strategic Petroleum Reserve acquires
    or does not acquire crude oil is immaterial to the level of U.S.
    imports of refined products.

                 FOSSIL ENERGY--DOMESTIC GAS PRODUCTION/IMPORTS

        Question. In February 2003, the gas markets were subject to
    unprecedented spikes as natural gas availability hit rock bottom.
    You'll remember that when you were serving in the Senate, similar cost
    spikes hit the electricity markets, leading to public outcry and the
    subsequent failure of many businesses. Could you update us on the
    natural gas markets?
        Answer. Natural gas markets have recovered from the unprecedented
    spikes in February 2003 but they remain tight. Spot market natural gas
    prices were in the $5.24 to $6.24 range in May while natural gas
    inventories were at least 29 percent below the five-year average for
    this time of the year. Recent inventory additions have been at record-
    levels and the situation appears to be improving. However, the Energy
    Information Administration (EIA) projected in its June 2003 Short-Term
    Energy Outlook that natural gas prices will remain well above average;
    they are expected to average $5.50 to $6.00 per million Btu for the
    remainder of the year; 2004 natural gas prices are expected to ease
    slightly.
        As I said at the time of that report, the nation's stocks of
    natural gas in underground storage are unusually low due to weather
    factors and declines in both domestic production and net imports.
    Industry is already responding by significant increases in storage
    rates, with record net injections reported in each of the first two
    weeks of June, but a hot summer could increase demand for natural gas
    that may jeopardize storage refill, and thus, exacerbate the problem.
        I had previously asked the National Petroleum Council to conduct a
    study of natural gas in the United States that is expected to be
    released later this year but, in my view, we cannot wait to take action
    on the problem. Therefore, I have called for a special meeting on June
    26 during which the National Petroleum Council will gather information,
    and discuss problems and solutions.
        Question. What steps are the Department taking to help alleviate
    these gas supply problems?
        Answer. In the near-term, we are working to better understand U.S.
    natural gas needs. In March 2002, we requested that the National
    Petroleum Council, an advisory body to the Secretary of Energy, conduct
    a comprehensive study of the North America natural gas market (supply,
    transmission, and demand issues through 2025). The results of this
    study will be delivered in September of this year.
        We are also called on the Council to hold a National Gas Summit on
    June 26 to gather information from State and Federal officials,
    consumer groups, and industry experts, and discuss actions and develop
    recommendations that can be taken immediately to address the near-term
    natural gas situation. Among the measures expected to be discussed are
    those related to energy efficiency, conservation, and fuel switching.
    DOE will also publish a paper dealing with the issues associated with
    expanded supplies of natural gas from the Rocky Mountain region.
        Question. I know the Natural Gas Technologies accounts under Fossil
    Energy focuses on exploration and production techniques as well as
    developing advances in infrastructure to prevent failures and enhance
    delivery capabilities. Unfortunately your budget request suggests
    reducing these activities from $47 million to $26 million. Can you
    explain the disconnect between the information collected by your
    Department and the direction the Research and Development Accounts
    appear to be headed?
        Answer. The President's Natural Gas Technology research and
    development program under Fossil Energy accounts is intended to
    complement and enrich the existing portfolio of ongoing industry
    sponsored natural gas research and help ensure that long-term, high-
    risk technology options in exploration and production, gas hydrates,
    natural gas storage, and delivery reliability are explored.
        The Office of Fossil Energy has completed its Top to Bottom Review,
    and is beginning to implement it. The review provides a solid first
    step towards a new program direction, emphasizing results and focusing
    on customer groups in order to more effectively carry out the
    President's energy plan to increase energy security and improve the
    environment through his Clear Skies, Climate Change, and Energy
    Security initiatives.
        Certain program areas and projects that do not address the specific
    goals of this new direction will be terminated. As stated in the
    President's Management Agenda, spending large budgets without a clear
    Federal goal does not necessarily achieve good results.
        These changes were also in part a response to the results of the
    Investment Criteria Scorecards that were completed as part of the
    President's Management Agenda initiative for better R&D Investment
    criteria.
        The Office of Management and Budget's analysis of Fossil Energy's
    Natural Gas Technology Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
    submissions showed that overall the Natural Gas Technology program did
    not successfully link annual activities and outputs to measurable long-
    term benefits. These outcomes reinforced the new program direction and
    a reduction in the fiscal year 2004 budget request for Fossil Energy's
    Natural Gas Technology research and development program.
        Question. Your budget also proposes a ``new'' initiative to produce
    hydrogen from natural gas sources. Much like your testimony on the Oil
    Research Development accounts, I believe our natural gas infrastructure
    is spread too thin. The prior administration envisioned a world based
    on natural gas, but without backing the vision with investment in
    technology. I fear the current administration is doing the same. While
    we are shifting all this demand to natural gas, domestic production is
    not increasing at a similar rate. How to you believe we prevent a
    demand crunch in the natural gas markets without investing in new
    technology?
        Answer. The majority of the funding in our natural gas research
    program is directed to long-term technology development--where the
    government has a key role. These efforts will help ensure that adequate
    supplies of natural gas are available to meet the long-term increase in
    demand--about a 50 percent increase by 2025.
        Natural Gas Exploration and Production-Sustainable Supply program
    will provide new tools and technologies that can improve access,
    economics and environmental performance of onshore gas operations.
    Significant emphasis will be placed on public lands in the Rocky
    Mountain region where much of the nation's undiscovered gas resource is
    located.
        Natural gas storage will also assume increasing significance as
    more power plants require consistent, year-round supplies of natural
    gas. A nationwide, industry-led consortium will develop ways to improve
    the reliability and efficiency of the nation's gas storage system.
        Over the long-term, the production of natural gas from the U.S.'s
    vast deposits of methane hydrates, which is a program goal, could
    strengthen energy security and provide a major component of the
    Hydrogen Fuels Initiative. Understanding hydrates will also improve the
    scientific understanding of greenhouse gases and offer possible
    mechanisms for sequestering carbon dioxide. In the near-term,
    implications for drilling or producing oil and gas near or through
    hydrate formations will be defined, to avoid environmental issues that
    could arise with conventional oil and gas operations.
        The environmental science program will focus on defining and
    mitigating issues constraining produced water from coal bed methane
    production.
        Question. On the same topic, you list a new $6.5 million Hydrogen
    from Gas initiative under the Natural Gas Technology account. However,
    you reduce the Fuels account under Fossil Energy Research and
    Development from $31 million to $5 million. It is my understanding we
    were already performing substantial work in the Fuels budget that
    focused on hydrogen as a product. Could you detail how much DOE plans
    to focus on hydrogen production in the fiscal year 2003 Fossil
    Accounts?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2003, the Transportation Fuels & Chemicals
    budget line in the Fuels program request was $5 million for Syngas
    Membrane Technology (SMT) activity with an additional $17.1 million
    added by Congress to increase this activity and to support the ongoing
    Early Entrance Coproduction and Ultra Clean Fuels (UCF) programs, and
    the new Hydrogen from Coal Research (HCR) program. Since syngas is a
    mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen and a few of the UCF projects
    produce syngas as an intermediate on the path to liquid fuels, it is
    fair to say that some of the Syngas Membrane Technology and UCF
    programs could be considered Hydrogen Programs. However, to be
    efficient, the projects would have to be modified with a substantial
    change in direction. Thus, the funding for fiscal year 2003 that
    focuses on hydrogen as a product includes the new HCR (about $2.4
    million), SMT (about $6 million), and UCF (about $5.4 million).

                              FOSSIL ENERGY--FUELS

        Question. Mr. Secretary, I am interested in your decision to
    essentially stop all advanced research in the Fossil program. For
    fiscal year 2003, Congress provided $31 million to continue research
    aimed at developing cleaner fuels from domestic fossil sources
    including coal, gas and petroleum. The strides made in producing new
    fuel products such as ultra clean diesel have given hope that we can
    produce and use much cleaner burning fossil fuels in the near term. Can
    you explain why you believe we should abandon research that is arguably
    on the verge of creating marketable solutions to near term
    environmental concerns?
        Answer. The President's budget request for fiscal year 2004 of $5
    million for the Fuels/Transportation Fuels and Chemicals program is to
    perform supporting research for the Administration's FutureGen and
    Hydrogen Fuel Initiatives. In addition, $6.55 million is being
    requested in the Natural Gas Technologies program--Emerging Processing
    Technology budget to support research on natural gas to hydrogen as
    part of the Administration's Hydrogen Fuels Initiative. The Department
    believes that this budget request is appropriate to support a balanced
    energy research program within the budget constraints in fiscal year
    2004. In addition, considerable work is being conducted in the private
    sector on natural gas to liquids processes and we believe that industry
    is prepared to meet the promulgated EPA Tier II standards. The
    Department believes that research dollars would be better spent in
    longer-term fuels research such as that which is associated with the
    production, storage and delivery of hydrogen from coal and natural gas.
        Question. You assert in your request that portions of the fuel
    programs proposed for elimination have been shifted to the Oil and Gas
    programs, which have been reduced by 65 percent and 44 percent
    respectively. Could you show the Subcommittee where exactly this
    research shows up in the Oil and Gas programs, and explain what level
    of funding will be provided under your proposal for fiscal year 2004?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2003, the Fuels Program provides funding for
    both natural gas and coal based programs even though the Fuels Budget
    line is found in the Coal & Power Systems budget. However, in fiscal
    year 2004, the Fuels activities, which are related to production and
    delivery of hydrogen, will be split into two budget lines, one will
    remain in the coal program under Fuels and the other program activity
    will be moved to the Oil and Gas Program under the Emerging Process
    Technology activity in the Natural Gas Program. In fiscal year 2004,
    $6.555 million has been provided for this budget area.
        Question. Will all ongoing contracts continue at the level of
    funding agreed to by the contractors and DOE?
        Answer. The President's budget request for fiscal year 2004 of $5
    million for the Fuels/Transportation Fuels and Chemicals program is for
    conducing research activities to develop advanced, lower cost
    technology for the production of hydrogen from coal for the
    Administration's FutureGen and Hydrogen Fuel Initiatives. In addition,
    $6.55 million is being requested in the Natural Gas Technologies
    program--Emerging Processing Technology budget to support research on
    advanced, lower cost natural gas to hydrogen technology, which is also
    part of the Administration's Hydrogen Fuels Initiative. The Department
    believes that the budget requests are appropriate to support a balanced
    energy research program within the budget constraints in fiscal year
    2004. To the extent that funds are available, it is planned to continue
    those projects that can adjust their scopes of work to fit the new
    longer-term program goals. However, it is not likely that all contracts
    can be continued.
     fossil energy--distributed generation--fuel cells--vision 21--hybrids
        Question. Mr. Secretary, I have long been a proponent of fuel cell
    technology and am as frustrated as anyone else is with our inability to
    mass-produce fuel cells at a price point that makes them commercially
    viable to most markets. Your proposal to reduce the Vision 21 Hybrids
    account by $8.4 million peaks my interest as the Department has long
    touted the wonders of the Vision 21 program. With a reduction of this
    amount, I can only imagine one of two outcomes. Either we have hit the
    price point and these units are ready for mass development, or the
    technology has underperformed and DOE is making the decision to abandon
    the program. I don't believe we have Vision 21 Hybrids being produced
    commercially, so can you explain the decision that led to the reduction
    in this program?
        Answer. The $13.5 million for Vision 21 Hybrids in the fiscal year
    2003 budget is for the completion of DOE-funded work on tubular solid
    oxide fuel cell systems and fuel cell/turbine hybrid systems. The
    fiscal year 2004 budget request of $5 million supports a redirected
    Vision 21 enabling cost reduction and performance enhancement program
    to emphasize SECA-based low-cost, Vision 21 fuel cell/turbine hybrid
    and Vision 21 zero-emissions system concepts.
        Question. Are we on target with the goals set by DOE and will we
    continue on target at this funding level?
        Answer. The Department's goals for tubular solid oxide fuel cell
    turbine hybrids systems will be achieved with the conclusion of
    activities in fiscal year 2003. Tests on a first-of-a-kind tubular
    solid oxide fuel cell/turbine hybrid system have contributed valuable
    design knowledge that will be used in the next phase of the Vision 21
    hybrids program, which is focused on SECA-based hybrid systems. The
    funds proposed for fiscal year 2004 are appropriate for the re-directed
    effort focused on SECA-type fuel cells.

        FOSSIL ENERGY--DISTRIBUTED GENERATION--FUEL CELLS--SOLID STATE
                     ELECTRICITY CONVERSION ALLIANCE (SECA)

        Question. Mr. Secretary, I am extremely interested in the SECA
    program and am watching its progress with high hopes. I know that DOE
    has recently decided to add two new industry teams to the program, yet
    has proposed reducing funding for the core program from $33.8 million
    to $23.5 million. I am concerned that reducing the funding and trying
    to support additional teams will cause the program to slow, when it is
    poised to make great strides. Additionally, it is my understanding some
    teams may be under performing, and some of the competing technologies
    may show little promise for future development. Can you update the
    Subcommittee on the progress of the SECA program and explain how you
    propose allocating resources in fiscal year 2004 to ensure we are
    providing sufficient resources to the teams showing the most promise?
        Answer. The Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance (SECA) Program
    is progressing extremely well with implementation as planned and
    promised. The SECA industry teams are making good progress towards
    their Phase 1 performance targets for prototype demonstrations in
    fiscal year 2005/fiscal year 2006. In fiscal year 2003, the second full
    year for the initial four industry teams, the teams have built, tested,
    and evaluated small single ``button'' cells, completed designs for
    multi-cell stacks, improved performance, and reduced proof of concept
    volume. The new industry teams represent design alternatives that will
    enhance the prospects of success of SECA fuel cells for a broader
    market.
        The Department is requesting in fiscal year 2004, $33 million for
    the SECA Program from several research budget elements. Primary funding
    of $23.5 million will be provided from the Distributed Generation Fuel
    Cells Innovative Concepts budget line. This funding will be primarily
    for the six industry teams. In addition, $6.0 million for SECA from
    Fuel Cells Advanced Research will be used for the SECA core technology
    program, $1.5 million for SECA from Advanced Research--for research on
    materials for coal-based SECA systems, and $2.0 million for SECA from
    Advanced Metallurgical Research (Albany), for metallurgical research
    applicable to general SECA systems.

     NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE RESERVES--ROCKY MOUNTAIN OIL TECHNOLOGY
                                 CENTER (RMOTC)

        Question. I notice the Naval Petroleum Account proposes closing the
    Rocky Mountain Oil Technology Center (RMOTC). Could you provide the
    committee with the number of industry proposals to partner with this
    facility for each of the past five years?
        Answer. RMOTC received 151 proposals from fiscal year 1999 through
    the current fiscal year 2003. These proposals were from a variety of
    small businesses, major industry leaders, and international consortia
    and cover testing related to: drilling technology, coal bed methane,
    oil shale production, enhanced oil recovery, CO2
    sequestration, produced water management, environmental rehabilitation,
    renewable energy development, homeland security, reservoir services and
    flow assurance. The proposals are broken down accordingly; 25 in fiscal
    year 1999; 25 in fiscal year 2000; 31 in fiscal year 2001; 29 in fiscal
    year 2002; and 41 fiscal year 2003 (YTD).
        Question. It is my understanding industry partnerships to promote
    advanced oil recovery utilize this center with great success. I am also
    aware of renewed interest by industry to re-examine the potential of
    oil shale production. If we were to follow your recommendation to
    reduce the oil program by 65 percent and close RMOTC, what other
    avenues are available for independent producers to partner with DOE to
    research avenues of increasing domestic production?
        Answer. The President's budget does request $41.6 million for
    research and development in oil and natural gas, and that money will be
    targeted to the most promising opportunities. We hope that industry
    will independently increase its funding for recovery research, which
    would be appropriate, and the Administration supports across the board
    tax incentives for R&D and investment in domestic production of all
    kinds. An important action the Government could undertake is to
    increase access to lands for oil and gas exploration resulting in
    increased domestic production without any cost to taxpayers.
        If the Center were closed, those activities would have to be
    conducted at private facilities such the Gas Technology Institute's
    Catoosa test facility in Oklahoma.
        Question. Is it your belief DOE holds no responsibility to work
    with industry to advance domestic fossil fuel production?
        Answer. The Department of Energy supports private industry
    development of domestic fossil fuels in every way. We are committed to
    research to increase the recoverable resource base of oil and natural
    gas and research to reduce the cost of production and protect the
    environment. We have a national laboratory working on ways to mitigate
    the environmental impacts of fuels production and consumption. We
    support tax and regulatory changes that would encourage domestic energy
    production, and we support making Federal lands available for
    exploration and development of fossil fuels. The Department of Energy
    fully supports the Administration's National Energy Plan, which makes
    explicit its support for more domestic energy production of every type.

                            FOSSIL ENERGY--FUTUREGEN

        Question. Mr. Secretary, we talked a little bit about the FutureGen
    proposal when you came to see me earlier this week. Montanans are very
    excited about this project and my office has been working with our
    Governor's office and a large group of other entities wanting to make
    sure Montana is given full consideration as a possible site for the
    project. Can I have your assurance the Department will work with me and
    the State of Montana to make sure Montana's unique geographic and
    geological offerings are taken into full consideration as the site
    selection process moves forward?
        Answer. I can assure you that we will be glad to work with Montana,
    and any other interested states, to ensure that the FutureGen site
    selection process will be a fair and open competitive process. Montana
    will be given full consideration, along with other sites proposed for
    evaluation.

                              SOLID STATE LIGHTING

        Question. In reply to: believe you're aware of the Solid State
    Lighting Initiative, which this subcommittee supported last year with
    an appropriation of $3 million. Your budget request includes $5 million
    for this program, which has significant promise in terms of energy
    savings, environmental benefits, and lower costs to consumers. I
    understand that the Department has investigated and calculated these
    potential benefits while developing a ``Road Map'' for the solid-state
    lighting program. Would you share with the Committee the Department's
    conclusions?
        Answer. The Department believes that solid state lighting has the
    potential to create the technical foundation to revolutionize the
    energy efficiency, appearance, visual comfort, and quality of lighting
    products for general illumination by achieving efficiencies upwards of
    70 percent (source efficiency). In consultation with industry, the
    Department has estimated long-term benefits, which include annual
    savings of nearly 40 percent of lighting energy and $19 billion in
    consumer expenditures by 2020. As with all benefits modeling, the
    assumptions have a large impact on the results. Because modeling
    procedures and assumptions used to generate this estimate are different
    from those used in EERE GPRA models, we cannot directly compare the
    estimated benefits of this initiative to other EERE or other
    Departmental applied R&D activities. But we intend to improve the
    consistency in our modeling efforts. As a stand-alone document, the
    multi-sector forecast, Energy Savings Potential of Solid State Lighting
    in General Illumination Applications, is available at:
    www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/documents/.
        As solid state lighting represents the most promising approach to
    more efficient lighting systems of the future, success in the
    initiative will retain the technology base and jobs in the United
    States (while facing increased product competition from Pacific Rim
    corporations supported by their governments) and will widely enable
    more efficient lighting systems to be applied widely. The potential for
    such technology is quite significant, given the very low performance
    characteristics of present incandescent (1 percent efficient in
    delivered, useful light) and fluorescent systems (20 percent).
        The Department has held seven workshops over the past two years to
    plan out a broad agenda for research and development focused on
    improving the performance of compound semiconductor science in the
    application of general illumination. More than 300 participants
    attended these workshops (including the conventional lighting industry,
    compound semiconductor industry, academia, National Labs, research
    institutions, and other government agencies). In general, R&D is
    necessary in several areas: quantum efficiency, lifetime, performance,
    packaging, infrastructure, and first cost. The most recent summary
    document on this research agenda, The Promise of Solid State Lighting
    for General Illumination, is available at: www.eere.energy.gov/
    buildings/documents/.

                              SOLID STATE LIGHTING

        Question. How far has this technology developed and what is the
    nature of the research that has to be concluded?
        Answer. Solid state lighting (SSL) exists today in a monochromatic
    form (i.e. single color such as red or green). Currently, SSL is used
    for ``exit'' signs and traffic control lights, and offers several
    attributes beyond energy savings, such as durability and longer
    lifetime. Additionally, the auto industry is converting incandescent
    lamps applications to solid state devices (e.g. LED tail lights). To
    save significant energy, the science and engineering of SSL needs to
    mature in several performance metrics to be capable of competing in the
    general illumination market with high quality white light, which is the
    focus of the DOE SSL research.
        White light SSL is in its infancy, with many prototypes in the 5 to
    10 lumens per Watt (LPW) range. Newer prototypes perform in the 15 to
    25 LPW range, about what an incandescent can do. Future research needs
    cover six concept areas:
        Efficiency.--The ability of solid state light sources to convert
    electrons into photons is governed by three basic elements: (1)
    materials systems; (2) internal quantum efficiencies (IQE); and (3)
    external quantum efficiencies (EQE). Materials system research
    evaluates semiconductor materials, studying the performance and
    limitations of materials. IQE measures a material's ability to convert
    electron-hole pairs into photonic emissions, and is largely a function
    of the material system selected. EQE measures the amount of light that
    leaves the semiconductor device and is available for collection and
    use.
        Lifetime.--Technologies lasting in excess of 50,000 hours are
    sought. SSL research will focus on advancing our basic science
    understanding of the role of impurities, defects, crystal structure and
    other factors closely related to materials systems choices.
        Lighting Performance.--(a) basic material properties and (b)
    semiconductor physics directly impact the evolution of photon
    wavelength, emission bandwidth and ultimately, color. For the future,
    emission spectrum approaching the spectral power distribution of
    natural sunlight is required.
        Device Design.--Research will focus on (a) geometrical optical
    engineering and (b) optical simulation within the compound
    semiconductor--increases of 5 to 10 times present levels of optical
    coupling are predicted. Research on structures of the individual layers
    of materials will be required, as will integration of the substrate
    geometry and optics.
        Packaging.--Investigate packaging requirements such as sealing out
    moisture and oxygen, managing heat transfer, and protecting optical
    material from UV degradation. SSL technology will assemble them into an
    optimized light delivery system.
        Manufacturing.--Research will concentrate on significant first cost
    reduction through aggressive development of suitable manufacturing
    technologies and technical elements of the distribution infrastructure,
    such as technology standards.

                  CLIMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE (NCCTI)

        Question. The budget request includes $40 million for a new Climate
    Change Technology Initiative; $23 million of which is funded through
    this subcommittee. Why is it necessary to establish a new, separate
    program for this purpose?
        Answer. The President's National Climate Change Technology
    Initiative Competitive Solicitation program is intended to complement
    and enrich the existing portfolio of ongoing research throughout the
    Federal government and help to ensure that all possible technology
    options are explored. The program is unique and warranted because
    funding will be allocated solely on the basis of the potential for a
    technology to contribute in significant ways future reductions or
    avoidances of greenhouse gas emissions, and/or their capture and
    sequestration (permanent storage). No program, past or present, has
    made technology-neutral funding allocations in this manner. In general,
    successful proposals would be focused on novel approaches for
    contributing to broader technological goals, or on innovative ways of
    solving or circumventing technical barriers to progress along a
    plausible line of technology development
        Question. Weren't climate change objectives already folded into
    many of the Department's R&D programs like the Carbon Sequestration
    program within the Office of Fossil Energy?
        Answer. Many of the existing DOE R&D programs aim to provide
    multiple public benefits such as increased energy security, reduced
    emissions of pollutants, and reduced emissions of carbon dioxide. The
    purpose of the NCCTI program is to focus solely on potential climate
    change benefits. In doing so, we expect to identify R&D opportunities
    that complement and enrich existing R&D programs. The responses to the
    NCCTI Request For Information, released in November 2002 and closed in
    January 2003, suggest that there are certain categories of novel
    concepts (e.g., crosscutting evaluation methodologies, research that
    does not clearly fall into the basic or applied research areas) that
    show great promise for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and that are
    unlikely to be eligible for or selected in procurements conducted under
    existing DOE programs.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici

                          CLEAN COAL POWER INITIATIVE

        Question. I compliment the Administration on continuing its
    commitment to the Clean Coal Power Initiative and Coal Research
    initiative in the fiscal year 2004 budget with a request of $320.5
    million overall. I firmly believe that we should capitalize on our two
    greatest strengths in electricity supply--coal and nuclear. In both
    cases, we should address risk areas. I'd like to ensure that the coal
    initiatives would address issues associated with mining as well as the
    subsequent combustion processes. For example, a small New Mexico
    company in Raton has worked with Russian institutes, through the
    Department's Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention program, to
    develop instruments that allow remarkable refinement in how coal is
    mined. This instrument, which actually mounts on the drill head,
    enables the drill to automatically leave the last few inches at the top
    and bottom of a coal seam. The majority of the serious heavy metal
    contaminants in the seam are concentrated at the edges of the seam;
    thus this new tool allows dramatically cleaner coal to be mined. When
    burned, that coal then burns much more cleanly. I continue to believe
    that we should focus on coal at the source in the coal R&D program and
    in the Clean Coal Power initiative. Mr. Secretary, does the Clean Coal
    Power Initiative include opportunities for advancing exciting new
    technologies like this, no matter what part of the overall coal
    utilization cycle they impact?
        Answer. The current structure of the Clean Coal Power Initiative
    (CCPI) focuses on demonstrating advanced technologies that will provide
    clean, efficient, reliable and affordable electricity from coal. In
    order for a technology to qualify for consideration under CCPI, it must
    be proposed as part of an integrated power system that utilizes clean
    coal. If a proposed technology, associated with another part of the
    coal utilization cycle (such as mining), is integrated into the coal
    power system, it could be considered under CCPI.

                              OIL AND GAS RESEARCH

        Question. I'm very disappointed to note that oil and natural gas
    technology research and development funds were again sharply cut in the
    Administration's budget. Oil technology R&D is reduced by nearly 65
    percent below the fiscal year 2003 enacted level (from $42.3 million to
    $15 million in the President's request), and natural gas R&D is reduced
    by nearly 44 percent from ($47.3 million to $26.3 million in the
    President's request). These two energy sources play major roles in
    current national energy supplies. In New Mexico, I've noted how
    improved extraction technologies, which depend on continued research
    and development, have helped to boost production of old wells. The
    Senate bill would support R&D of the type done at the Petroleum
    Recovery Research Center at New Mexico Institute of Mining and
    Technology in Socorro. How would the Administration's reduced budget
    for oil technologies impact ongoing strong R&D programs, such as this
    one at New Mexico Tech?
        Answer. The proposed budget would have no impact on the Petroleum
    Recovery Research Center at New Mexico Institute of Mining and
    Technology in Socorro, as there are no outstanding mortgages on
    projects with this institution. The proposed fiscal year 2004 budget
    does require the elimination of $5.9 million for projects being
    conducted at other universities. However, only $1.3 million is for
    projects that support the newly aligned oil program. This shortfall
    will be addressed by extending the projects over a longer period of
    time.
        The new direction for the oil program resulting from a complete
    strategic review of the program, emphasizes results and focuses on
    customer groups in order to more effectively carry out the President's
    energy plan to increase energy security and improve the environment
    through his Clear Skies and Climate Change initiatives.
        These changes were also in part a response to the results of the
    Investment Criteria Scorecards that were completed as part of the
    President's Management Agenda initiative for better R&D Investment
    criteria.
        Additionally, the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) was
    completed for all program elements. Analysis of PART showed that the
    program did not link annual activities and outputs to long-term
    benefits. These outcomes reinforced the new program direction.
        Question. What is the Administration's rationale for nearly
    terminating these R&D programs as the nation makes a comprehensive
    effort to increase our energy security and independence through
    reducing dependence on foreign sources and developing new sources of
    domestic energy?
        Answer. The Office of Fossil Energy has completed its Top to Bottom
    Review, and is beginning to implement it. The review provides a solid
    first step towards a new program direction, emphasizing results and
    focusing on customer groups in order to more effectively carry out the
    President's energy plan to increase energy security and improve the
    environment through his Clear Skies and Climate Change initiatives.
        Certain program areas and projects that do not address the specific
    goals of this new direction will be terminated. As stated in the
    President's Management Agenda, spending large budgets without a clear
    goal does not necessarily achieve good results.
        These changes were also in part a response to the results of the
    Investment Criteria Scorecards that were completed as part of the
    President's Management Agenda initiative for better R&D Investment
    criteria.
        Additionally, the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) was
    completed for all program elements. Analysis of PART showed that the
    program did not link annual activities and outputs to long-term
    benefits. These outcomes reinforced the new program direction.

                    OIL AND GAS--FEDERAL TRANSMISSION SITING

        Question. Congestion and inadequate transmission infrastructure has
    an impact on consumers. The Electric Power Research Institute estimated
    that transmission reliability losses cost the economy $120 billion
    annually. Contained in S. 14 is a provision to accelerate the
    permitting of transmission lines across federal lands. The provision
    requires the Department of Energy to take the lead in coordinating the
    federal permitting efforts in order to accelerate and improve the
    siting process. Do you believe that DOE can assist in this role and
    reduce the time and costs associated with permitting transmission
    facilities?
        Answer. The process for obtaining permits for transmission lines
    across federal lands has been a major source of delay and unnecessary
    cost in the development of new transmission projects, particularly in
    the West where much of the land is federally owned. Better coordination
    is needed among a wide range of parties, including project developers,
    state agencies, Native American tribes, and federal agencies. DOE is
    well positioned to help facilitate this coordination.

                                   FUEL CELLS

        Question. The Administration's proposed initiatives for fuel cells
    and hydrogen R&D have been very well received in the scientific
    community and in the Congress. The FreedomCAR and FreedomFuel proposals
    would receive about $235 million in the Energy Conservation budget
    specifically to work on vehicle technologies ($157.6 million) and fuel
    cell technologies ($77.5 million). Another $88 million would go to
    hydrogen technology R&D through the Energy Efficiency and Renewable
    Energy budget. These initiatives hold great hope for this nation to
    move away from our heavy reliance on petroleum products for
    transportation.
        Mr. Secretary, you know of my strong support for moving toward a
    hydrogen economy, but I have some concerns about the mix of the program
    between essential R&D and demonstration programs. A recent letter
    report of the National Research Council raised this issue essentially
    saying that in its assessment the number of fuel cell demonstration
    projects seem to be getting ahead of our progress on essential fuel
    cell R&D. Mr. Secretary, do you share my concern that we need more
    fundamental R&D to make progress on fuel cell technology?
        Answer. The April 4, 2003 interim letter report from the National
    Academy of Sciences (NAS) recommended that fundamental and exploratory
    research should receive additional budgetary emphasis, and the DOE
    should develop a careful plan for evaluating, funding, and validating
    emerging technologies for hydrogen production, transportation, storage,
    and end-use. Within the background, the interim report stated that,
    when properly used, demonstrations have a place in a balanced research
    program because they can lead to cost reductions and accelerate the
    development of codes, standards, environmental permitting, and
    strategies for inspection and monitoring. But, demonstrations also risk
    distorting budgets and diverting effort toward technology with limited
    potential. Development of a careful plan for funding and evaluating
    demonstrations to address this risk will serve the public interest.
        Since the time of the NAS letter, the DOE Office of Science (SC)
    hosted a workshop to determine the basic science needs that support
    hydrogen and fuel cell technology development. SC is currently
    developing a research plan based on the outcomes of that workshop. The
    DOE plan is based on the Hydrogen Vision and Roadmap that were
    developed in collaboration with over 200 technical experts. The current
    DOE plan includes 80 percent of funding for research and development
    and 20 percent of funding for technology validation. These technology
    validation projects are cost-shared 50/50 by industry partners. Strong
    leveraging of Federal dollars indicates private sector support of the
    RD&D pathway we have outlined and that our research validation approach
    is sound. The results of technology validation are critical to refining
    and directing future research and development efforts.
        Question. What is your assessment of the progress of R&D on liquid
    hydrogen, compressed gas, and on several carrier fuels that would
    transport hydrogen in vehicles?
        Answer. Liquid and compressed hydrogen tanks are relatively mature
    technologies that are suitable for near-term demonstrations of
    hydrogen-powered vehicles. Development of pressurized insulated vessels
    has reduced evaporative losses in liquid tanks. However, liquid tanks
    do not meet the volume targets for on-board storage and liquefying
    hydrogen incurs a sizable energy penalty. Development of low-permeation
    liners, high-strength fibers, and conformable tanks has led to
    fabrication of 5,000 and 10,000 psi gaseous hydrogen tanks. However,
    these compressed gas tanks do not result in the required 300-mile range
    while also meeting vehicle weight and space requirements. Therefore,
    the long-term effort of the DOE program will be the development of low-
    pressure, solid-state materials that store hydrogen, such as carbon
    nanotubes, hydrides and alanates.
        Question. What in your view is the appropriate mix of fuel cell R&D
    and demonstration projects?
        Answer. Every research activity must be evaluated with
    consideration to its own particular factors, including the state of
    research progress. At this point, we believe that an 80/20 fuel cell
    R&D/demonstration mix, where demonstration projects require a minimum
    50 percent cost share by industry, is appropriate.
        Question. I note that researchers at Los Alamos National Lab
    continue to make great progress in fuel cell research and are poised to
    be a center of excellence in this area. I believe the nation needs this
    center to integrate a number of separate specialties to more
    efficiently develop commercially-ready fuel cell systems. Previous
    budget submissions led me to believe this was also part of the
    Administration's thinking. What is the Department's current position on
    establishing a national fuel cell research center?
        Answer. We appreciate the major advances that Los Alamos National
    Laboratory (LANL) has made in polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) fuel
    cells and that they hold seminal patents in the field. For example,
    LANL scientists were responsible for achieving the breakthrough that
    allowed a 90 percent reduction in the platinum required by fuel cell
    electrodes. This breakthrough significantly lowered the cost of PEM
    fuel cells and stimulated the large-scale automotive industry
    investment that exists today.
        With respect to establishing a national center for fuel cell
    research, the Department is currently studying this concept.
        Question. What level of funding for fuel cells could be effectively
    utilized to advance this exciting technology as rapidly as possible?
        Answer. The Fossil Energy and Energy Efficiency and Renewal Energy
    Fuel Cells Programs are working with partners to accelerate the
    development and successful market introduction of these technologies.
        In fiscal year 2004, the Fossil Energy Budget Request is $44.5
    million for the continuation of the entire program, with emphasis on
    the Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance (SECA) where efforts are
    underway to drastically reducing fuel cell costs to make them more
    broadly applicable and widespread commodity in the competitive, mature
    distributed generation and auxiliary power markets. Funding at the
    requested level will allow six competing SECA industry teams and about
    19 core technology participants to advance the technology at an
    accelerated pace.
        In fiscal year 2004, the Energy Efficiency and Renewal Energy
    (EERE) budget request is $77.5 million for development of polymer
    electrolyte membrane fuel cells in support of the President's
    FreedomCAR and Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. This request level is
    appropriate for EERE's planned fuel cell R&D and is consistent with our
    technology roadmap plans. Research in membranes, electrodes, fuel
    processing and system components will lead to $30/kW engine costs, 60
    percent energy efficiency and 5,000 hours durability on hydrogen.
    Fiscal year 2004 funding for fuel cells and hydrogen is the first year
    of the President's Initiative, which will accelerate commercialization
    of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles by 15 years to 2015.

                       HIGH TEMPERATURE SUPERCONDUCTIVITY

        Question. If I could change subjects for a moment, I would like to
    ask you about the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy budget, and
    high temperature superconductivity R&D. It is my sense that within DOE
    there is support to move into grid-level demonstration projects to
    begin effective utilization by utilities of high-temperature
    superconductivity technology for more reliable supplies of electricity.
    The request of $76.9 million for electricity reliability activities is
    9 percent below the $85 million approved for fiscal year 2003 and does
    not move us in that direction.
        Answer. Within the $76.9 million request, there are significant
    grid-level demonstration projects that will be more visible in fiscal
    year 2004 in which utilities will begin effective utilization of high
    temperature superconductivity. The most notable is a planned Long
    Island installation of a superconducting transmission power cable able
    to serve 300,000 homes. This could lead to a future superconductivity
    ``backbone'' being put in place to supply electricity to most of Long
    Island. Similar projects are planned in Albany, NY, and Columbus, OH.
    Our intent is to move as rapidly as possible to effective utilization
    of several types of grid technologies (transmission and distribution
    cables, transformers, generators, and fault current limiters) while
    maintaining research on higher capacity, cost-effective,
    superconducting wires and other key enabling technologies.
        Question. What is the major thrust of the Department's fiscal year
    2004 budget proposal for high-temperature superconductivity?
        Answer. In the Department's fiscal year 2004 budget proposal for
    high-temperature superconductivity, the major thrust is to improve
    Second Generation superconducting wire (longer lengths, higher
    capacity, lower-cost processing) through collaboration of university,
    national laboratory, and private company scientists; while
    simultaneously moving as rapidly as possible to effective utilization
    of transmission and distribution cables by installing and testing
    different cable types in the electric grid. The latter work is carried
    out by industry teams consisting of a utility, cable manufacturer,
    superconducting wire supplier as well as special expertise from the
    national labs and universities.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd

           TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER--CLEAN ENERGY TECHNOLOGY EXPORT (CETE)

        Question. Mr. Secretary, Congress has urged the Administration to
    support increased opportunities to open and expand international energy
    markets and export U.S. clean energy technologies to developing
    countries and other nations abroad. These efforts are very important to
    helping meet our own energy security needs while at the same time
    addressing related economic, job creation, trade, environmental, and
    climate change objectives. Additionally, such efforts could
    significantly aid in meeting other nations' infrastructure and
    development needs while also increasing the deployment of a range of
    U.S. clean energy technologies, including clean coal technologies. The
    Clean Energy Technology Exports (CETE) Initiative will help meet that
    challenge. It had its genesis within the Senate Appropriations
    Committee and has had broad bipartisan support. The administration has
    talked about such ideas on occasion, but despite such rhetoric, the
    participating federal agencies have done little, if anything, to
    implement the strategic plan. It seems you are just sitting on your
    hands and missing a critical opportunity. Because the Department of
    Energy is a leading agency involved in the implementation of the CETE
    Initiative as called for by the Congress and released by the
    Administration in October 2002, what specific actions is your agency
    taking to work with the other federal agencies and engage non-
    governmental organizations, private sector companies, and other
    international partners with regard to this plan?
        Answer. The Department is involved in many activities with other
    federal agencies, non-governmental organizations, private sector
    companies and international partners to expand the market for clean
    energy technologies. One such effort is the current joint working group
    on U.S.-China Olympic cooperation. This cooperative effort is
    consistent with CETE objectives and aims to deploy clean energy
    technologies for the 2008 Summer Olympic Games, by facilitating U.S.
    industry interest in the Chinese market, and promoting U.S.-made
    equipment and services while protecting the global environment. One of
    the eleven areas of mutual interest for cooperation is clean coal
    technology. To this end, the Department's Office of Fossil Energy has
    developed a plan to: use U.S. NOX Control Technologies for
    Beijing region power plants; jointly design coal preparation plants;
    and reach out to U.S. industry on business opportunities.
        Question. Can you tell me when the Appropriations Committee will
    receive the required annual CETE strategic plan progress report that
    was due to this committee on March 1, 2003?
        Answer. The Department expects to submit the CETE report to the
    Congress by the end of July 2003.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein

                            NUCLEAR WEAPONS TESTING

        Question. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing and
    Secretary Abraham, thank you for coming. I am interested to hear your
    answers to many subjects important to Californians. Among them are the
    Administration's position on the use and development of low-yield
    nuclear weapons; banning fraud and manipulation in the energy sector;
    and the President's hydrogen fuel and fuel cell car proposals in the
    fiscal year 2004 Department of Energy Budget. First and foremost, I
    want to focus on the Administration's position on the use and
    development of low-yield nuclear weapons. The President is right that
    the greatest threat facing the United States lies in the global
    proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, and terrorist access to
    those weapons. But I am deeply concerned that by appearing to focus its
    national security strategy on its nuclear arsenal, current U.S. policy
    may well actually encourage proliferation, alienate our friends and
    allies, and promote a backlash against the United States. Instead of
    ratcheting back on our reliance on nuclear weapons with the Cold War
    over, the administration seems to be looking for new ways to use our
    nuclear advantage to restructure our forces so that they are more
    ``usable''--blurring the lines between nuclear and conventional forces
    and legitimizing the idea that nuclear weapons can be used.
        Like it or not, the United States sets the pace when it comes to
    international norms regarding nuclear weapons, and, in fact, just
    considering the use of these weapons much less actually using them
    threatens to undermine our efforts to stop proliferation and makes us
    less safe, not more.
        The administration's Nuclear Posture Review, released in January
    2002, stressed the importance of being prepared to use nuclear weapons.
    The review noted that we must plan to possibly use them against a wider
    range of countries. And it said that we need to develop new types of
    weapons so that we can use them in a wider variety of circumstances.
    According to press reports the review also explicitly listed seven
    nations Russia, China, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and North Korea
    against which the United States should be prepared to use nuclear
    weapons even though most of those nations do not have nuclear weapons
    themselves. That means the Administration is contemplating the first
    use of nuclear weapons in a conflict.
        Indeed, a few months after issuing the nuclear posture review,
    President Bush signed National Security Presidential Directive-17,
    which, according to press reports, abandons a bipartisan policy of
    ambiguity and explicitly says that the United States might use nuclear
    weapons to respond to a chemical or biological attack. Clearly the
    administration seems to be moving toward a military posture in which
    nuclear weapons are considered just like other weapons in which their
    purpose is not simply to serve as a deterrent but as a usable
    instrument of military power, like a tank, a fighter aircraft, or a
    cruise missile.
        I believe that such an approach is not in our nation's interest,
    nor is it consistent with our standards and values. A first use of
    nuclear weapons by the United States should be unthinkable, and
    responding to a non-nuclear attack with nuclear weapons violates a
    central tenet of just war and U.S. military tradition. There is no
    question that in the post 9/11 era a full range of policy options for
    dealing with new and uncertain events should be on the table. But in my
    view, nuclear options should not be considered as an extension of
    conventional options because this inevitably lowers the threshold for
    use.
        So, if the United States is seeking to develop nuclear weapons
    which blur the distinction between conventional and nuclear forces and
    lowers the threshold for the possible use of these weapons, we must
    consider the message that this sends to the rest of the world. I
    believe that it is critical that the United States sets a very high
    international standard for nuclear restraint. If we do not, we may well
    encourage others to develop their own standards and their own nuclear
    arsenals.
        Using nuclear weapons, even ``small'' ones, would cross a line that
    has remained sacrosanct for almost 60 years. Using a small nuclear
    weapon makes the use of all nuclear weapons more permissible it
    legitimizes their use and legitimizing nuclear weapons promotes their
    spread. It also puts us in greater danger should we ever have to fight
    a nuclear power.
        Moreover, there is no real evidence that the United States needs to
    use nuclear weapons in the scenarios outlined in the Nuclear Posture
    Review or NSPD 17.
        The most often-cited need for new nuclear weapons is to destroy
    underground bunkers. But the most important factor in destroying a
    deeply buried target is knowing exactly where it is. And if we know
    exactly where it is, we can either destroy it with conventional weapons
    or deny access to it by destroying entrances and air ducts.
        Earlier this year, at an Energy Committee Hearing, I asked you
    whether Secretary Rumsfeld had been quoted correctly in The Washington
    Post, on the 20th of February, when he said that the Administration had
    no plans to develop new low-yield nuclear weapons. You said yes, he had
    been quoted correctly, that the Administration was only studying
    adaptations of existing weapons.
        This week on the Floor of the Senate I offered an amendment to
    strike the controversial provision in the Defense Authorization Bill
    that will end a 10-year-old ban on research and development of low
    yield nuclear weapons.
        The Defense Authorization Bill would repeal the decade old
    ``Spratt-Furse'' provision, which bans all development leading to the
    production of nuclear weapons with yields of fewer than five kilotons.
    I believe this prohibition should remain in full force because
    repealing it:
      --Provides the United States no military benefit;
      --Could lead to the resumption of nuclear testing;
      --Undermines efforts to halt the proliferation of Weapons of Mass
            Destruction; and
      --Blurs the line between conventional and nuclear weapons.
        Now that the ban will be repealed, what are the exact plans for the
    Administration's study, development, and testing of low-yield nuclear
    weapons?
        Answer. The Department has no research currently under way to
    develop low-yield or other new nuclear weapons at the Department's
    nuclear weapon design laboratories. However, the Department of Defense
    and Department of Energy have begun a two to three-year study on
    potential modifications to current stockpile gravity bombs, the B61 and
    the B83. The study, known as the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP)
    phase 6.2 study, will assess the feasibility, design definition, and
    cost for modifications of providing a robust earth penetrating weapon
    to address the threat posed by hard and deeply buried facilities.
        The RNEP concept is being studied as one of a number of possible
    means to deal with emerging threats. Development, production and
    fielding of the RNEP concept would not require nuclear testing.
        There has been no decision to move the RNEP to engineering
    development. Should this occur in the future, the Department of Energy
    would request funds from Congress as a separate budget line item,
    consistent with Section 3143 of Public Law. 107-314, in the President's
    budget request for that year.
        I appreciate your observation that ``a full range of policy options
    for dealing with new and uncertain contingencies should be on the
    table.'' I believe that the Department's work will not blur the
    distinction between nuclear and conventional weapons. I also encourage
    you to seek the views of the Department of Defense on the issues you
    raise regarding military utility of low-yield weapons and their
    potential contribution to the deterrent.
        Question. What exactly will you do differently when this Defense
    Authorization Bill is passed?
        Answer. Repeal of the prohibitions of Spratt-Furse would allow the
    NNSA's weapons laboratories to examine more fully the technical
    options, the investigation of which is currently prohibited by law and
    to a lessor extent by the Spratt-Furse provisions of the House bill.
    There are problems in attempting to confine intellectual efforts to
    ``research only'' rather than ``research and development'' because
    these lines are often not clear. In the end, Congress controls these
    activities which could lead to a recommendation to initiate engineering
    development, since the Department of Energy would request funds from
    Congress as a separate line item in the President's budget request for
    that year.
        Question. Will the Administration seek to test these weapons?
        Answer. The Administration remains committed to adhering to a
    moratorium on nuclear weapons testing. At the same time, the
    Administration has no intention of resubmitting the CTBT to the Senate
    for ratification.

                                 ENERGY MARKETS

        Question. Now I would like to turn to the energy markets. Over the
    past few years, we have seen corporate scandal after corporate scandal
    in the news--and nowhere has there been more fraud and market abuse
    than in the energy sector. In March, the Federal Energy Regulatory
    Commission issued its ``Final Report on Price Manipulation in Western
    Markets'' which confirmed there was widespread and pervasive fraud and
    manipulation during the Western Energy Crisis. The overwhelming
    evidence uncovered demands that California receive full and complete
    refunds and that FERC revise the state's long-term contracts to remedy
    the manipulation that has taken place and to deter future abuse.
        Three years ago, this month California's energy market began to
    spiral out of control. The crisis forced the State of California into a
    severe budget shortfall. It forced the state's largest utility into
    bankruptcy and nearly bankrupted the second-largest utility. Now three
    years and $45 billion in costs later, we have learned how the energy
    markets in California were gamed and abused.
        Yet the Senate Energy Bill doesn't prevent the type of gaming that
    went on during the energy crisis. The Senate bill only bans one type of
    specific manipulation--wash trades in the electricity market--but it
    does not address the natural gas market, nor does it prevent other
    forms of fraud and manipulation that took place in California and were
    detailed in the Enron memos as ``Fat Boy,'' Ricochet,'' ``Death Star,''
    and ``Get Shorty.''
        Does the Bush Administration support banning the type of fraud and
    manipulation that Enron engaged in?
        Answer. The Administration strongly opposes illegal market
    manipulations and supports the prevention of fraud and manipulation in
    the nation's energy markets. It would not be appropriate to discuss
    cases involving Enron, and other energy firms that are still pending
    before FERC and in other forums, and this answer should not be
    understood as presuming the outcomes of those cases.
        Question. FERC Chairman Pat Wood and FERC Commissioner Bill Massey
    support conforming the penalty and refund provisions in the Federal
    Power Act with those of the Natural Gas Act. Does the Bush
    Administration also support these changes?
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. Section 1121 of Senator Domenici's Energy Bill prevents
    the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from issuing any rulemaking on
    the proposed Standard Market Design until July 1, 2005. What are the
    Bush Administration's views on delaying the Standard Market Design
    rulemaking until this date--especially in light of the recent revisions
    proposed by the FERC Commissioners in their White Paper?
        Answer. In the White Paper FERC demonstrated its willingness to
    work with state regulators and industry to accommodate regional
    perspectives in the design of regional transmission organizations
    (RTOs) and other matters related to the formation and operation of
    regional wholesale markets for electricity. The Administration opposes
    blocking the FERC from any final rulemaking in this area for two years,
    which could prevent FERC from taking needed action to maintain
    stability in regional electricity markets.
        Question. In a speech last week to the National Petroleum Council,
    you made some comments about the current conditions in our natural gas
    markets. As you know, low U.S. production, low inventories, and high
    prices are battering industries that rely on natural gas as a raw
    material or energy source. In addition to the chemical, aluminum, and
    fertilizer industries--the ethanol industry is also dependant on
    natural gas. Since most ethanol plants rely solely on natural gas, is
    this the time to mandate billions of gallons of ethanol into our fuel
    supply and force many more ethanol plants to be built?
        Answer. New, modern dry mill ethanol plants use about 40,000 BTUs
    of natural gas per gallon of ethanol produced (76,000 BTUs). A small
    additional amount of natural gas will be used in the production of
    fertilizer used to grow corn. For the incremental 2.5 billion gallons
    that would need to be produced to reach the 5 billion gallon per year
    target under a renewable fuels standard, natural gas demand would be
    about .075 TFC higher in 2015. This would be an increase of about half
    of 1 percent in expected 2015 gas demand. We do not believe this is a
    significant amount given the potential factors that will drive natural
    gas supply and demand over the next 10-20 years.
        Question. Is the ethanol mandate something DOE is considering in
    evaluating our long-term natural gas needs?
        Answer. As discussed in the answer above, we do not believe that
    the impact of a 5 billion gallon per year renewal fuels standard will
    have a significant impact on future natural gas demand.

                                 HYDROGEN FUEL

        Question. I support research and development efforts to make
    hydrogen fuel and fuel cell powered automobiles a reality. In fact,
    companies and universities based in California have been at the
    forefront of developing hydrogen and fuel cell technologies. However, I
    am concerned about the overwhelming amounts of energy it will take to
    extract hydrogen fuel on a large scale. Since the actions we take today
    will influence what kind of hydrogen economy develops 10 or 20 years
    from now, how does the Administration propose to generate this large
    amount of energy?
        Answer. A big advantage of hydrogen as a transportation fuel is its
    potential to be produced efficiently and economically via a number of
    processes and from a variety of domestic resources, such as natural gas
    and other fossil fuels, abundant renewables, and nuclear. The
    Department has established a balanced effort to research and develop
    hydrogen production capabilities from all of these resources. Today,
    the most cost-effective and efficient process is steam reforming of
    natural gas. Natural gas reforming is a route for producing hydrogen,
    particularly in the near term because of its current economics and the
    availability of existing infrastructure. Use of coal with
    sequestration, renewable resources, and nuclear are other routes for
    producing hydrogen over the long term. Although hydrogen production in
    the future is not likely to come from natural gas alone, an Energy
    Information Administration (EIA) calculation indicated that if 36
    million hydrogen fuel cell vehicles were on the road by 2025, it would
    add about 5 percent to total natural gas that will be used in the
    United.States that year. This increase would be more than offset by
    natural gas demand reduced by new advanced technologies and efficiency
    improvements to existing technologies under development within the EERE
    portfolio. EERE's analysis, based on our fiscal year 2004 budget
    request, indicates that by 2020 the industrial, buildings, and other
    portions of our portfolio will be freeing up some 11 percent of
    expected natural gas demand. In the future, hydrogen will likely be
    produced from a diverse suite of domestic resources, such as
    renewables, nuclear, natural gas and, if carbon capture and
    sequestration technologies are perfected, coal. Thus, the domestic
    resources needed to produce large amounts of hydrogen are available
    and, with continued research and development, the necessary production
    processes should meet required efficiency and cost objectives to
    facilitate a fuel cell vehicle commercialization decision by industry
    in 2015.

                                    ELK HILL

        Question. The Department of Energy entered into a Settlement
    Agreement with the State of California to compensate the State for its
    interest in the Elk Hills oil reserve. The Settlement Agreement calls
    for the State to receive compensation in seven annual installments. The
    Department has met its obligations for the first five installments. Mr.
    Secretary, will the Department continue to meet its obligations under
    this Agreement?
        Answer. Estimates for the total for the remaining payments have
    been as high as $118 million; however, until final equity and final
    cost determinations are made, the precise amount is speculative. The
    President's budget for fiscal year 2004 requests $36 million for the
    payment to California, indicative of the Department's intention to meet
    its obligation to California. Under the agreement, if equity has not
    been finalized by July 2003 (which it will not be), DOE and the state
    should confer, and DOE must determine whether any or all of the seventh
    installment should be deferred.
        Question. DOE has held back $26 million in compensation due to the
    State because DOE has taken 6 years to finalize the split of the
    proceeds from selling Elk Hills. Under DOE's Settlement Agreement, for
    the sixth installment in fiscal year 2004, the State is entitled to
    half of the balance in the Elk Hills School Lands Fund that's left
    after this holdback. Thus, the State is entitled to $59 million in Elk
    Hills compensation for fiscal year 2004, not the $36 million requested
    in your budget. Mr. Secretary, what is the Department's view of an
    appropriation of the full $59 million?
        Answer. The Settlement Act provided for 9 percent of the net sales
    proceeds to be reserved in a contingent fund in the Treasury for
    payment to the State, subject to appropriation. The Department's
    estimate of 9 percent of the net sales proceeds was $324 million, of
    which $298 million has already been deposited into the contingent fund.
    The Department will adjust the amount in the contingent fund once all
    divestment related costs and final equity have been determined. It is
    now apparent that the final equity determination will not be completed
    until fiscal year 2006. Since 9 percent of the net revenues can only be
    calculated after final equity and final costs are determined, the
    amount of the two ``equal'' final payments is contingent upon events
    that have not yet occurred, and it will be impossible for Congress to
    appropriate an amount for fiscal year 2004 that would be known to be 50
    percent of the remaining payment.

                             CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

        Senator Burns. Thank you all very much. The subcommittee
    will stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair.
        [Whereupon, at 10:56 a.m., Thursday, May 22, 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 2004

                                  ----------

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

                           NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

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

                           DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

     Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum
        In Support of $5,200,000 to assist in Colorado River Salinity
    Control, Title II, and with support for the President's request for the
    Land Resources Subactivity: Soil, Water, and Air Management.
    Specifically, this testimony supports the President's request for the
    Soil, Water and Air account in the amount of $34,936,000 and for a
    designation that $800,000 be used to further advance Colorado River
    salinity control efforts.
        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 in the BLM budget justification document, calls for four
    principle program priorities within the Soil, Water and Air Management.
    One of these priorities, in part, is ``through continuing BLM measures
    to meet the international agreement for salinity of the Colorado
    River.'' It is also noted that in the budget justification document
    there are identified performance estimates for 2003 and it is stated
    that ``The BLM continues to implement on-the-ground projects, evaluate
    progress in cooperation with Bureau of Reclamation and Natural
    Resources Conservation Service, 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 Forum believes that
    in fiscal year 2004 funds appropriated by Congress will be used for
    this purpose in this next fiscal year.
        The seven Colorado River Basin States, through the Colorado River
    Basin Salinity Control Forum, have been trying to engage the BLM in a
    partnership with the Basin states as has been done with other federal
    agencies. This enhanced working relationship has been slow to develop.
    The Forum is encouraged by the words in the BLM 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 2004 with
    $800,000 being focused upon salinity control efforts.
        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 BLM efforts. The Forum has requested that the BLM select a
    salinity coordinator for the basinwide program. 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 will advance salinity control activities.
    In the past, it has been difficult to determine the extent of BLM
    efforts in the water quality program. It has been very general in its
    accounting for accomplishments. The Forum hopes that the BLM report to
    the Congress, which is required under S. 1211 (Public Law 106-459),
    will better document the BLM efforts. 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, including adherence to the water
    quality standards 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 enacted Clean Water Act. Initially, the Secretary of the Interior
    and the Bureau of Reclamation were given the lead federal role by
    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 and have proceeded
    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 in
    support of the implementation of the salinity control program. In close
    cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and under
    requirements of the Clean Water Act, every three years the Forum
    prepares a formal report analyzing the salinity of the Colorado River,
    anticipated future salinity, and the program elements necessary to keep
    the salinities at or below the levels measured in the river system in
    1972.
        The plan necessary for controlling salinity has been captioned the
    ``plan of implementation.'' The 2002 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 salt contributions
    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 flows, and enhance
    wildlife habitat.
        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 and looks forward to
    the filing of the report, which, by law, must also be filed with the
    Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Advisory Council.

                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Board of California

        Support for fiscal year 2004 Federal Funding of $5.2 Million for
    the Department of the Interior--Bureau of Land Management to assist in
    the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program, with $800,000 to be
    designated specifically to salinity control efforts.
        Your support and leadership are needed in securing adequate fiscal
    year 2004 funding for the Department of the Interior-Bureau of Land
    Management with respect to the federal/state Colorado River Basin
    Salinity Control Program. This program is carried out as a part of
    ecosystem and watershed management pursuant to the Colorado River Basin
    Salinity Control Act and the Clean Water Act.
        As you are aware, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is the
    largest landowner in the Colorado River Basin. Due to geological
    conditions, much of the lands that are controlled and managed by the
    BLM are heavily laden with salt. Past management practices have led to
    man-induced and accelerated erosional processes from which soil and
    rocks, heavily laden with salt have been deposited in various stream
    beds or flood plains. As a result of this disposition, salt is
    dissolved into the River System causing water quality problems
    downstream.
        Congress has charged federal agencies, including the BLM, to
    proceed with programs to control the salinity of the Colorado River.
    BLM's rangeland improvement programs can lead to some of the most cost-
    effective salinity measures available. These salinity control measures
    may be more cost-effective than some now being considered for
    implementation by the Bureau of Reclamation through its Basinwide
    Program and by the Department of Agriculture through its EQIP program.
    In keeping with the Congressional mandate to maximize the cost-
    effectiveness of the salinity control program, the Colorado River Board
    is requesting that Congress appropriate and the administration allocate
    adequate funds to support BLM's portion of the Colorado River Basin
    Salinity Control Program.
        The Colorado River Board of California, the state agency charged
    with protecting California's interests and rights in the water and
    power resources of the Colorado River System, requests that Congress
    appropriate $5,200,000 of these funds in fiscal year 2004, to
    accomplish activities that BLM either has underway or should initiate
    in order to further control the concentrations of salinity of the
    Colorado River. It is particularly important that the BLM's line item
    for Management of Lands and Renewal Resources be adequately funded. The
    Colorado River Board urges the Subcommittee to specifically mark,
    $800,000 from this line-item for the Colorado River Basin Salinity
    Control Program as has been the direction to BLM from the Subcommittee
    in past years.
        Soon your Subcommittee will receive testimony from the Colorado
    River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum) on behalf of the seven
    Colorado River Basin states. The Colorado River Board concurs in the
    fiscal year 2004 funding request and justification statements for BLM
    as set forth in the Forum's testimony.
        California's Colorado River water users are presently suffering
    economic damages, estimated at $300 million per year, due to the
    river's salinity, as stated in a recent report prepared by the Bureau
    of Reclamation and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
    California. In addition, the federal government has made significant
    commitments to the Republic of Mexico and to the seven Colorado River
    Basin states with regard to the delivery of quality water to Mexico. In
    order for those commitments to be honored, it is essential that in
    fiscal year 2004 and in future fiscal years, that Congress provide
    funds to the Bureau of Land Management for its activities.
        The Colorado River is, and will continue to be, a major and vital
    water resource to the 17 million residents of southern California.
    Preservation of its quality through an effective Salinity Control
    Program will avoid the additional economic damages to river users in
    California.
        The Board greatly appreciates your support of the Colorado River
    Basin Salinity Control Program and asks for your assistance and
    leadership in securing adequate funding for this vital program.

                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Doris Day Animal League

        The Doris Day Animal League is a non-profit, member supported
    animal advocacy organization located in Washington, D.C. On behalf of
    our more than 350,000 members and supporters, we respectfully present
    to the subcommittee our concerns about the Bureau of Land Management's
    (BLM) Wild Horse and Burro Program (Program).
        In 1971, Congress charged the BLM with preserving America's wild
    horses and burros via passage of the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro
    Act. The Act declares that ``wild free-roaming horses and burros are
    living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West . . .
    [who] shall be protected from capture, branding, harassment or death.''
    Further, they are to be considered as ``an integral part of the natural
    system of the public lands.''
        We are gravely concerned that the BLM is failing to fulfill this
    mandate, and instead is engaging in questionable and unsustainable
    practices under the guise of multiple-use land management. While the
    BLM has several mandates and must appease various interested parties,
    it should not do so at the expense of the very animals and land it is
    charged with protecting.
        In fiscal year 2001, the BLM requested and received a $9 million
    budget increase from Congress to implement a four year program to halve
    the number of wild horses on the range in order to restore the health
    of the land. Despite the agency's failure to meet its own goals, this
    new level of funding was effectively maintained in fiscal years 2002
    and 2003.
        The BLM's plan raised several questions, not least of which was,
    where would the thousands of rounded-up horses go? Although the BLM has
    recognized the shortage of good adoptive homes and has subsequently
    made a commendable effort to open additional long-term holding
    facilities to accommodate these horses, it is unclear how the agency
    can sustain this plan of action; as more horses are rounded up,
    additional facilities and homes are needed, yet the agency's budget
    remains essentially static.
        Already, BLM spends some 40 percent of its annual budget on holding
    and caring for horses and burros removed from the range. Nearly 40
    percent of the program budget goes to administering and marketing an
    adoption program that can never be expected to absorb the thousands of
    wild horses and burros rounded up annually. In contrast, little more
    than 3 percent of the budget is devoted to range work, including
    monitoring and censusing of wild horse populations, even though such
    work is critical to the successful management of wild horse and burro
    populations and the range itself.
        Despite some grazing reductions in recent years, domestic livestock
    still so dramatically outnumber wild horses on BLM land (the ratio is
    estimated to be 50:1) that the removal of tens of thousands of horses
    has not had a significant impact on the health of the range. As a GAO
    report from 1990 stated, ``. . . 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 by domestic livestock . . .'' (Rangeland Management:
    Improvements Needed in Federal Wild Horse Program, GAO, 1990). Our
    observations and experience in working with this program over the past
    several years reinforce that this is still very much the case.
        We therefore respectfully urge this subcommittee to carefully
    scrutinize the BLM's request for funding for fiscal year 2004. While we
    do not oppose the agency receiving additional funds, we do not agree
    that the health of the range can be noticeably improved simply through
    the removal of large numbers of wild horses. Not only does this not
    yield significant improvements in range conditions, but the strategy
    also is financially unsustainable.
        As such, we strongly suggest that a new GAO Report on the BLM's
    Program be conducted to determine if its wild horse and burro policies
    are appropriate when viewed as part of the agency's larger mission.
    Further, in light of the huge number of wild horses and burros being
    rounded up through emergency and scheduled gathers, it is imperative
    that the ``no-kill'' provision that has been attached to the Interior
    Appropriations bill for several years now remain intact. That provision
    reads:

    ``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.''

        Thank you for your consideration.

                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the International Association of Fish and
                               Wildlife Agencies

                        BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (BLM)

        The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages some 262 million acres
    of the Nation's public lands, which is 48 per cent of our total public
    lands, making it the single largest natural resource management agency
    in terms of acres managed. Yet its operating budget amounts to a
    funding rate of $3.73 per acre, about $4-$16 less per acre than the
    three other largest Federal land and natural resource management
    agencies. These lands provide critically important fish and wildlife
    habitat, and, in 2004, over 60 million visitors are expected to
    participate in recreational opportunities for fishing, hunting,
    camping, rafting, hiking, mountain biking, and wildlife viewing. The
    Association is concerned that the fiscal year 2004 budget proposes
    essentially a static funding level. This will continue to present
    significant challenges to BLM to even maintain current levels of
    activity on these public lands, without providing the agency any
    capability to enhance its management presence and programs. Congress
    needs to begin to incrementally increase BLM's operational budget to
    bring it into parity with the other Federal land management agencies.

    The BLM's Fish and Wildlife Priorities
        While the Association appreciates the fact the Secretary of the
    Interior has revised the Cooperative Conservation Initiative, as well
    as increased the Challenge Cost Share Program, we also recognize that
    these undertakings are largely made possible by reallocating money from
    existing resource-based programs. For example, in fiscal year 2003,
    $5.5 million--over 60 percent--of the funding for the Challenge Cost
    Share Program originated from the wildlife, fisheries and T&E species
    programs. Since a like amount is not guaranteed to be used for these
    same purposes, the long-term implications are a reduction of program
    emphasis. The Association, therefore, requests funding for the
    Challenge Cost Share program not come from existing programs and those
    redirected funds be returned to the budget of origin. In addition to
    the source of funding, the Association remains very concerned that BLM
    does not have the staff to take full advantage of either the
    Cooperative Conservation Initiative or the Challenge Cost Share
    Program.

    Wildlife Management
        Consumptive (hunting and fishing) and non-consumptive wildlife
    activities (such as viewing, photography and conservation education) on
    public lands provide millions of America's outdoor enthusiasts with
    opportunities to pursue these endeavors, which are part of our Nation's
    rich cultural heritage. Such activities on BLM lands result in $2
    billion in expenditures from participants each year. The
    Administration's fiscal year 2004 budget for BLM's Wildlife Management
    program is $22.42 million, which is nearly identical to the fiscal year
    2003 enacted level, but nearly $2.9 million (13 percent) below the
    fiscal year 2002 enacted level. The Association strongly urges Congress
    to increase BLM's fiscal year 2004 wildlife management budget by an
    additional $4 million. The return for this investment in expenditures
    in local communities is significant.

    Fisheries Management
        The BLM manages roughly 117,000 miles of fish bearing streams,
    17,000 miles of anadromous fish habitat, and 3 million acres of
    fishable lakes and reservoirs which provide recreational anglers with
    high quality fishing opportunities, generating $390 million annually in
    economic benefits. In order to manage these resources, the
    Administration is requesting $11.87 million in fiscal year 2004 for
    Fisheries Management. This represents a program increase of $200,000
    from the fiscal year 2003 enacted budget, but remains nearly $250,000
    below the fiscal year 2002 enacted budget. This will reduce BLM's
    aquatic and riparian habitat restoration capabilities on vital public
    lands. Management activities will focus on the maintenance and
    restoration of habitat for both anadromous and resident species. These
    improvements are aimed at providing recreational angling opportunities
    and precluding the need for the listing of fish stocks as threatened or
    endangered under the Endangered Species Act. The Association strongly
    encourages Congress to increase this budget by an additional $1
    million.

    Threatened and Endangered Species
        Lands administered by BLM provide habitat to more than 900
    vulnerable and declining species and 306 threatened or endangered plant
    and animal species. The latter number has more than doubled since 1990.
    Like other Federal agencies, the Bureau is mandated by the Endangered
    Species Act to take steps to ensure that strategies are implemented to
    protect and restore both the species and the habitat that they require.
    With the rapid increase in the number of listed species, however, BLM's
    Threatened and Endangered Species Program has transformed from one of
    proactive species conservation management to one that, out of
    necessity, must react to the increasing consultation workload.
        In the Conference Report from the Committee on Appropriations on
    the 2001 Department of Interior Appropriations Bill, the Committee
    specifically requested the Bureau to, ``submit as part of its fiscal
    year 2002 budget request the results of its ongoing analysis and review
    of the impacts of ESA listings on the ability of the Bureau to
    accomplish its mission while at the same time responding to the growing
    demand for use authorization requests''. The Committee also requested
    the Bureau to, ``provide a detailed roadmap of how it intends to
    address these impacts, including the level of funds and other resources
    that would be required to address these problem areas''.
        In its Report to Congress, dated March, 2001, and entitled
    ``Effects of Endangered Species Act Listings on Bureau of Land
    Management Programs and Activities,'' the agency concluded the
    following: ``. . . BLM is proposing a future management strategy that
    streamlines the consultation process, enhances pre-listing management
    through the development of multi-species conservation frameworks, and
    aggressively addresses recovery actions identified in formal species
    recovery plans. This strategy will be integrated within the framework
    of the Bureau's strategic plan. It will require doubling the current
    Threatened and Endangered Species budget to $48 million and take an
    additional 70 staff positions over 5 years . . .''.
        The President requests $21.83 million in fiscal year 2004 for BLM
    threatened and endangered species management, which represents a
    $543,000 increase from the fiscal year 2003 request, but totally
    ignores the aforementioned Report to Congress. The request is woefully
    inadequate to meet identified needs or allow the BLM to carry out its
    responsibilities under the ESA--or for that matter--its mission.
    Significant increases in funding are needed in fiscal year 2004 and the
    next several years to accomplish what was recommended in the 2001
    Report to Congress--that is: ``. . . At that time, funding and
    personnel needs should stabilize, and begin to decline as species
    recovery becomes effective''. In view of this gross inequity between
    resource needs versus funding levels, the Association strongly
    encourages Congress to add an additional $5 million to the Threatened
    and Endangered Species fiscal year 2004 budget.

    BLM Fish & Wildlife Staffing
        The Association supports the previously-referenced programs and
    Bureau funding requests (with the recommended changes), however, we
    remain extremely concerned that at current staffing levels, the Bureau
    and its field staff will be unable to meet its program and statutory
    requirements. The western states' population has more than tripled, to
    over 60 million people, over the past 55 years, while the Nation's
    largest land management agency's staff has declined. At current staff
    levels, biologists are often forced to divide their time between on-
    the-ground program implementation efforts and other program
    requirements, which may or may not provide direct fish or wildlife
    benefits.
        Evaluations of staffing needs by BLM have shown that the Bureau is
    lacking in staff to accomplish program goals. For example, a 1990 study
    of the Fish, Wildlife, and Forest Group showed that BLM was in need of
    three times its workforce at that time. Exacerbating the problem is the
    fact that the fisheries and wildlife staffing levels have declined 20
    percent since that time. Further, a recent workforce evaluation showed
    that with its current level of staffing in fisheries and wildlife, the
    BLM is staffed at only 50 percent and 57 percent, respectively, of its
    1993 identified needs. More recently, the March, 2001, Report to
    Congress concluded it would take an additional 70 staff positions over
    five years to address its consultation, pre-listing management and
    recovery actions under the ESA. Nowhere in the fiscal year 2004 budget
    request are these staffing needs addressed. Given the increased
    emphasis in this budget on accelerating the completion of land use
    plans and expanding energy development on public lands, these staffing
    shortages are resulting in fish and wildlife resources being
    inadequately addressed in agency actions.
        The Association understands the entire Wildlife and Fisheries
    Management Program has just undergone a complete review and the
    findings will be made public in the coming months. It is our sincere
    hope that recommendations contained therein will help guide preparation
    of the fiscal year 2005 and subsequent budgets. The Association asserts
    it is critical that the BLM be provided both the adequate staff and
    additional operating funds needed to implement its base programs in
    order to be effective in managing aquatic and terrestrial resources on
    public lands. These programs can help point the way towards both
    wildlife sustainability and economic stability and development.
        Because of these ongoing staffing shortages, the BLM has to utilize
    more and more contract employees to do much of its work related to
    planning efforts and on-the-ground monitoring, and this past year
    implemented an intern program with the Institute for Plant Conservation
    Biology. While the Association understands the use of contract
    employees and graduate students, we would encourage the BLM to explore
    ways to partner with State fish and wildlife agencies--through MOUs and
    funding agreements--to help accomplish its work related to wildlife and
    fisheries and threatened and endangered species management. This, in
    fact, should be aggressively pursued. This approach would help utilize
    existing expertise from the States who have management authority over
    resident species and expand the state-federal partnership necessary to
    perpetuate the diversity of flora and fauna of Western rangelands.
        The BLM needs to coordinate closely with the respective State fish
    and wildlife agencies so that programs and activities do not compromise
    State jurisdictional authorities for fish and resident wildlife and to
    facilitate the cooperative design and conduct of research and
    management programs. Collaborative efforts between the BLM and the
    State fish and wildlife agencies play a critical role in achieving land
    and resource objectives for species and related resources. The
    Association recommends that funds be made available to the States to
    maximize discretion of the States in fish and wildlife information and
    management needs, wherever possible, instead of duplicating or
    authorizing conflicting programs.
        On a related matter, the Association continues to be deeply
    concerned that, as part of the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act
    (FAIR) inventory, wildlife biology is one of the position categories
    that has been identified for possible outsourcing (i.e., contracting)
    to the private sector. We are adamantly opposed to any action that
    might result in the reduction or elimination of Federal career
    professionals being responsible for day-to-day oversight and management
    of the Nation's public land resources.
        Finally, with the increased emphasis on energy development on BLM
    lands being advocated by the Administration, increased demands and
    needs for fish and wildlife expertise are expected. Already,
    approximately 30 percent of existing wildlife and fisheries staff time
    is being directed at energy-related functions. The Association strongly
    supports hiring additional fish and wildlife staff to address these
    critical program areas in the context of addressing the Nation's Energy
    Policy, but recommends these positions be directly funded from the
    energy account, rather than extracted from the existing base Wildlife
    Management, Fisheries Management or Threatened or Endangered Species
    Program budgets.

    Riparian Management
        The BLM manages over 23 million acres of land classified as
    riparian or wetland. These areas include or support some of the most
    ecologically diverse and important plant and animal communities on the
    public lands. These areas have ecological significance far beyond their
    small acreage. They provide vital habitat components for hundreds of
    fish and wildlife species, filter sediment from water, afford greater
    water storage capacity, dissipate flood waters and offer excellent
    recreational opportunities. For these reasons and more, the Association
    supports BLM efforts in riparian areas, but remains concerned that the
    requested $21.97 million is insufficient to meet all of the identified
    needs. This amount, in addition to inflation and uncontrollables, is
    actually far less than what has been devoted to this important work in
    prior years. Given the potential for partnerships this program provides
    with other State and local interests, it is disheartening to see any
    lessening of attention paid these important resources. The Association
    requests that Congress add $3 million to this program, and urges BLM to
    continue its coordination with State fish and wildlife agencies in
    order to achieve optimal program results.

    Rangeland Management
        The Association is encouraged by BLM's efforts to address the
    problem of invasive and noxious weeds on public lands and recommends a
    more focused effort to address high priority invasive species that are
    serious problems for fish and wildlife habitat. The Association
    supports a fiscal year 2004 budget of $9.4 million for invasive weed
    management, rather than the $8.3 million being requested. We also
    encourage Congress to add $3 million for local and State efforts to
    combat invasive weeds.

    Realty and Ownership Management
        The Association recommends reinstatement of the proposed reduction
    of $2 million in the Alaska Conveyance and Lands program in the fiscal
    year 2004 budget. This reduction, coupled with absorption of nearly
    half of the uncontrollables, will significantly impact this program.
    Completion of this program is long overdue and critical for the State
    and native corporations to receive their land entitlements under the
    Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and Alaska Statehood Act, both of
    which are several decades old. Until the land conveyances are complete,
    it is difficult for Federal and State agencies and private landowners
    to make land management decisions affecting State fish and wildlife
    management, public access, and land uses.
        In addition, we urge the BLM to redirect to actual land conveyances
    any funds currently being used for the ``2001 Public Easement Review
    Process'' in the Alaska region. Until the conveyance process is
    complete, any agency resources spent on the ``2001 Process'' is
    premature. Existing regulations already prescribe an easement vacation
    process that can be used when needed. We recommend the BLM focus on
    signing and marking of easements to reduce trespass and land management
    issues. We urge the funds currently being spent on expediting vacations
    be more appropriately spent on completing land conveyance itself and
    the management of existing easements.

    Monitoring
        The Association understands the fiscal year 2004 budget request for
    BLM includes $1 million to conduct long-term, large-scale, ``cumulative
    effects'' resource monitoring. We support this effort and the manner in
    which these fiscal resources are included in the appropriate programs
    including wildlife management; fisheries management; soil, air and
    water; and cultural resources. Conversely, BLM is proposing $500,000 to
    expand resource monitoring to increase its ability to assess the
    cumulative impact of oil and gas development, especially on cultural
    resources and species-at-risk. This effort is targeted at states where
    coalbed natural gas development is occurring. However in this instance,
    the funding is contained in the oil and gas account. The Association
    supports this monitoring, but recommends the fiscal resources to
    conduct this work be allocated within the appropriate program area
    budget where biological and cultural resource expertise exists.

    Wild Horse and Burro Management
        The Association remains very concerned about the BLM's inability to
    reach appropriate population levels for wild horses and burros on
    western rangelands and the resulting habitat damage, being further
    worsened by the continuing region-wide drought. In some instances,
    resource damage caused by excessive numbers of wild horses and burros
    will never recover, and in other areas, the situation is reaching
    crisis proportions. Yet, the President's fiscal year 2004 budget
    request for this program is $295,000 less than the fiscal year 2003
    enacted budget. This is simply an inconsistent response to a
    significant resource problem. The Association, therefore, recommends
    Congress increase this budget by an additional $500,000 in fiscal year
    2004 and require BLM--if not already scheduled--to undertake a complete
    review of the Wild Horse and Burro Management Program and have it
    accompany the fiscal year 2006 budget request. Not to be lost in this
    recommendation is the importance of the fact that BLM's existing Wild
    Horse and Burro Management Program--which is funded at $29.7 million
    for fiscal year 2003--already exceeds what is committed for its
    Fisheries Management ($11.7 million); Threatened and Endangered Species
    ($21.7 million); and Wildlife Management ($22.4 million) programs
    during the same period. This further validates the Association's
    earlier assertion that the latter three program areas are grossly
    under-funded, by comparison.

                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission

                                    SUMMARY

        This Statement is submitted in support of fiscal year 2004
    appropriations for Colorado River Basin salinity control program
    activities of the Bureau of Land Management. I urge that $5,200,000 be
    appropriated for the Bureau of Land Management for activities that
    benefit the control of salinity in the Colorado River Basin, and of
    that amount, $800,000 be marked specifically for the Colorado River
    Basin Salinity Control Program. In addition, I support the President's
    requested appropriation of $34,936,000 for the Land Resources
    Subactivity: Soil, Water, and Air Management.

                                   STATEMENT

        The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum is comprised of
    representatives of the seven Colorado River Basin States appointed by
    the respective Governors of the States. The Forum has examined all of
    the features needed to control the salinity of the Colorado River.
    Those features include activities by the States, the Bureau of
    Reclamation, the Department of Agriculture, and the Bureau of Land
    Management (BLM). The salinity control program has been adopted by the
    seven Colorado River Basin States and approved by the EPA as a part of
    each state's water quality standards. Also, water delivered to Mexico
    in the Colorado River is subject to Minute 242 of the United States
    treaty with Mexico that sets limits on the salinity of the water.
        About 75 percent of the land in the Colorado River basin is owned,
    administered or held in trust by the federal government. BLM is the
    largest landowner in the Colorado River Basin, and manages public lands
    that are heavily laden with salt. When salt-laden soils erode, the
    salts are dissolved and remain in the river system affecting the
    quality of water used from the Colorado River by the Lower Basin States
    and Mexico. BLM needs to target the expenditure of $5,200,000 in fiscal
    year 2004 for activities that benefit salinity control in the Colorado
    River Basin: In addition, BLM needs to target the expenditure of
    $800,000 of the $5,200,000 specifically for salinity control projects
    and technical investigations. Experience in past years has shown that
    BLM projects are among the most cost-effective of the salinity control
    projects.
        I believe that the Federal government has a major and important
    responsibility with respect to controlling salt discharge from public
    lands. Congress has charged the federal agencies to proceed with
    programs to control the salinity of the Colorado River Basin with a
    strong mandate to seek out the most cost-effective solutions. BLM's
    rangeland improvement programs can lead to some of the most cost-
    effective salinity control measures available. In addition, these
    programs are environmentally acceptable and control erosion, increase
    grazing opportunities, produce dependable stream run-off and enhance
    wildlife habitat.
        The water quality standards adopted by the Colorado River Basin
    States contain a plan of implementation that includes BLM participation
    to implement cost effective measures of salinity control. BLM
    participation in the salinity control program is critical and essential
    to actively pursue the identification, implementation and
    quantification of cost effective salinity control measures on public
    lands.
        Bureau of Reclamation studies show that damages from the Colorado
    River to United States water users are about $300,000,000 per year.
    Control of salinity is necessary for the Colorado River Basin States,
    including New Mexico, to continue to develop their compact-apportioned
    waters of the Colorado River. The Basin States are proceeding with an
    independent program to control salt discharges to the Colorado River,
    in addition to up-front cost sharing with Bureau of Reclamation and
    Department of Agriculture salinity control programs. It is vitally
    important that BLM pursue salinity control projects within its
    jurisdiction to maintain the cost effectiveness of the program and the
    timely implementation of salinity control projects to avoid unnecessary
    damages in the United States and Mexico.
        For much of the last decade or more, there has been a protracted
    problem with BLM accounting and reporting on salinity control efforts.
    Congress required, by Public Law 106-459, that BLM report to Congress
    on its salinity control efforts. I fully support the action by Congress
    to require BLM to report on its accomplishments within the salinity
    control program. Accounting and reporting BLM salinity control
    accomplishments annually is an essential activity to provide a
    coordinated, cost effective salinity control program.
        At the urging of the Basin States, BLM has agreed to create a full
    time position to coordinate its activities among the BLM state offices
    and other federal agencies involved in implementation of the salinity
    control program. BLM is to be commended for this important first step
    to improve cooperation and coordination with the Basin States and other
    federal agencies, and to comply with BLM responsibilities pursuant to
    the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act, as amended. The Basin
    States and I are pleased with the current BLM administration's
    responsiveness in addressing the need for a salinity coordinator and
    are hopeful that submittal of the required report to Congress will
    signal a renewed effort by BLM to identify and implement projects to
    address the salinity control objectives required to maintain the water
    quality standards for salinity. It is commendable that BLM's budget
    focuses on ecosystems and watershed management, but it is essential
    that funds be targeted on specific subactivities and the results of
    those expenditures reported. This is necessary for accountability and
    effectiveness of the use of the funds.
        I request the appropriation of $5.2 million in fiscal year 2004 for
    Colorado River salinity control activities of BLM, and that $800,000 of
    that amount be marked specifically for the Colorado River Basin
    Salinity Control Program, including projects and technical
    investigations. In addition, I request the appropriation of $34,936,000
    for the Land Resources Subactivity: Soil, Water, and Air Management as
    requested by the President. I very much appreciate favorable
    consideration of these requests. I fully support the statement of the
    Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum submitted by Jack Barnett,
    the Forum's Executive Director, in request of appropriations for BLM
    for Colorado River salinity control activities.

                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Wildlife Management Institute

        The Wildlife Management Institute (WMI) is a nonprofit organization
    staffed by experienced resource management professionals and is
    dedicated to sound, scientific management of wildlife and wildlife
    habitats. This letter contains our comments on the Administration's
    proposed fiscal 2004 budget for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). In
    particular, we propose increases of $40 million for the Wildlife and
    Fisheries program, a $50 million increase for the Threatened and
    Endangered Species program, and a $10 million increase for the Riparian
    Area Management program.
        The BLM manages some 262 million acres of the nation's public
    lands, which is 48 percent of our total public lands, making it the
    single largest natural resource management agency in terms of acres
    managed. These lands provide critically important fish and wildlife
    habitat, and, in 2004, over 60 million visitors are expected to
    participate in recreational opportunities for fishing, hunting,
    camping, rafting, hiking, mountain biking, and wildlife viewing. In
    contrast, the energy and mineral production components of BLM's mission
    often pose extreme threats to wildlife resources and associated
    recreation. These circumstances merit an ongoing commitment to funding
    sound wildlife management.
        Hunting and non-consumptive wildlife activities (Such as viewing,
    photography and conservation education) on public lands provide
    millions of America's outdoor enthusiasts with opportunities to pursue
    these endeavors. Such activities on BLM lands result in $2 billion in
    expenditures from participants each year, most of this spent in rural
    communities. The Administration's fiscal 2004 budget for BLM's Wildlife
    Management Program is $22.42 million, which remains $2.9 million (13
    percent) below the fiscal 2002 enacted level. WMI strongly urges your
    subcommittee to increase BLM's fiscal 2004 wildlife management budget
    by an additional $4 million to $26.42 million.
        The BLM manages roughly 117,000 miles of fish bearing streams,
    17,000 miles of anadromous fish habitat, and 3 million acres of
    fishable lakes and reservoirs, which provide recreational anglers with
    high quality fishing opportunities, generating $390 million annually in
    economic benefits. Yet, the Administration is requesting $250,000 less
    than was enacted in fiscal 2002. This will reduce BLM's aquatic and
    riparian habitat restoration capabilities on vital public lands. WMI
    encourages your subcommittee to increase the agency's fisheries budget
    by an additional $1 million to $12.87 million.
        Lands administered by BLM provide habitats to more than 900
    vulnerable and declining species and 306 threatened or endangered plant
    and animal species, and these numbers are increasing. With the rapid
    increase in the number of listed species, however, BLM's Threatened and
    Endangered Species Program has transformed from one of proactive
    species conservation management to one that, out of necessity, must
    react to the increasing consultation workload. The BLM is proposing a
    future management strategy for at-risk species that streamlines the
    consultation process, enhances pre-listing management through the
    development of multi-species conservation frameworks, and aggressively
    addresses recovery actions identified in formal species recovery plans.
    This strategy will be integrated within the framework of the Bureau's
    strategic plan, and is projected to cost the agency $30 million above
    current authorized funding levels. The Administration is requesting
    $21.83 million in fiscal 2004 for BLM threatened and endangered species
    management, but this request is woefully inadequate to meet identified
    needs or allow the BLM to carry out its responsibilities under the
    ESA--or for that matter, its mission. Significant increases in funding
    are needed in fiscal 2004 and the next several years. In view of the
    inequity between resource needs and appropriated funding levels, WMI
    encourages your subcommittee to increase the Threatened and Endangered
    Species fiscal 2004 budget for the BLM to $27 million. Failing to
    provide adequate fiscal support for these programs will allow further
    unnecessary declines in sensitive species populations, resulting in
    even greater costs for future restoration and management.
        We support the Administration's requested increase of $15.11
    million for Resource Management and Planning to $48.146 million. We
    understand these funds are to expedite the development of 37 land
    management plans, but we are concerned that the BLM will overlook the
    need to balance biological and other resource monitoring with the rush
    to accelerate energy development. We believe these plans should provide
    guidelines for management of public lands for the next 15 years and
    that they should require an orderly development of energy resources. We
    recommend that each land management plan have an annual monitoring
    plan, and that funding be appropriated to conduct and analyze the data.
        The BLM has identified a need of approximately $140 million to
    implement 13 ecosystem restoration initiatives over the next four
    years; almost half of which deal with sagebrush/sage grouse, lesser
    prairie-chicken or prairie dog habitats (BLM's Sagebrush and Prairie
    Grassland Initiatives). These innovative restoration projects range
    from the Arctic Tundra and Boreal Forests in Alaska to the Chihuahuan
    and Sonoran Deserts in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. Without
    additional funding, BLM will have no choice but to delay action on
    these initiatives. While the total cost to restore these ecosystems is
    high, it will be even more expensive to restore them in the future. We
    recommend you subcommittee to provide at least $2 million to the BLM to
    implement the Sagebrush and Prairie Grassland Initiatives (particularly
    to support the efforts of the High Plains Partnership). Importantly,
    other State and Federal agencies, as well as private organizations, are
    poised to fund closely allied efforts for these initiatives, so BLM has
    a unique opportunity to leverage its expenditures, if appropriate
    funding is provided.
        We are concerned about the agency's request not to provide funding
    to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF). The foundation
    leverages more than $3 private for every Federal dollar invested. The
    collaborative and cooperative projects supported by the NFWF resolve
    real conflicts in conservation and land management that otherwise would
    lead to gridlock and extreme cost. We recommend that your subcommittee
    provide $1 million in the BLM's budget for the National Fish and
    Wildlife Foundation.
        The Wildlife Management Institute is concerned that at current
    staffing levels, the Bureau and its field staff will be unable to meet
    its program and statutory requirements. The western states' population
    has more than tripled--over 60 million people--over the past 55-years,
    while the nation's largest land management agency's staff has declined.
    At current staff levels, biologists are often forced to divide their
    time between on-the-ground program implementation efforts and other
    program requirements; which may or may not provide direct fish or
    wildlife benefits. Exacerbating the problem is the fact that the
    fisheries and wildlife staffing levels have declined 20 percent in
    recent years. Nowhere in the Administration's fiscal 2004 budget
    request for the agency are these staffing needs addressed. Given the
    increased emphasis in this budget on accelerating the completion of
    land use plans and expanding energy development on public lands, these
    staff and skill shortages are resulting in fish and wildlife resources
    being inadequately addressed in agency actions. We request that your
    subcommittee provide the BLM with the authority and funding for staff
    and operation resources necessary to implement its base programs in
    order to be effective in managing aquatic and terrestrial resources on
    public lands. We also encourage your subcommittee to direct the BLM to
    explore ways to partner with State fish and wildlife agencies, other
    Federal agencies and professional private wildlife groups and
    individuals--through MOUs and funding agreements--to help accomplish
    its work related to wildlife and fisheries and threatened and
    endangered species management. However, we are opposed to any action
    that might result in the reduction or elimination of Federal career
    fish or wildlife professionals who are responsible for day-to-day
    oversight or management of the nation's public land resources.
        The BLM needs to coordinate closely with the respective State fish
    and wildlife agencies so that programs and activities do not compromise
    State jurisdictional authorities for fish and resident wildlife and to
    facilitate the cooperative design and conduct of research and
    management programs. Collaborative efforts between the BLM and the
    State fish and wildlife agencies play a critical role in achieving land
    and resource objectives for species and related resources. WMI
    recommends that funds be made available to the States to maximize
    discretion of the States in fish and wildlife information and
    management needs, wherever possible, instead of duplicating or
    authorizing conflicting programs.
        Finally, the increased emphasis on energy development on public
    lands by the Administration has placed a heavy burden on BLM's
    professional fish and wildlife staff. Already, approximately 30 percent
    of existing wildlife and fisheries staff time is being directed at
    energy-related functions yet charged to fisheries and wildlife program
    elements. WMI recommends that your subcommittee direct the BLM to
    ensure that energy accounts pay for the costs related to energy
    development. Further, WMI recommends that your subcommittee strongly
    support hiring additional fish and wildlife staff by the BLM to address
    these critical program areas, but again, we recommend these positions
    be directly funded from the energy account, rather than extracted funds
    from Wildlife management, Fisheries Management or Threatened or
    Endangered Species Program budgets. Without addressing these fish and
    wildlife staffing and skill needs, the orderly development of our
    energy resources could be curtailed and make activities more vulnerable
    to legal challenge. We believe Congress should invest more in assuring
    that high profile fish and wildlife resources are treated before
    development creates a crisis.
        Thank you for considering our comments, and we look forward to
    working with you and your staff throughout the appropriation process as
    we learn more details about the Administration's budget request and
    needs. If you or your staff would like to discuss our recommendations
    further, please contact me or Terry Riley, Director of Conservation, at
    (202) 371-1808.

                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game

      REQUESTING $100 MILLION FOR STATE WILDLIFE GRANTS PROGRAM IN FISCAL
                                   YEAR 2004

        The mission of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game is to manage,
    protect, maintain, and improve the fish, game and aquatic plant
    resources of Alaska. The ability of the Department to carry out this
    mission is greatly enhanced by federal funding provided by the State
    Wildlife Grants (SWG) Program.
        The Department appreciates the significant support this committee
    has given to the SWG Program over the past several years. This
    relatively new funding source has enabled us to initiate new programs
    needed to monitor low and declining species in Alaska, especially those
    not hunted or fished. We have commenced new research programs to
    monitor amphibians, neotropical migratory birds, and a variety of
    individual species, including the Queen Charlotte Goshawk, which was
    recently petitioned to be listed as a threatened species, largely
    because little was known about the bird. We have also initiated a
    comprehensive planning effort, aimed at identifying those species most
    in need of management attention.
        Unfortunately, in fiscal year 2003 funding for this program was cut
    substantially from $85 million to $65 million. This represented a
    breach in the commitment made to supporters of Conservation and
    Reinvestment Act legislation, when--as a compromise--Congress created
    the Conservation Trust Fund within the fiscal year 2001 appropriations
    bill. The intention was to fund these programs for six years and to
    increase funding by 10 percent annually. This occurred for the first
    two years; however, last year funding for State Wildlife Grants was cut
    significantly. The decrease from $85 to $65 million threatens to
    undermine this critical program just as it is beginning to influence
    on-the-ground conservation. We encourage you to uphold the 2001
    compromise and provide this much-needed funding at the $100 million
    level.
        With more than 1,000 animals and plants already listed as federally
    threatened or endangered, State Wildlife Grants are our best hope for
    aggressively stemming this decline. Investing federal dollars now to
    protect or restore wildlife populations is far more effective than
    waiting until populations reach critically low levels and need
    ``emergency room care'' through the Endangered Species Act. Ultimately,
    State Wildlife Grants will save both our nation's precious wildlife
    heritage and taxpayer dollars.
        We urge you to help ensure that $100 million is provided in fiscal
    year 2004 to fund this priority fisheries and wildlife conservation
    program.

                                     ______

                   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 4,589-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 4,452 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 a 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 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 nine years, fifteen 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. Three loggerhead
    nests were successfully located and protected in 2002 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. 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 5000
    schoolchildren utilizing the area in 2002. 2003 marked the 100th
    anniversary of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Back Bay NWR and
    its partner in education school, Red Mill Elementary, observed it with
    a school assembly and photo contest for the fifth graders. The photos
    were the student's reflection on the Back Bay area. The winning photos
    were placed in the 100-year time capsule, as evidence of the importance
    of Back Bay to today's students and future leaders. 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 2003, the Fish and Wildlife
    Service has purchased 139 acres from willing sellers. In order to
    continue the Back Bay Refuge expansion project, we respectfully request
    $1.0 million for fiscal year 2004. This money will help to fill in the
    mosaic pattern of small land parcels from willing sellers who have been
    waiting patiently to sell their land to the Refuge. One 15-acre tract
    for sale on Horned Point Road is bound on both sides by Refuge
    property. The owners of another 65-acre marsh are willing sellers who
    want to see this area protected. A 20-acre tract will provide ingress/
    egress to a parcel recently purchased by the Refuge and will complete
    the acquisition of this property. A 260-acre shallow lake is being
    added to the Refuge boundary at the request of the owner. Approximately
    three-fourths of the shoreline is bounded by the Refuge and the
    remainder is bounded by Dam Neck Naval Base.
        I wish to extend my appreciation for the funding that you have
    appropriated through fiscal year 2003. This money has purchased 4,452-
    acres of the proposed 6,340-acres expansion. This means that this
    project is over 70 percent completed in thirteen years. Also, this
    project is ranked thirty-seventh 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 City of Kansas City, MO

        I am pleased to provide written comments on behalf of the City of
    Kansas City, Missouri (the City) in support of the President's 2004
    Budget Request of $288.2 million for the Department of Energy's Low-
    Income Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP). For more than 20 years
    the City has been the leader in the State of Missouri in effective and
    efficient energy conservation assistance to low-income households. The
    City has historically supported weatherization assistance by
    contributing more than $250,000 in General Funds annually. The City
    also leads the State in leveraging private utility and business monies
    for the WAP. We have ``honed'' service delivery skills through highly
    technical diagnostic analysis of each site to be assisted. These
    increased skills provide assurance that any monies spent on
    weatherization will meet performance expectations before energy
    conservation measures are installed on site. This results in guaranteed
    outcome before public dollars are spent.
        Despite these successes, changes in the economy have dramatically
    increased requests for assistance. Increased energy costs also affect
    requests for assistance. We are confident that the full provision of
    the President's requested funding for WAP will provide many more
    benefits than reductions in energy use.
        Energy providers throughout the nation are pleased to participate
    in the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). LIHEAP's
    ``safety net'' assistance is helpful; however, most energy providers
    support the notion that investment in energy efficiency is a better
    long-term solution than paying fuel bills. LIHEAP is critical during
    intense heating and cooling seasons; however, the ratio of energy
    assistance to the prevention component of energy efficiency is
    estimated to be more than 8 to 1. Energy efficiency investment produces
    a better bottom line for energy suppliers by reducing collection, turn-
    on turn-off cycles and charge offs to bad debt which all customers
    eventually pay through rate increase that are affected by the
    collection problems.
        The WAP's mission statement is ``to reduce the heating and cooling
    costs for low-income families, particularly for the elderly, people
    with disabilities, and children, by improving the energy efficiency of
    their homes while ensuring their health and safety.'' In Kansas City,
    we track incidences of health issues discovered during the course of
    site analysis of homes eligible for assistance. We find the average
    low-income home visited was built inefficiently when energy was
    inexpensive and with little knowledge of whole house energy use
    technology versus today's standards. By their low-income nature, most
    eligible homes experience critical deferred maintenance. Some of the
    most critical areas of deferred maintenance are with the heating/
    cooling and hot water and cooking appliances. A review of past years
    weatherization activity in Kansas City shows that on average:
      --Approximately 600 households receive energy efficiency assistance
            annually;
      --One or more natural gas leaks are detected and corrected on each
            house;
      --Very high levels of carbon monoxide is discovered in 20 percent of
            the houses;
      --Indoor air quality issues are diagnosed and corrected in 87 percent
            of the houses; and
      --Back drafting of flue gas occurs in over 25 percent of homes
            weatherized.
        These health issues have a major impact on the well being of the
    applicant, the community. Eliminating natural gas leaks not only saves
    energy dollars, their elimination also eliminates personal injury and
    property damage due to explosions. We know that without weatherization
    intervention, there are increased health care costs from over exposure
    to high levels of carbon monoxide and moisture related indoor air
    quality problems. From time to time we receive anecdotal feedback that
    cellulose insulation installed by WAP prevented fire from spreading in
    homes.
        The sum total of energy efficiency investment though WAP is a
    compelling reason for full program funding. Numerous empirical studies
    by Oakridge National Laboratory and The Final Report by TecMRKT Works
    Process and Impact Evaluation of Missouri Gas Energy Pilot
    Weatherization Program, 827 Shady Oaks lane, Oregon, Wisconsin, 83575
    that the return on public dollars is more the 3 times its investment.
        The partnerships WAP developed with HUD, state finance agencies and
    the private market provides assurance that the innovative financing
    mechanisms that are used to produce affordable housing assure the
    success of the affordable concept. You should note that because most
    development costs for government and privately financed affordable
    housing are fixed and generally predictable. Home energy costs are the
    most volatile component of housing expenses. On that basis energy
    efficiency investment becomes a critical tool to ensure affordable
    housing remains affordable. Neighborhoods and many communities are now
    at risk due to higher than usual layoff and plant closings. Households
    that traditionally do not apply for assistance are now seeking help.
    WAP investment reduces household energy expenses for this newly group
    in need of help.
        We know that WAP is often the test bed for efficiency technologies
    that ultimately are adopted by the housing industry. We are proud of
    this historical legacy and we know that we can continue to contribute
    to the well being of America by maximum use of the WAP infrastructure.

                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the Defenders of Wildlife

        Defenders of Wildlife has substantial concerns about the
    Administration's fiscal year 2004 budget and makes recommendations
    regarding these concerns and funding in the following priority areas.
              fish and wildlife service endangered species funding
        Defenders urges an increase of $13 million over the
    Administration's budget request of $12.2 million for the FWS endangered
    species listing account and $50 million over the Administration request
    of $62 million for the recovery account. The President's request for
    the four main FWS endangered species accounts, $128.7 million, is up
    slightly by nearly $3 million from fiscal year 2002. Most of this is a
    modest increase for the listing account largely due to a series of
    court decisions forcing the federal government to designate critical
    habitat for listed species. FWS has a current listing backlog of $137
    million and more than 250 species awaiting ESA protection--including
    the Washington ground squirrel, Northern sea otter, sheath-tailed bat,
    gunnison sage grouse, friendly ground dove, lesser prairie chicken,
    band-rumped storm petrel, and the elfin woods warbler. Many candidates
    could become extinct while awaiting protection. A total of about $25
    million per year for listing for the next 5-6 years would help FWS
    address this backlog.
        Recovery funding is cut $1.6 million below fiscal year 2002 even
    though FWS has said that more than 200 species currently listed under
    the Act could become extinct in the next five years simply because not
    enough funds are available for recovery activities. Some of these are
    Hawaiian species, including the world's rarest bird--the po'ouli with
    only three individuals known to exist in the wild. Others include: the
    Columbia Basin pygmy rabbit with less than 50 individuals in the wild;
    the Selkirk population of the woodland caribou with less than 35
    remaining in the wild; and the Mississippi gopher frog which is limited
    to one pond in south central Mississippi. We understand that FWS
    believes it could realistically spend an additional $50 million per
    year in recovery with current staffing and we urge such an increase.

     LAND, CONSERVATION, PRESERVATION, AND INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT FUND
                                    (LCPII)

        Defenders urges full funding of this conservation trust fund at its
    dedicated fiscal year 2004 level of $1.56 billion for the Interior
    appropriations subcommittee portion of the fund. We further urge the
    subcommittee to maintain the integrity of the fund and include only
    programs originally incorporated in the fund when it was established.
    We greatly appreciate the subcommittee's past support for fully funding
    and maintaining the integrity of this historic dedicated fund, however
    we were dismayed that the final fiscal year 2003 Omnibus appropriations
    bill cut the Interior portion of the fund by more than $400 million
    below its dedicated fiscal year 2003 level. We understand that during
    final resolution of the fiscal year 2003 bill the subcommittee was
    under substantial funding constraints not within its control, and we
    will be working to generate Congressional support for a fiscal year
    2004 302(b) allocation sufficient to allow full funding for the
    conservation trust fund. Unfortunately, the Administration's budget
    cuts the subcommittee's portion of this historic fund by $477 million
    below the fiscal year 2004 $1.56 billion dedicated level. Moreover, the
    request again erodes the original purpose of the dedicated fund by: (1)
    substantially cutting existing programs; (2) substantially increasing
    the level in the fund for federal lands maintenance originally intended
    to be complementary to amounts provided in the base; and (3) adding
    programs not originally included in the fund as a new ``Cooperative
    Conservation Initiative.''
        State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program.--Defenders of Wildlife
    and the more than 3,000 organizations nationwide in the Teaming With
    Wildlife Coalition are requesting at least $125 million for this
    important program for fiscal year 2004. The Administration's budget
    recommends $60 million for fiscal year 2004, slashing this critical
    program by $25 million or nearly 30 percent below its fiscal year 2002
    level. This important program gives states desperately needed funding
    to develop and implement comprehensive conservation plans to protect
    declining species and their habitats before protection under the ESA is
    necessary. More than 1,200 species currently are under the ESA's
    protection. Without proactive efforts to reverse species declines,
    scientists estimate that more than 5,000 new wildlife and plant species
    may need to be listed under the ESA. State fish and wildlife agencies
    have identified a need that totals $1 billion annually--the requested
    amount of $125 million is only a modest 12.5 percent of the total
    annual need.
        The State and Tribal Wildlife grants program is particularly
    important to future efforts to prevent habitat loss. The most
    significant threat to U.S. biodiversity is habitat loss and
    degradation. A 1995 report analyzing habitat loss by conservation
    biologists Reed Noss and Rob Peters, ``Endangered Ecosystems: A Status
    Report on America's Vanishing Habitat and Wildlife,'' identified 69
    ecosystems that have lost more than 85 percent of their acreage since
    colonization. The State and Tribal Wildlife grants program requires
    states to develop landscape-level comprehensive wildlife and habitat
    conservation plans as a condition for receiving program monies; these
    plans are blueprints that will help arrest the type of habitat declines
    occurring nationwide while guiding restoration and conservation.
        Land and Water Conservation Fund.--Defenders urges funding of at
    least $650 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund for fiscal
    year 2004: $450 million for federal LWCF and $200 million for state-
    side LWCF. The Administration says it is requesting full funding for
    the Land and Water Conservation Fund at its authorized $900 million
    level. But all the request does is re-package 15 other separate and
    important but non-LWCF conservation programs as LWCF. Ostensibly, the
    request for LWCF is $900 million, but only $348 million of this is for
    authorized LWCF purposes--$225 million or 39 percent below fiscal year
    2002 and $552 million below the authorized level. Moreover, the
    Administration budget actually cuts federal land acquisition for our
    National Wildlife Refuges, Parks, Forests and Bureau of Land Management
    lands by $240 million or 56 percent below fiscal year 2002.
        The Natural Resources Inventory estimates 2.2 million acres are
    lost to development each year. Funding for LWCF land acquisition needs
    to be increased, not decreased. LWCF remains one of the greatest tools
    we have to address the increasingly severe problem of loss of open
    space, forests, and wildlife habitat. While the subcommittee has for
    the most part not acquiesced to the Administration's request to add new
    programs to LWCF, it has placed several new programs under the Fund.
    Defenders urges the subcommittee to maintain the integrity of the LWCF
    by reversing this action and rejecting the Administration's proposal to
    fund additional important conservation programs out of it.

     FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM OPERATIONS
                                AND MAINTENANCE

        Defenders and the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement are
    requesting an fiscal year 2004 increase of $100 million over the fiscal
    year 2003 funding level of $367 million, or $75 million over the
    President's requested $25.5 million increase and urge that the bulk of
    it be directed to operations. We greatly appreciate the subcommittee's
    support in the past and ask that it be continued. The National Wildlife
    Refuge System is an American treasure that recently passed a landmark
    when it celebrated its 100th anniversary on March 14. The 94 million
    acre National Wildlife Refuge System is the only federal public lands
    system dedicated primarily to the conservation of fish and wildlife; it
    is crucial to the protection of a teeming array of migratory birds,
    endangered species and other wildlife. Yet despite its critical
    importance to the conservation of wildlife and wildlife habitat,
    chronic and severe funding shortfalls for operations and maintenance
    have threatened the Refuge System's ability to achieve its mission for
    many years. At this point, the bulk of the need is for operations
    funding to address protection of wildlife, management and restoration
    of wildlife habitat, public outreach and visitor services, and a
    crippling 38 percent staff shortage--nearly 200 refuges have no staff
    on site. The current backlog of the most critical operations and
    maintenance projects totals $955 million.
        Defenders is a member of the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge
    Enhancement (CARE), a diverse coalition of 20 environmental, recreation
    and scientific organizations working to substantially increase funding
    for the Refuge System. CARE is calling for increasing the Refuge
    System's budget to a total of $700 million over the next three years so
    that it has the funds to carry out its mission as it embarks on its
    second century of wildlife conservation. Defenders is extremely
    concerned, however, that the requested O&M increase appears to be at
    least partially at the expense of critically needed land acquisition
    for refuges which has dropped by 59 percent since fiscal year 2002. We
    urge any increase for O&M not come at the expense of land acquisition
    for refuges.

               FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE MIGRATORY BIRD PROGRAMS

        Defenders requests a $15 million increase for Migratory Bird
    Management over the fiscal year 2002 level of $28 million and full
    funding of $5 million for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation
    Act under the Multinational Species Conservation Fund. As currently
    funded, these programs cannot fulfill their mandates to adequately
    monitor and plan for the conservation of 825 species of migratory
    birds, of which more than 750 species are nongame birds. Nearly 100
    nongame birds are listed under the ESA and more than 100 species are on
    the FWS List of Migratory Nongame Birds of Management Concern. Thus,
    over 25 percent of all migratory birds are in serious need of
    conservation to assure their long-term survival.

        BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (BLM): RESOURCE PROTECTION AND ENERGY
                                  DEVELOPMENT

        Defenders urges rejection of the requested $10 million increase for
    expansion of energy and mineral development. 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; Recreation Resources Management to prevent off-road
    vehicle damage; and the National Landscape Conservation System which
    contains some of our country's most extraordinary natural and cultural
    resources. Under the Bureau of Land Management, the Administration is
    requesting a nearly $10 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.

            FOREST SERVICE: FIRE PREVENTION AND RESOURCE PROTECTION

        Defenders urges that at least 85 percent of funds for hazardous
    fuels activities on federal lands be spent within the zone nearest to
    communities and that substantial funding be provided directly to
    states, tribal and local authorities to support community wildfire
    preparedness activities. We urge significant reductions for Forest
    Products and Timber Road Construction, un-needed timber industry
    subsidies, and redirection of funds to recovery from prior timber
    sales, including to ecosystem restoration and Road Decommissioning and
    to resource protection programs including Wildlife and Fisheries
    Habitat Management; Wildlife, Fish, Water and Air Research; and
    Inventory and Monitoring. We urge Congress to reject the legislative
    proposals in the Administration's ``Healthy Forests Initiative'' which
    would undermine the public's ability to appeal and seek judicial review
    of projects. Finally, we strongly opposed addition of the damaging
    Stewardship End Results Contracting rider to the final fiscal year 2003
    bill, and we urge the subcommittee to exercise rigorous oversight of
    this program to prevent it from being used as a vehicle for fiscal and
    environmental abuse.

                               SPECIFIC PROJECTS

        Defenders wishes to highlight two specific funding needs for
    efforts that contribute to endangered species protection. First, a
    broad group of interests, including environmental groups, sea otter
    researchers, agencies, fisheries group representatives, legislative
    staff, aquarium staff, and public stakeholders has determined that
    $1.675 million in research is needed each of the next five years to
    support recovery of the threatened sea otter whose population has
    suffered declines in 4 out of the last 5 years. Funding should be
    earmarked to the USGS Biological Research Division. Second, we request
    $600,000 for continued Nez Perce Tribe operation of gray wolf recovery,
    monitoring, research and outreach programs in Idaho: $450,000 for on-
    going programs and $150,000 for more staffing, updating of equipment
    and the monitoring program, holding additional public meetings and
    conducting necessary research. The Tribe has been successfully managing
    wolves since the species was reintroduced in 1995 and 1996. With the
    dramatic increase in the Idaho wolf population, funds are more critical
    than ever to achieve necessary research and management goals,
    particularly in light of recent federal actions to downlist, and
    eventually delist, wolves in the region.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Friends of Rachel Carson National Wildlife
                                     Refuge

        Thank you for the opportunity to offer this written testimony. I am
    writing on behalf of the Friends of Rachel Carson National Wildlife
    Refuge, which is a non-profit organization based in Maine. I am writing
    in regards to Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge, which is a
    national wildlife refuge located on Maine's southern coast.
        I hope that the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies
    (Committee on Appropriations) will support $4.5 million in land
    acquisition funding for Rachel Carson NWR in fiscal year 2004. This
    funding would enable the protection of multiple properties with willing
    landowners in several portions of the Refuge. Available properties are
    located in five of the Refuge's ten units. These potential acquisitions
    would consolidate existing Refuge ownership and would complement land
    protection that has already taken place.
        Rachel Carson NWR is working to buffer sensitive lands from the
    pressures of development and is doing a great job of protecting
    critical habitat lands. Southern coastal Maine is under severe sprawl
    and development pressures. The Refuge has been able to permanently
    protect beautiful and important parts of the southern Maine coast for
    present and future generations to enjoy.
        On behalf of the Friends of Rachel Carson, we hope that you will
    provide $4.5 million for Rachel Carson NWR from the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund in fiscal year 2004. Thank you for your
    consideration.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Frontera Audubon Society

        Frontera Audubon Society respectfully requests appropriation of $5
    million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in fiscal year
    2004 for purchase of lands by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for
    the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge in Texas.
        Half of this appropriation--$2.3 million--would fund acquisition of
    two specific tracts totaling 1,937 acres.
        The first of these tracts, called the ``Southmost Tract'', is 614
    acres of farmland located south and east of the City of Brownsville. It
    is adjacent to or near several other protected areas, including six
    tracts of the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge totaling
    4,586 acres, The Nature Conservancy's 1,034-acre Lennox Foundation
    Southmost Preserve, the National Audubon Society's 527-acre Sabal Palm
    Grove Sanctuary, and Texas Parks and Wildlife Department's 68-acre
    Voshell Unit. The property includes not only agricultural land but also
    significant habitat along field edges, heavily vegetated frontage along
    the Rio Grande, and an oxbow lake. The farmland could be easily
    restored to native habitat, including stands of the native sabal palms
    (Sabal mexicana) which once lined the banks of the Rio Grande from the
    river's mouth inland for approximately 80 miles. Today, little remains
    of this original palm forest. The protection and restoration of Texas'
    native sabal palm community is one of the primary objectives of
    conservation partners at this site. The Refuge's current holdings
    include only about one-third of the planned acreage of Sabal Palm
    Forest.
        The second tract, called the ``Starr County Tract'', is 1,323 acres
    of farmland and thornscrub that can be revegetated to restore Upper
    Valley Flood Forest. As we have pointed out in past years, the biotic
    communities found in Starr County, including Upper Valley Flood Forest,
    Chihuahuan Thorn Forest, and Ramaderos, are important and unique biotic
    communities that are significantly underrepresented in terms of the
    Refuge's strategic protection plan. Purchase of this tract would raise
    Refuge holdings of the Upper Valley Flood Forest to close to 50 percent
    of the acquisition goal. Most fortunately, this property is held in
    clear title and thus does not present the severe title problems that
    have slowed acquisition of other sites in the area.
        While both tracts require revegetation, this important conservation
    tool has been used successfully for more than two decades on many
    thousands of acres in the Valley. Revegetation returns areas to
    functioning wildlife habitat and allows reestablishment of populations
    of rare plants. Among the many species of rare, threatened and
    endangered plants in Starr County are Runyon's huaco, Vasey's adelia,
    and Mission fiddlewood. Planting of these species could help forestall
    their future listing under the Endangered Species Act.
        As Frontera Audubon has documented in our past testimony, the Lower
    Rio Grande Valley is a biological treasurehouse. The Valley is home to
    half of all bird species found in the United States, including sixty
    species found 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. For these
    reasons, completing the ``wildlife corridor'' will be a significant
    contribution to meeting the Nation's conservation goals.
        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.
        Permanent protection of wildlife habitat in the Lower Rio Grande
    Valley National Wildlife Refuge also provides economic benefits by
    helping the region to take advantage of growing nature tourism. 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.
        Because the Refuge protects lands from the Gulf Coast to Fontana
    Dam, it draws visitors to all parts of the Valley. The result is
    welcome economic diversification in regions with otherwise limited
    economic resources.
        The Lower Rio Grande Valley needs the economic stimulus that nature
    tourism provide. Despite rapid population growth, 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.
        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.
        Lands acquired for the refuge all come from willing sellers.
        Completion of the Lower Rio Grande Valley NWR is critical to
    providing the open space and wildlife viewing opportunities underlying
    the Valley's ecotourism economic development strategy.

                                     ______

         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
    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 2004 budget.

    Bear Feeding
        The HSUS strongly recommends that all federal land management
    agencies develop consistent policies with respect to prohibiting the
    feeding of bears on their land, including deliberate baiting practices.
    Bill or report language should direct the Bureau of Land Management and
    the U.S. Forest Service to promulgate regulations banning the practice
    of feeding bears, just as the National Park Service and U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service have done.
        Baiting involves the intentional placement of human food as a means
    of attracting bears for the purpose of shooting the animals. While 40
    states have resident bear populations, only 10 states permit baiting.
    Baiting occurs on BLM and U.S. Forest Service lands in 9 states despite
    agency materials emphatically stating that feeding bears is harmful to
    the animals and hazardous to humans.
        Bears are naturally wary of humans. But once they acquire a taste
    for human food, they lose their wariness and become emboldened in
    approaching people and property. Human-fed bears cause millions of
    dollars in damage to property every year and can pose a serious safety
    threat to humans. A consistent policy should apply to all federal lands
    and for all forest users. Such a policy would have no impact on how
    states set bag limits, season lengths, and weapons rules for bear
    hunting which is a duty otherwise reserved to the states.

    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.
        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.''
        In 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 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
    negligible effect on the millions of Americans who use and enjoy the
    refuges every year. In fact, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service's most recent national survey, people who appreciate wildlife
    in a non-consumptive manner, such as bird watchers, spent $40 billion
    in the year 2001 to travel and purchase equipment related to activities
    such as wildlife observation and photography.
        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 sub-freezing temperatures, 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 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.
        In 1999, the House approved an amendment offered by Representative
    Sam Farr to bar the use of tax dollars to administer or promote the use
    of steel-jawed leghold traps or neck snares for commerce or recreation
    on units of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The amendment allowed
    use of these traps for purposes of research, subsistence, conservation,
    or facilities protection. The House approved this measure by a
    bipartisan vote of 259-166.
        We urge the Committee to incorporate the language of the Farr
    amendment in the fiscal year 2004 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.

    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 $5
    million over the Administration's request for U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service Law Enforcement Operations and Maintenance. The recommended
    increase represents an additional $1 million for nine inspectors at our
    borders, and $4 million to hire twenty Special Agents.
        The Law Enforcement Division is currently undergoing a three-year
    rebuilding effort designed to bring the number of Special Agents to
    253. These Special Agents investigate domestic and international
    wildlife crime and monitor wildlife trade. The Division of Law
    Enforcement is also 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
    expedite the $6.1 million approved for fiscal year 2005 for the coming
    fiscal year. This increase will allow the lab to add scientists and
    staff, expand and improve its physical location, and continue its
    valuable work ahead of schedule.

    Protection for Walruses
        We urge this subcommittee to appropriate $500,000 in fiscal year
    2004 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. Last year,
    Congress demonstrated its commitment to the Fund by appropriating $7.8
    million for the five programs. Unfortunately, the Administration
    requested only $7 million for the five funds in fiscal year 2004. We
    ask that you continue to support these highly threatened mammals and
    birds in fiscal year 2004 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.
        While there are threats to the long-term survival of 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 concerned about past 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
    for public display industry--under the guise of conservation for these
    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 are removed from the range.
        During fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003, the Bureau of Land
    Management's Wild Horse and Burro Program received a substantial
    increase to their annual operating budget. This increase was to be used
    to implement BLM's four-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 viability of these populations. To adequately address
    these concerns, the BLM should carry out a programmatic environmental
    impact analysis of 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 wild horse and burro populations on
    public lands.
        Currently, however, the BLM's plan to achieve AML has been stalled
    by the rapid filling of the holding facilities available for horses
    removed by the range. As has happened repeatedly, the budget and
    attention of the Wild Horse and Burro Program are being diverted from
    management of wild populations on the public lands to maintenance of
    wild horses and burros in captivity. There is a long-term solution,
    which only awaits agency implementation that can help restore the
    agency's focus to wild horses and the land. With the strong support of
    The HSUS and this committee, BLM-sponsored research has produced a one-
    shot, one-to-two-year contraceptive vaccine for wild horses. Wide
    application of this vaccine, known as PZP, would be a humane, publicly
    acceptable, cost-efficient means 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 2004
    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.
        Because of pressure on wild horses and burros from decreasing
    habitat, the policy of aggressive removals, and mad cow disease, we
    urge the committee to once again include the following standard
    language in the fiscal year 2004 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 NEPA review. 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 the International Association of Fish and
                               Wildlife Agencies

                     U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (FWS)

    General Comments
        The Association is pleased that the Administration's fiscal year
    2004 budget request for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is
    more than the fiscal year 2003 enacted budget. We understand the
    reasons for certain reductions, however we also understand that if our
    Fish and Wildlife program needs are not met today, it will be far more
    expensive in the future. We are most concerned that some of the more
    significant budget reductions are for State fish and wildlife
    administered programs, the cutting of which seems inconsistent with
    building strong partnerships with the States.
        The Association is particularly concerned that the fiscal year 2004
    budget request further reduces the State Wildlife Grants account in
    fiscal year 2004 to $59.9 million. While the Association is
    appreciative of those funds, there is a demonstrated need for at least
    $350 million per year. We strongly recommend that the $59.9 million in
    fiscal year 2004 be increased to $125 million, for apportionment to the
    State fish and wildlife agencies under the formula allocation used in
    fiscal year 2002, in order to achieve significant progress toward $350
    million.
        We fully recognize the difficulty of providing adequate funding for
    conservation while at the same time meeting national defense and
    homeland security needs. Unfortunately, there are long-term
    consequences to delaying conservation work. Cooperative programs with
    States multiply efforts through matching funds and, therefore, should
    be given high priority.
        The Association believes the programs within the FWS that offer the
    following characteristics are consistent with its basic mission and
    afford the highest benefit to fish and wildlife resources and the
    cooperating State fish wildlife agencies:
        (1) establish true State/Federal partnerships which recognize the
    primacy of State jurisdiction for fish and resident wildlife;
        (2) offer significant leverage of non-Federal funds through
    cooperative programs;
        (3) support efforts to prevent species and their habitats from
    becoming threatened or endangered;
        (4) provide fish and wildlife associated outdoor recreation
    opportunities, including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and
    environmental education which serve a large number of people each year;
        (5) provide important economic and environmental benefits to large
    segments of the American people;
        (6) reinvest and enhance existing public land holdings/refuges;
        (7) empower States to determine priority management action at the
    State level; and
        (8) provide adequate flexibility for local program adjustment.
        The Association encourages Congress to measure programs against
    these criteria and ensure that programs that measure up are adequately
    and appropriately funded.
        The Association is concerned about any FWS programs or activities
    that compromise State jurisdictional authorities for fish and resident
    wildlife and/or lack funding and commitment to secure meaningful
    management on the ground. The FWS needs to coordinate closely with the
    respective State fish and wildlife agencies to avoid compromising State
    authorities and to facilitate the cooperative design and conduct of
    research and management programs. Cooperative efforts between the FWS
    and the State fish and wildlife agencies will play a critical role in
    achieving land and resource objectives for species and related
    resources. The Association recommends that funds made available to the
    States provide discretion to the States in meeting fish and wildlife
    information and management needs, wherever possible, and where not
    possible, to emphasize close cooperation with the States to reduce
    duplicating or conflicting programs which are both costly and confusing
    to the public.
        Consistent, dedicated and assured funding for state-based broader
    fish and wildlife conservation, wildlife-associated recreation and
    conservation education programs is vitally needed in the states.
    Programs at the state level are required in order to preclude the need
    to list species (under the Endangered Species Act) by addressing life
    needs and habitat requirements in response to early warning signs of
    decline. The Association urges Congress and the Administration to work
    cooperatively with the states in the design and enactment of
    legislation which would provide $350 Million annually in assured
    funding for the full array of fish and wildlife programs. The
    Association is committed to working with Congress to identify an
    appropriate source of funds for this vitally needed endeavor, whether
    it be revenues from Outer Continental Shelf Gas and Oil leases, or
    other sources.

    A Proposal for an Aquatic Animal Drug Approval Partnership Program
        Public and private aquaculture interests have suffered from an
    almost total lack of U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved aquatic
    drugs and chemicals. For the past seven years, the FWS, State fish and
    wildlife agencies, U.S. Geological Survey, and the U.S. Department of
    Agriculture have engaged in a cooperative project to gain approval for
    high priority use of eight drugs in aquaculture. This project is
    nearing its end, and many of the project's goals will have been met
    within the next year. However, not all the necessary broad approvals
    for these critically needed drugs will have been obtained. Continued
    work will be needed on gaining additional approvals and developing new
    aquaculture drugs to meet existing and new disease and aquaculture
    problems.
        Unfortunately, no one agency currently has responsibility to obtain
    the approvals, develop new drugs, and coordinate continuation and
    expansion of this drug approval effort. To meet this critical need, the
    Association recommends that $450,000 in new funds be added to the Fish
    and Wildlife Service's fiscal year 2004 budget for the development and
    implementation of an ``Aquatic Animal Drug Approval Partnership''
    program. This program would have responsibility to coordinate its
    efforts with those of other interested Federal, State, and private
    agencies and organizations to meet the current and future needs for
    safe and effective aquaculture drugs.

    North American Wetlands Conservation Act Activities
        The Association strongly supports the FWS request of $49.56 million
    for the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA). However,
    Congress authorized a funding level of $55 million for this important
    conservation program in fiscal year 2004 and the Association recommends
    full funding. The authorization level for this program will increase by
    $5 million each year. This cooperative program, requiring at least a
    1:1 non-federal match, is one of the most successful, non-regulatory,
    incentive based programs within all of government and the program has
    shown unprecedented success in restoring wetlands, waterfowl and other
    migratory bird populations. The program has more than 2,000 partners
    from communities, governments (including of Canada and Mexico),
    nonprofit organizations, States, and academia. The program has put over
    1,114 projects on the ground in North America, including a total of
    more than of 15.9 million acres of wetlands and associated uplands in
    the United States and Canada, with a return of $2.88 for every dollar
    the Federal government has invested to date. The Association strongly
    urges that Congress appropriate the full $55 million authorized for the
    NAWCA in the FWS fiscal year 2004 budget.
        The Association believes that evaluation of on-the-ground wetland
    habitat enhancement activities under the NAWCA, the Farm Bill and other
    programs are extremely important and supports adequate funding for this
    evaluation.

    Migratory Bird Management
        The Association is disappointed to see that migratory bird
    management is reduced from with the fiscal year 2003 enacted level.
    This has occurred during a time when public interest in migratory birds
    is at an all-time high, and when the need for management programs is
    increasing. With the broad support for the North American Bird
    Conservation Initiative by conservation organizations and the States,
    the Association believes the FWS should continue to place a high
    priority and budget emphasis on migratory bird management.
        Inflation and increased operating costs have escalated and enhanced
    funding in recent years has been absorbed in these areas. Additional
    funding is needed to facilitate meeting program objectives for
    migratory bird conservation. The Association recommends an increase of
    $3 million to address this need, and urges the FWS to cooperate with
    the State fish and wildlife agencies to begin implementation of the
    Colonial Waterbird Conservation Plan, Shorebird Conservation Plan and
    the Partners in Flight Plan. All of these plans are complete and funds
    are needed to put these programs on the ground for the birds and the
    many people who enjoy them. These plans are particularly critical as
    many nongame migratory bird populations are declining, but not yet
    endangered. These plans are intended to provide actions to avoid
    listing these populations as threatened or endangered while there still
    is time. It makes financial, biological and political sense to take
    actions early on when it costs less and there are more biological
    options. The economic benefits provided by migratory birds are far in
    excess of the funding these programs received.
        The Association strongly supports the request for $1 million to
    begin an aircraft replacement program to support migratory bird
    surveys, which are important for setting hunting regulations. We
    strongly recommend these funds become part of the FWS budget base for
    this program.
        The Association strongly supports the requested funding ($550,000)
    in the FWS budget to enable the Service to appropriately assess
    (through band reporting) the effects on harvest of proposed early and
    late season extensions to duck hunting seasons. As duck populations
    continue to grow, there is more demand for additional hunting
    opportunities. The FWS and the States need to monitor and evaluate the
    impacts of these extensions on harvest distribution and rates of
    harvest in order to assess the effects of the experimental season
    extensions. The Association strongly recommends that these funds become
    part of the FWS budget base for this program.
        The Association also strongly recommends an addition of $250,000 to
    the migratory bird program to enable the FWS to begin to modernize its
    database on mourning doves. While the mourning dove is one of our most
    popular gamebirds, there is a demonstrated need for better population
    and harvest survey information for this species. Again, the Association
    requests that these funds (at appropriate future levels) become part of
    the FWS base budget request.
        Since the early 1980s, insufficient effort has been devoted to
    improving data collection related to the management of webless
    migratory game birds. There is a demonstrated need for better
    population and harvest survey information for species such as woodcock,
    mourning doves, sandhill cranes and rails. The Association strongly
    contends webless migratory game bird management is an integral and
    important part of the Service's programs and responsibilities, and
    recommends full funding of $750,000 for the Webless Migratory Gamebird
    Program.
        The Association is pleased to recognize Congress' and the
    Administration's continuing commitment to the implementation of the
    North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP), including support for
    the 12 habitat and 3 species Joint Ventures. However, the Association
    reasserts its position that a need exists for additional funds to
    enable the FWS to provide adequate assistance for the Joint Ventures.
    In the fiscal year 2003 Appropriation Act, Congress recognized the need
    for increasing support for Joint Ventures and urged the Service to
    request additional funding in the fiscal year 2004 budget. Joint
    Ventures are the ``engine'' of plan implementation and these
    partnerships need to be supported. Most Joint Ventures are under-
    funded, but the Association is pleased that Joint Venture funding has
    been increased and supports the Service's request for $10.3 million in
    fiscal year 2004 for the Joint Venture program. Congress anticipated
    that by fiscal year 2004 there should be an appropriation of $10.4
    million annually for existing habitat and species Joint Ventures. In
    addition to direct habitat protection, restoration and enhancement,
    Joint Ventures engender private-public partnerships and communication
    in pursuit of their conservation objectives. This is good business,
    good relationships and good conservation and a success story to be
    emulated.
        The Association continues to recommend that Congress appropriate an
    additional $5 million to collect data and monitor 16 priority goose and
    brant populations across North America. Currently there are no
    operational breeding population surveys or pre-harvest banding programs
    on populations of Arctic geese. This information is needed for
    management of these migratory, international resources.
        For several years, Congress has added $1 million to the FWS budget
    to assist several states in managing depredating geese, particularly
    through partnerships with USDA-APHIS (Wildlife Services) and the
    agriculture community. This add-on was absent from the fiscal year 2003
    omnibus appropriations bill and the Association urges Congress to
    restore that additional $1 million in the fiscal year 2004
    appropriation for FWS.

    Endangered Species Act (ESA) Funding for States
        The Association is concerned with the proposed reduction (from the
    fiscal year 2003) in the Administration's request for Cooperative
    Endangered Species grants to the States. The reduction of $2.3 million
    will continue to erode this program. Traditional Section 6 grants to
    the States remain funded at $7.5 million, which is grossly insufficient
    to satisfy growing needs. Cooperative efforts between the FWS and the
    State fish and wildlife agencies are the surest way to meet objectives
    for species recovery and conservation under the Act. The Association
    recommends that the increase for assistance in this fund be made
    available to the States through a mechanism that maximizes spending
    discretion to the States, such as a State Fish and Wildlife Agency ESA
    Conservation and Recovery Block Grant Program, with the individual
    States deciding the best mix of information, incentives and
    acquisitions to achieve habitat conservation and recovery objectives.
    Much of the Section 6 grant funds in fiscal year 2004 are already
    earmarked for program needs such as HCPs and CCAs. While these are
    certainly meritorious and useful purposes, the Association's first
    priority for Section 6 Grants to the States remains for those dollars
    which allow the States the greatest discretion in satisfying priority
    needs.
        The Association strongly supports and urges Congress to appropriate
    an additional $10 million to Section 6 (Cooperative Endangered Species
    Fund) for traditional grants to the states, particularly in the western
    United States. The funds would be allocated within the State grants
    program to benefit at-risk species for example, in western grasslands,
    shrub-steppe, Hawaiian Islands and Sierra Nevada foothills. The funds
    would be used by 19 western States to aggressively pursue proactive,
    broad-scale and interstate conservation efforts, including partnerships
    through State Conservation Agreements, Safe Harbor Agreements,
    Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances or other agreements
    with willing landowners and public, State, Tribal, and other land
    management agencies. Funding under this program will be used to support
    actions by all partners in a given project.
        The Association also strongly supports and urges Congress to
    appropriate an additional $7.4 million to Section 6 (Cooperative
    Endangered Species Fund) being requested by 11 western states, to be
    allocated within the appropriate State grant programs to fulfill the
    requirements of the Black-tailed Prairie Dog Conservation Agreement,
    developed in 1999. Key to the agreement is forging partnerships with
    local interests and developing and implementing State-specific
    management plans that contribute to conserving the species, while
    maintaining management at the State and local level. An integral part
    of each State plan is providing incentives for private landowner
    participation. Private lands are crucial to meeting range-wide
    population objectives identified by the Multi-State Conservation Team.
    These funds will allow the States to complete and implement their
    management plans, and provide an incentives program for private
    landowners. Absent this Federal funding, listing of the species under
    the ESA is inevitable, with the consequent social and economic
    disruption.
        The Association is pleased with the seriousness at which the FWS is
    proceeding with the delisting process for the gray wolf population in
    the Northern Rockies. That population has met all recovery criteria and
    the three states of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming will soon complete their
    requisite state management planning efforts. As management authority
    transitions from the Federal government to the affected States, there
    is an immediate and long-term need to continue rigorous monitoring of
    that region's wolf population. Heretofore, the FWS has had that
    responsibility. The fiscal year 2003 FWS budget included a $250,000
    Congressional add-on for the State of Idaho to launch this effort
    within that state. The Association supports this kind of funding
    assistance to all affected states, especially when it involves species
    of national significance, and, therefore, recommends $1.2 million be
    added to the FWS' fiscal year 2004 budget for wolf monitoring
    activities in the states of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, with that
    amount being equally distributed among the three states. This will
    ensure a coordinated and consistent approach to monitoring the wolf
    population in the Northern Rockies during this critical period.
        The Association also strongly supports the Administration's request
    for $40 million for the Landowner Incentive Program. The Association
    appreciates that FWS has engaged the State fish and wildlife agencies
    in developing the criteria for this competitive program. The quality of
    the proposals submitted for first year money (fiscal year 2002), and
    the fact that proposals exceed available funds, exemplify the merits of
    and need for this program. Consistent funding is essential to be able
    to work effectively with private landowners, and the Association urges
    the FWS to continue to work with the states to bring greater assurance
    to the availability of these funds.
        The Association is concerned with the reductions in the Endangered
    Species Act Recovery Program. Endangered species recovery efforts can
    ultimately lead to delisting actions that result in significant
    benefits to species through State management efforts. Delisting of
    recovered species needs to receive priority attention and should be
    based on science and biology rather than other inappropriate factors.
    The targeted programs for decreases represent important partnerships
    with state fish and wildlife agencies that should continue. The
    Association recommends that Congress increase the amount allocated to
    recovery efforts in the FWS budget request.

    Wildlife Conservation and Appreciation Fund
        The Association is disappointed that the Administration deleted
    funding for the Partnership for Wildlife Act. Because these funds were
    matched equally by both State and private monies, this effective
    program leveraged substantial dollars. We expect these cooperative
    proposals to increase dramatically in the years ahead. The Association
    recommends restoring and enhancing this program at the $2 million
    level.

    Refuges and Wildlife
        The Association is pleased to see an increase of $25.5 million
    requested in the fiscal year 2004 budget for National Wildlife Refuge
    operations and maintenance. Even with this increase, there is a
    tremendous backlog of funding needs that will have to be addressed in
    the future to successfully meet the Service's NWR System mission of
    conserving fish and wildlife. Several years ago the Association, along
    with 16 other organizations, created the Cooperative Alliance for
    Refuge Enhancement (CARE) specifically to address this growing backlog.
    As a result of this cooperation, the CARE group developed a plan of
    modest increases for Refuge Operations and Maintenance budgets that
    will enable the Refuge System to be fully functional by its 100th
    anniversary in 2003. The Association continues to support the CARE
    recommendations to eliminate the backlog of Refuge Operations and
    Maintenance, and strongly urges these recommendations be used to guide
    future budget requests.
        A significant problem still exists with regard to brucellosis,
    which affects both wildlife and domestic livestock and is present in
    elk and bison in the Greater Yellowstone area, located within the
    states of Wyoming, Montana and Idaho. The Association understands that
    FWS and the National Park Service intend again this year to contribute
    to a research program conducted by the Biological Resources Division
    (USGS) to improve the vaccination program for brucellosis in elk and
    bison. This continuing need should clearly be carried as a budget item
    rather than identified as a program that will be funded on an ``ability
    to pay'' basis by the several agencies. This has been a concern since
    the onset of this project, yet no attempt has been made to date to
    correct this deficiency. The Association strongly supports this
    research endeavor, but remains concerned about the level of cooperation
    with the involved states. We urge the commitment by these several USDI
    Bureaus to this project be affirmed in their respective budgets through
    some type of formal agreement, in full cooperation with the states
    involved. We look forward to this being reflected in the fiscal year
    2005 budget request. Brucellosis recognizes no boundaries and only a
    fully cooperative program will likely be successful.
        The Association is pleased that $500,000 has been requested to
    address Chronic Wasting Disease on the refuge system; however, much
    more will be required to deal with this epizootic.
        In late 1997, the United States entered into an agreement with the
    European Union that identified a process to develop and test more
    effective and humane alternative trapping devices used by wildlife
    professionals to manage certain wildlife populations (e.g. for
    research, to reestablish species extirpated from prior habitats, and to
    protect endangered species). An active research program is being
    developed at the USDA's National Wildlife Research Center in Fort
    Collins, Colorado. Given the significant role that trapping plays in
    management of the NWR System for research, protecting habitat, roads
    and other investments, and managing predation and epizootic diseases,
    the Association recommends that $250,000 be added to the fiscal year
    2004 FWS budget to support this research effort.
        With respect to the use of certain types of traps on NWRs, the
    Association strongly opposes any legislative language that would
    prohibit the FWS from funding the use or authorization of the use of
    certain of these devices on NWRs. The Association, along with several
    other conservation organizations, has successfully defeated proposed
    amendments that would restrict FWS authority with respect to traps in
    previous years. The FWS needs to retain the discretion to use these
    devices to protect and conserve endangered species, migratory birds,
    and significant habitats; protect buildings, roads, and other
    facilities; and to protect public health and safety through managing
    epizootics such as rabies. These decisions are best made by the FWS-NWR
    manager working cooperatively with the State fish and wildlife agency,
    which has legal responsibility for the management of most furbearing
    wildlife species.
        The Association supports the efforts of the FWS for increased
    public visitation to the Nation's refuges. We believe that each refuge
    is a unique area that varies in its capability to support carefully
    planned and managed user pressure. However, increased public use has
    the potential to adversely impact the fish and wildlife resources of
    the refuges and some uses may not be compatible under the National
    Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. The Association would
    support the establishment of a research program, including cooperative
    grants, to support carrying capacity studies that would help develop
    innovative management measures to ensure the sustainability of the
    resources on these properties. The study design and preparation,
    however, must be done with the full cooperation of the appropriate
    State fish and wildlife agency. The program should be a joint effort
    utilizing the State fish and wildlife agency within the State where the
    Federal refuge resides, the refuge management staff and the Fish and
    Wildlife Cooperative Research Units. Since state fish and wildlife
    agencies manage comparable state lands, they have substantial
    experience in assessing impacts to species and habitats and balancing
    competing uses of these types of habitats, the principal use of which
    is fish and wildlife conservation.

    Law Enforcement
        Federal law enforcement is an important tool in fish and wildlife
    management and a critical element in complementing and filling gaps
    within State fish and wildlife law enforcement programs. While Law
    Enforcement enjoyed a modest appropriations increase in fiscal year
    2003, a past history of flat funding has left this important program
    significantly underfunded. The number of agent vacancies remains at an
    unacceptable level because managers continue to absorb increasing
    operating costs by keeping vacant positions unfilled. The fiscal year
    2001 and fiscal year 2002 increase was the first of a 3-year plan to
    restore funding for law enforcement to acceptable levels (a $10 million
    requested increase per year for 3 years was deemed to be necessary).
    The Association has urged the Service to stay on course with this plan
    and request funding for law enforcement staffing at more appropriate
    levels in future years. The Association is therefore disappointed and
    concerned that the fiscal year 2004 budget indicates only a minimal
    requested increase of $700,000. The Association urges Congress to
    increase funding for FWS law enforcement to a total program level of
    $60 million. This increase will put the Service's law enforcement
    program back on track to fulfill its needs.
        While the Association is vitally interested in seeing all FWS law
    enforcement vacancies filled and the workforce then kept at authorized
    levels, we are fully aware that 40 percent of the FWS' officers are
    expected to retire by the end of 2005. If not vigilant in its response,
    the FWS could exacerbate an already acute workforce situation--one that
    could have serious ramifications to State fish and wildlife agencies.
    The Association was pleased to learn the FWS is developing a
    comprehensive five-year plan to guide the decisions to address the
    challenges this poses. We encourage Congress to monitor this planning
    effort to make certain there is no lessening of emphasis on this
    critical program, and furthermore, that sufficient opportunity for
    state participation be afforded throughout this process to ensure their
    needs and concerns are adequately addressed.

    International Conservation
        The Association recommends that Congress fund the Neotropical
    Migratory Bird Conservation Act at its full authorization of $5
    million. This legislation passed both houses of Congress in 2000 with
    strong bi-partisan support. It provides a broad-spectrum approach to
    bird conservation sought for a long time by game bird and non-gamebird
    advocates alike. The NMBCA has the potential to serve as a major
    delivery mechanism to further develop bird conservation strategies for
    songbirds, shorebirds, waterbirds, and other neotropical bird species
    in need of conservation action.

    Fisheries and Habitat Conservation
        The Association recognizes the impressive progress the Service's
    Fisheries Program has made in working collaboratively with the
    Association and the various States, as well as with other partners in
    industry, academia, conservation organizations and Tribal
    organizations, to develop its Strategic Vision and to develop strategic
    plans for each of its Regions. In furtherance of this Vision and the
    underlying relationships with States and other partners, the
    Association supports the increases for the Fisheries Program proposed
    in the President's budget request. The Association supports the
    proposed $5 million increase for hatchery operations, which are badly
    needed, but is concerned with the proposed allocation of these funds to
    the recovery of threatened and endangered species (+$1.6 million),
    restoration of key species in accordance with prescriptions in fishery
    management plans (+$2.5 million), and development of additional
    scientific capabilities at hatcheries, Fish Technology Centers and Fish
    Health Centers (+$0.9 million). Absent from this proposed allocation is
    the large and important segment of the Service's hatchery program that
    produces fish to meet the Federal mitigation obligations at Federal
    water projects. The production from these mitigation hatcheries is
    critically important to the states, both recreationally and
    economically, and fulfills the Federal obligations that were agreed to
    by Congress when these water projects were authorized. The Association
    urges Congress to specify that the $5 million increase for hatchery
    operations be used proportionally for the Service's mitigation
    hatcheries, as well as other appropriate uses of hatchery production.
        The Association supports the Service's request for an additional
    $3.0 million for hatchery maintenance, which will begin to enable the
    Hatchery System to address priority needs in its water management
    facilities across the entire System. However, the Association believes
    that this amount is inadequate to significant address the current $300
    million hatchery facilities maintenance backlog. FWS hatchery
    facilities average 55 years in age and much of the infrastructure is
    outmoded and in serious need of repair. For several years, these
    maintenance needs have been largely ignored and hatchery facilities
    have been allowed to deteriorate to an alarming level. The Association
    strongly urges Congress to provide an additional $7 million in the
    Service's fiscal year 2004 appropriation for hatchery maintenance.
    Furthermore, the Association asks the Congress to support the
    President's request for an additional $1.0 million to combat aquatic
    nuisance species, which the Fisheries Program will use to support
    interdepartmental and intergovernmental efforts to control and
    eradicate alien invaders.
        The Association also requests the Congress to provide additional
    funds that will enable the Fisheries Program to strengthen and expand
    its efforts to conserve and restore critical aquatic habitats that
    support valuable recreational fisheries. Specifically, the Association
    asks that the Congress include an additional $3 million in the base
    appropriations of the Fisheries Program to eliminate additional
    barriers to fish passage and fish migration nationwide. The Service has
    recently reported impressive progress in its fish passage program--a
    program that is clearly achieving impressive results in increasing the
    abundance and distribution of native fishes and in providing additional
    angling opportunity.
        Furthermore, the Association asks the Congress to appropriate an
    additional $15 million for the Service's Fisheries Program to work with
    the southeastern States and its other partners in developing the
    Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership, which is making progress
    toward development of a comprehensive plan that will protect, conserve,
    and restore aquatic resources including habitats in the Southeast. This
    partnership of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and all states in
    Region IV is preparing a report that will provide a blueprint for
    fisheries which will incorporate objectives in six issue areas: (1)
    Public Use, (2) Fishery Mitigation, (3) Imperiled fish and aquatic
    species, (4) Interjurisdictional fisheries, (5) Aquatic habitat
    conservation, and (6) Aquatic nuisance species. The Association
    recommends Congress appropriate $15 million to assist the Fish and
    Wildlife Service and all southeastern states in this endeavor in which
    local biologists would examine local needs with respect to the six
    issue areas and those findings would be consolidated and prioritized at
    the state level. This work would facilitate timely implementation of
    future regional programs that may develop as a result of the
    Partnership's final report.
        Further, the Association requests an additional $770,000 be
    appropriated to FWS in their fisheries program for the Connecticut
    River Atlantic Salmon Commission Migratory Fish Restoration Program to
    continue efforts to restore migratory fish in the four state basin of
    Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont.
        In addition, the Association supports the President's request for
    an additional $9.6 million for the Partners for Fish and Wildlife
    Program. This program has proven enormously popular with America's
    private landowners and has an impressive history of conserving and
    restoring hundreds of thousands of acres of wetlands, riparian habitats
    and upland habitats, as well as opening thousands of miles of streams
    and rivers to fish passage. No program in the Service has been more
    successful in achieving on-the-ground results and in benefiting fish
    and wildlife and the millions of Americans who enjoy hunting and
    fishing, as well as non-consumptive uses and benefits of fish and
    wildlife. In addition, the Association asks the Congress to appropriate
    an additional $4 million to enhance the Service's Coastal Program,
    which much like the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, has
    delivered tangible improvements in wetland and upland habitats in
    America's coastal states, where upwards of 75 percent of our nation's
    population resides.
        No less importantly, the Association respectfully asks the Congress
    to provide $2 million increases to each of two Ecological Services
    programs that have essentially been level-funded for the past decade
    and unable to address growing resource challenges. A $2 million
    increase in the Environmental Contaminants Program would enable the
    program to meet basic needs in its efforts to address accidental
    releases or spills of oil and other hazardous chemicals, and to work
    collaboratively with the Environmental Protection Agency and States in
    reviewing and promulgating water quality standards and criteria for
    aquatic organisms. A $2 million increase in Ecological Service's
    Coordination Act program would enable the Service to participate more
    fully in important planning processes and decisions relative to
    hydropower and wind power, as well as mineral extraction. For the past
    decade inflation and stable funding have combined to reduce the
    program's involvement and effectiveness in this important function and
    in ensuring sustainable development coupled with wise stewardship of
    fish and wildlife resources.

    Invasive Non-Native Species
        The Association is concerned over the lack of priority placed on
    invasive non-native species in the fiscal year 2004 budget. The program
    of the FWS, as well as other federal agencies, lacks focus and
    therefore is likely to fall short of expectations to address the most
    significant problems caused by some invasive non-native species. The
    Association requests an additional $10 million be included in the
    fiscal year 2004 appropriation to be distributed among several FWS
    programs to help address a significant and serious domestic and
    international threat to indigenous fish and wildlife species. The
    Association strongly supports the FWS efforts to address high priority
    invasive species that are serious problems for fish and wildlife
    habitat.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

        The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources strongly supports
    efforts by Congress to continue the State Wildlife Grants (SWG)
    program. We urge the Subcommittee to allocate $125 million to the State
    Wildlife Grants program for fiscal year 2004 and to take measures to
    establish a long-term funding mechanism for this important program.
        Congress created the State Wildlife Grant Program (SWG) in 2001 to
    protect and manage those wildlife species of greatest conservation
    need. This program seeks to prevent wildlife from becoming endangered
    and ensure a bright future for the nation's wildlife. Its proactive
    approach to wildlife and habitat conservation will save both wildlife
    and taxpayer dollars because it protects species before it's too late.
    This program is a first step to addressing the unmet needs of hundreds
    of species that fall through the cracks because they are neither
    abundant game species or rare and endangered.
        Minnesota's State Wildlife Grants program funds a range of projects
    across the state. Below are examples of current projects.
      --Monitoring Goshawk Nesting Territories
      --Timber Rattlesnake Recovery in Minnesota's Blufflands
      --Rare Animals in the Glacial Lakes and Moraines Landscape of Central
            Minnesota
      --Statewide Mussel Resource Survey
      --A Landscape Approach to Grassland Bird Conservation in Minnesota
      --Critical Wildlife Habitat Acquisition
      --Identification and Protection of Important Bird Areas
        The State Wildlife Grants Program was established as part of the
    Conservation Trust Fund in fiscal year 2001. SWG has strong bipartisan
    support and leverages federal funds by requiring a state match. In
    order to participate in the SWG Program, each state is required to
    develop a comprehensive wildlife conservation plan by October 2005.
    These plans will demonstrate the need for long-term, predictable
    funding for wildlife conservation, and guide the use of future SWG
    funds.
        In addition to funding the State Wildlife Grants program at the
    $125 million level for 2004, please consider decreasing the required
    state match for this program from 50 percent to 25 percent, as is the
    case with the Pittman-Robertson, Dingell/Johnson, and Wallop/Breaux
    programs. The purpose of this program is to partner with states to
    protect the wide array of wildlife species under their jurisdiction,
    especially those species that are not hunted or fished. This area of
    wildlife conservation has historically been under-funded, and it is
    very challenging for us to identify a good, stable source of matching
    funds this early in the program's life. Also, please consider
    supporting reliable, long-term funding for state-based wildlife
    efforts, as was originally intended with the Conservation and
    Restoration Act of 2001 (CARA).
        Thank you for the opportunity to offer these comments.
                                     ______

     Pepared Statement of the National Association of University Fisheries
                             and Wildlife Programs

        The National Association of University Fisheries and Wildlife
    Programs (NAUFWP) appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony
    concerning the fiscal year 2004 budget for the U.S. Department of the
    Interior. NAUFWP represents approximately 55 university programs and
    their 440 faculty members, scientists, and extension specialists, and
    over 9,200 undergraduates and graduate students working to enhance the
    science and management of fisheries and wildlife resources. NAUFWP is
    interested in strengthening fisheries and wildlife education, research,
    extension, and international programs to benefit fish, wildlife, and
    habitats on public land. We understand the many pressing needs of the
    nation at this time, but we stress that a nation strong in its
    international role must be strong in its support and conservation of
    its natural resources, including fish and wildlife.

                         U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

        We are concerned that the fiscal year 2004 budget request for State
    Wildlife Grants will diminish the ability of state wildlife agencies to
    conserve fish, wildlife, and habitat, and to prevent further declines
    in at-risk fish and wildlife populations. State Wildlife Grants were
    established in fiscal year 2001 with a promise from Congress to
    increase the amount of funding for the program by 10 percent a year
    over six years. However, this program was cut in fiscal year 2003 to
    $60 million, a 29 percent reduction from the $85 million appropriated
    in fiscal year 2002. The Administration's fiscal year 2004 request is
    $60 million. NAUFWP strongly recommends that State Wildlife Grant
    funding be increased to $125 million in fiscal year 2004, for
    apportionment to the State fish and wildlife agencies under the formula
    allocation used in fiscal year 2002, in order to achieve significant
    progress toward the demonstrated conservation need of at least $350
    million per year.
        While we understand that Congress must make difficult programmatic
    decisions during this time of fiscal constraints, it is critical to
    recognize that State Wildlife Grants ultimately save federal dollars by
    enabling states to be proactive and avert conservation catastrophes.
    State Grants further maximize wildlife and taxpayer dollars for the
    benefit of millions of Americans by leveraging additional funds from
    states and NGOs.

              U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES DIVISION

        NAUFWP is very concerned that the fiscal year 2004 budget request
    for the Biological Resources Division (BRD), $138.875 million, is a
    reduction from the fiscal year 2003 enacted level of $139.816 million.
    This reduction is due primarily to the lack of continued funding for
    several Congressional initiatives, most of which are intended to
    provide critical, timely information to improve natural resource
    management in the United States. Even with funding for these programs
    however, BRD has been dramatically under-funded for years. Adjusted for
    inflation, BRD would have to be funded at over $200 million to maintain
    programs at 1994 levels. In addition, BRD is proposing to absorb
    approximately $1.9 million of $3.4 million in uncontrollable costs in
    the fiscal year 2004 budget. This equates to a significant loss in
    operational funds for BRD. We recommend that Congress appropriate $200
    million for the Biological Resources Division to allow critical
    monitoring and research projects to continue, to eradicate the budget
    decline in real dollars that the program has accumulated, and to fully
    fund uncontrollable costs.
        We support the Administration's requested increase of $1 million to
    expand research on chronic wasting disease, a fatal disease in deer and
    elk; the $500,000 increase in amphibian research; and the $4 million
    increase to expand invasive species research and begin developing a
    prototype model for a national early detection network for invasive
    species in US terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. At the same time,
    however, NAUFWP urges Congress and BRD not to diminish funding directed
    at ongoing research needs that may not, at present, be garnering the
    public attention that the above issues are, but for which there remain
    many unanswered questions.
        We appreciate the Administration's recognition of the value of the
    National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII) and support the
    $1 million increase in funding requested for fiscal year 2004. However,
    we also support Congressional direction in the fiscal year 2003 omnibus
    appropriations bill to BRD to further refine the objectives for NBII
    and clearly define a strategy for achieving those objectives. NBII, a
    broad, collaborative program that provides increased access to data and
    information on the nation's biological resources, is a good example of
    what can be achieved by emphasizing partnerships with academic
    institutions and others, provided those partnerships are meaningful.
        NAUFWP applauds Congress' efforts to fully fund the Cooperative
    Fish and Wildlife Research Units (the Units). Full funding and staffing
    for the Units was achieved in fiscal year 2001, but since then
    available fiscal resources have been eroded, principally due to
    uncontrollable costs. Uncontrollable costs for the Units are
    disproportionately high compared to other agencies, as 90 percent of
    the budget for the Units is salaries. This issue first surfaced in the
    fiscal year 2002 enacted budget, which was $123,000 less than the
    fiscal year 2001 budget, leaving the Units $400,000 short of covering
    the high proportion of personnel costs. We are thankful that the fiscal
    year 2003 enacted budget for the Units was $14.9 million, including
    $623,000 to cover uncontrollable costs, and $400,000 for the new
    Nebraska Cooperative Research Unit. However, the $400,000
    uncontrollable shortfall from fiscal year 2002 still remains. The
    Administration's fiscal year 2004 budget request for the Units is
    $14.139 million, an $854,000 decrease from fiscal year 2003. This means
    there would be no funding for the new Nebraska Cooperative Research
    Unit to operate in 2004, and there would be a $600,000 shortfall in
    uncontrollable costs, resulting in a net uncontrollable cost shortfall
    for three consecutive years.
        To maintain full funding and staffing levels for the Cooperative
    Research Units, NAUFWP recommends that Congress increase the fiscal
    year 2004 budget to $16 million. This would include $400,000 to
    maintain the new Nebraska Unit that Congress established in fiscal year
    2003, $600,000 to cover uncontrollable costs in fiscal year 2004, plus
    sufficient funds to address the uncontrollable cost backlog from fiscal
    year 2002.
        There is a great deal of interest from the Unit cooperators to
    expand the Cooperative Research Unit program. Currently, three states
    have fisheries units only and 12 states have neither fisheries nor
    wildlife units. Most states have expressed an interest in entering into
    a partnership between BRD, a State University, and the state fish and
    wildlife agency to bring one or both Cooperative Research Units to
    their state. NAUFWP is pleased that the fiscal year 2003 appropriations
    included language directing BRD ``to develop a priority system for
    expanding the current program.'' NAUFWP looks forward to participating
    in the long-term strategic planning process for the Units, and we urge
    Congress to approve budget requests in subsequent years based on this
    undertaking. The well-established record of accomplishment of the
    Research Units, a partnership of universities, state agencies, federal
    agencies, and non-governmental organizations, illustrates the success
    of their work to conserve fish and wildlife resources and habitats, and
    to train young professionals in the field.

                             NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

        NAUFWP recommends $2.225 million in support of the Cooperative
    Ecosystem Study Units (CESU) program. This amount would provide
    $125,000 to each host university, which provides research, technical
    assistance, and education, and $125,000 for the national office to
    partner with other agencies to support conservation and information
    sharing through websites and other technologies. This funding could be
    placed within the National Park Service under external programs on
    behalf of all the federal agencies involved with the CESU program.

                              U.S. FOREST SERVICE

        The Administration's fiscal year 2004 budget request provides $252
    million for Forest and Rangeland Research, essentially level with the
    fiscal year 2002 budget, including over $11 million for new research
    initiatives related to invasive species, the Healthy Forests
    Initiative, and Sudden Oak Death disease. The wildlife, fish, and
    watershed research budget request is $54 million, about $2 million less
    than was appropriated in 2003. NAUFWP recommends an additional $2
    million for Forest Service Research, to be allocated to Wildlife, Fish,
    Watershed, and Air Research, and recommends that current activities in
    the Wildlife, Fish, Water, and Air Research segment of the budget can
    be maintained.
        NAUFWP is concerned about the essentially level funding of $134.8
    million for the Wildlife and Threatened & Endangered (T&E) Species
    programs in fiscal year 2004. NAUFWP recommends that Congress
    appropriate $149 million for the Wildlife, Fish and Threatened &
    Endangered Species program in fiscal year 2004. This will help 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, and
    provide base level funding for Forest and District biologists to
    implement proactive management, monitoring, and research projects.

                           BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

        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. These lands
    provide critical habitat for fish and wildlife and recreational
    opportunities for millions of visitors. The Wildlife and Fisheries, and
    Threatened and Endangered Species programs of BLM help ensure sound
    management and protection of a diversity of wildlife, fish and
    habitats, while providing for recreational and commercial uses of the
    land. While the Administration has proposed slight increases in the
    fiscal year 2004 budgets of these programs, they still will be running
    at minimal funding and staffing levels. NAUFWP recommends that Congress
    appropriate an additional $10 million over the President's request for
    Wildlife and Fisheries Management, and an additional $5 million over
    the President's request for the Threatened and Endangered Species
    program.
        The Administration's request for BLM also includes $500,000 for
    monitoring the cumulative impacts of oil and gas development on natural
    resources such as wildlife. We believe that if energy production on
    public lands is accelerated, then BLM must have the funds necessary to
    carry out not only monitoring and evaluation, but also eventual
    mitigation of any impacts to wildlife and fish that are identified from
    energy development. NAUFWP recommends that additional funds be
    dedicated to mitigating the impacts of energy development on wildlife
    and fish, particularly species-at-risk, and recommends that the fiscal
    resources to conduct this work be allocated within the appropriate
    program area budget where biological and cultural resource expertise
    exists, as opposed to allocating this funding to the oil and gas
    account.
        In addition, with increased emphasis on energy development, we
    expect an increased demand and need for fish and wildlife expertise.
    Already, approximately 30 percent of existing wildlife and fisheries
    staff time is being directed at energy-related functions. NAUFWP
    supports hiring additional fish and wildlife staff to address these
    critical program areas in the context of addressing the Nation's energy
    policy, but recommends these positions be directly funded from the
    energy account, rather than extracted from the existing base Wildlife
    and Fisheries Management or Threatened and Endangered Species Program
    budgets.
        Thank you for considering the views of universities with fisheries
    and wildlife programs. We look forward to working with you and your
    staff to ensure adequate funding for wildlife conservation.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Teaming with Wildlife Steering Committee

        On behalf of the Teaming with Wildlife Steering Committee, we
    request your support for the State Wildlife Grants program in fiscal
    year 2004 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations. Teaming with
    Wildlife is a broad coalition of more than 3,000 groups who have united
    to enhance America's wildlife resources. We are dedicated to achieving
    increased federal funding for state-level fish and wildlife
    conservation, education, and recreation, to ensure a bright future for
    all fish and wildlife and the habitat on which they depend. We strongly
    urge you to appropriate $125 million for State Wildlife Grants under
    the Land, Conservation, Preservation, and Infrastructure Improvement
    Fund (LCPII) in fiscal year 2004.
        State Wildlife Grants provide essential resources to state agencies
    to conserve fish, wildlife, and habitat, and to prevent further
    declines in at-risk fish and wildlife populations. More than 1,000
    species are imperiled, or listed as federally threatened or endangered,
    with many more under consideration for listing. While we understand
    that Congress must make difficult programmatic decisions during this
    time of fiscal constraints, it is critical to recognize that State
    Wildlife Grants ultimately save federal taxpayer dollars. Past
    experience shows that efforts to restore imperiled wildlife are
    difficult and costly. State Wildlife Grants enable states to be
    proactive and avert such conservation catastrophes, concurrently saving
    wildlife and taxpayer dollars, and improving our quality of life by
    conserving wildlife for the benefit of millions of Americans.
        Within the first two years of the State Wildlife Grants program,
    state agencies initiated a number of important wildlife conservation
    measures. However, the Administration's request of $60 million for
    State Wildlife Grants in fiscal year 2004 is a substantial reduction
    (29 percent) from the $85 million enacted in fiscal year 2002. This
    will significantly curtail the effectiveness of many state wildlife
    diversity programs that are in their infancy and require consistent,
    adequate federal appropriations to realize their objectives. The
    proposed cut for SWG in fiscal year 2004 also will jeopardize the
    States' ability to craft and implement the Comprehensive Wildlife
    Conservation Plan required by Congress. The development of these plans
    is underway in many states, in anticipation of consistent funding for
    implementation. If the commitment to this planning is reduced, the
    focus of spending likely will shift toward meeting short-term needs,
    instead of being channeled toward long-term conservation through
    comprehensive conservation, education and recreation programs.
        Indeed, the monies acquired for State Wildlife Grants through the
    annual appropriations process offer only short-term support for fish
    and wildlife conservation. For this reason, Teaming with Wildlife
    remains committed to securing the reliable, long-term nature and intent
    of Title III of the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA). Title III
    of CARA would have provided $350 million per year for 15 years to
    prevent species from becoming endangered, to enhance outdoor
    recreational experiences, and to foster responsible fish and wildlife
    stewardship through conservation education. We respectfully urge you to
    address the continuing shortfalls in state wildlife program funding
    with a long-term and comprehensive approach by supporting the passage
    of dependable funding. We pledge to assist in implementing such a
    program.
        We understand the many pressing needs of the nation at this time,
    but we stress that a nation strong in its international role must be
    strong in its support for and conservation of its natural resources,
    including fish and wildlife. We need and sincerely appreciate your help
    with annual funding, and are hopeful that we can work together to bring
    dependability to these funds, which will be necessary to achieve long-
    term fish and wildlife conservation objectives for all citizens.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Nebraska Game & Parks Commission

        The Nebraska Game & Parks Commission is the agency responsible for
    stewardship of Nebraska's wildlife resources in the best long-term
    interest of Nebraskan's and those resources. The Commission is charged
    with administration of the State Wildlife Grants program. The Nebraska
    Game and Parks Commission strongly supports an appropriation of $125
    million for the State Wildlife Grants Program (administered by the U.S.
    Fish & Wildlife Service) in fiscal year 2004.
        For more than 50 years, the highly successful Federal Aid to Fish &
    Wildlife Restoration program (Pittman Robertson Act) has enabled state
    wildlife agencies to meet their obligation to restore and conserve game
    species. The recovery of wild turkey, deer, and waterfowl populations
    is nothing short of miraculous. In addition to game conservation, the
    Federal Aid program has indirectly conserved habitat for hundreds of
    nongame species.
        Nevertheless, Nebraska faces the immense challenge of conserving
    more than 500 nongame species considered rare or declining. During the
    past three years the State Wildlife Grants program has been
    instrumental in helping the Commission and its many partners begin
    implementing conservation strategies aimed at stemming population
    declines of nongame fish and wildlife. The Commission fully embraces
    the concept behind the State Wildlife Grants program--Use proactive
    conservation strategies now, to reduce the likelihood for endangered
    species listings in the future.
        In 2002, the Commission used a competitive grant program to
    disburse State Wildlife Grants funds. The agency received more than
    eight times the request for funds than was available. We expect the
    demand for these funds to increase substantially in the next few years.
    As a result of this competitive grant program, the Commission has built
    new and innovative partnerships with more than a dozen conservation
    organizations and universities leveraging more than $1 million in state
    and private conservation funds.
        Without the State Wildlife Grants program, Nebraska will likely be
    faced with the regulatory requirement to add more species to the state
    endangered species list in the future. This outcome is exceedingly
    expensive, controversial, and risky to imperiled species. We prefer a
    more proactive approach such as that offered through the State Wildlife
    Grants Program.
        The Commission is extremely appreciative of your committee's
    support of the State Wildlife Grants program in fiscal years 2002 &
    2003. We encourage you to give thoughtful consideration for this
    program in the 2004 budget. Thank you for your time.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Oregon Water Resources Congress

                                    REQUEST

        The Oregon Water Resources Congress is requesting $25 million for
    the full funding in fiscal year 2004 for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service Fish Restoration Irrigation Mitigation program as authorized in
    the Fish Restoration Irrigation Mitigation Act (FRIMA) in November 2000
    as Public Law 106-502 (H.R. 1444). The Administration has not request
    any funding in the fiscal year 2004 Budget submission for this program.
        FRIMA created a new federal partnership fish screening and passage
    program in the Pacific Ocean drainage areas of Idaho, Oregon,
    Washington and western Montana, administered by the Fish and Wildlife
    Service and partnered through state fishery agencies.
        The original legislation was supported and requested by the Pacific
    Northwest Partnership, a coalition of local governmental entities in
    the four Northwest states. As one of the members of that coalition, we
    appreciate your consideration of this request.

                                      NEED

        Our association has represented irrigation districts in Oregon
    since 1912. About half of those districts are affiliated with the U.S.
    Bureau of Reclamation. The remainder of the districts were not
    developed under the Reclamation program. There are over 200 irrigation
    districts in Oregon that provide water supplies to over one million
    acres of cropland in Oregon. Almost all of these districts are affected
    by either state or federal Endangered Species Act listings of Salmon
    and Steelhead, Bull Trout or other sensitive, threatened or endangered
    species.
        Fish passage and fishscreen needs have become critical to fishery
    protection:
      --to keep protected fish species out of water canals and delivery
            systems;
      --to allow fish to be safely bypassed around reservoirs and facility
            structures; and
      --to eliminate water quality risks to fish species.
        Oregon irrigation districts anticipate no less than $500 million in
    funding will be required to develop fish passage and fishscreening
    needs. Limited cost-share funds are available from the Oregon Watershed
    Enhancement Board (OWEB) program in Oregon, but primarily the cost
    share for passage and screening needs will be provided by the districts
    and their water users. Many districts already have screening facilities
    in place, but requirements for screening have been changed to meet
    federal agency requirements of the NOAA Fisheries Service and the Fish
    and Wildlife Life Service, driven by implementation of the federal
    Endangered Species Act (ESA) so that existing facilities must be
    upgraded at significant cost.

                        BACKGROUND OF PUBLIC LAW 106-502

        FRIMA was enacted November 2000, creating a voluntary cost-share
    fish screen construction program for water withdrawal projects in
    Idaho, Oregon, Washington and western Montana. The Fish and Wildlife
    Service is to implement this program through the fishery agencies in
    the four states. The funding is to go to local governments for
    construction of facilities. Irrigation districts (local governments),
    can access the funding; individual irrigators can access funding
    through their local Soil and Water Conservation District. (SWCD
    districts are local governments affiliated with the Natural Resources
    Conservation Service.)

                                    FUNDING

        The legislation calls for $25 million annually, to be divided among
    the four states, from 2001 forward. The Service has never included
    funding in its budget requests since passage of the legislation.
    Congress provided the first funding in 2001 through a write-in of $4
    million to be shared among the four states. The agency did not get the
    program up and running until late 2002, so the first moneys were
    distributed then. A 2003 budget write-in resulted in a $470,000
    allocation to Oregon ($1.8 million total for the 4 states) which has
    not yet been disbursed.

                                FUNDING HISTORY

        2000--Congressional authorization for $25 million per year
        2001--Congressional write-in of $4 million as no agency budget line
        2002--No budget; agency did not disburse 2001 money until late 2002
        2003--Congressional write-in of $1.2 million as no agency budget
    line
        2004--No agency budget line
        For the 4 years, 2001-2004:
      --Congress--Authorized $100 million
      --CBO--Anticipated $70 million
      --Service--Budgeted $0
      --Congress--Wrote in $5.8 million (2002 & 2003 total combined)
        In 2000, in the report accompanying the legislation, the
    Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated outlays of $8 million for
    fiscal year 2001; $15 million in fiscal year 2002; $22 million in
    fiscal year 2003 and $25 million in fiscal year 2004 and years forward.
    While the CBO estimate would have provided $70 million between 2001 and
    2004, the actual appropriation was only $5.8 million (8 percent) during
    that same time period and all of the money was a write-in.
        Funding funneled through the Service to state fishery agencies is
    distributed on the basis of an application and approval process that is
    based on a ranking system implemented uniformly among the states,
    including the following factors:
      --fish restoration benefits
      --cost effectiveness
      --feasibility of planned structure
        Each state is allocated 25 percent of the annual program funding.
    Agency administrative costs cannot exceed 6 percent of the funding.

                                PROJECT BENEFITS

        The project must provide improved fish passage or fish protection
    at water diversion structures and must benefit fish species native to
    and present in the area, including those listed on state or federal
    endangered species or conservation lists. The project must meet
    applicable state and federal requirements for project construction and
    operation. Projects will increase the survival of many native fish
    species in a relatively short period of time. Compared to other
    recovery strategies, the risks posed by these activities are low and
    the assurance of success in increasing numbers of fish is high.
    Dislocation of existing social and economic activities is minor.
    Screening and passage can make a very substantial contribution
    utilizing existing implementation mechanisms and methods well accepted
    by landowners and rural communities.

                                   COST SHARE

        The federal cost-share is 65 percent. The applicant's cost-share is
    35 percent plus the on-going maintenance and support of the structure
    for passage or screening purposes. Applicants operate the projects and
    the state agencies monitor and review the projects.
        For more information, see the Services' Fishery Resources website
    for the Pacific Region at http://pacific.fws.gov/Fisheries/
    Fish%20Passage-Screening %20Program.htm.
        This program is headquartered in the Portland, Oregon regional
    office of the Service.

                           OREGON'S PROJECT BENEFITS

        Of the $4 million provided to the program in 2001 for the 4 states,
    Oregon received $1 million for projects:
        Santiam Water Control District Project.--Fishscreen project on a
    large 1050 cfs multi-purpose water diversion project on the Santiam
    River (Willamette Basin) near Stayton, Oregon. Partners are the Santiam
    Water Control District, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Marion
    Soil and Water Conservation District, and the City of Stayton. Approved
    FRIMA funding of $400,000 leverages a $1,200,000 project. Species
    benefited include winter steelhead, spring Chinook, rainbow trout, and
    cutthroat trout.
        South Fork Little Butte Creek.--Fishscreen and fish passage project
    on a 65 cfs irrigation water diversion in the Rogue River Basin near
    Medford, Oregon. Partners are the Medford Irrigation District and
    Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Approved FRIMA funding is
    $372,000 and leverages a $580,000 total project cost. Species benefited
    include listed summer and winter steelhead, coho salmon, and cutthroat
    trout.
        Running Y (Geary Diversion) Project.--Fishscreen project on a 60
    cfs irrigation water diversion in the upper Klamath Basin near Klamath
    Falls, Oregon. Partners are the Wocus Drainage District, Oregon
    Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Jeld-Wen Ranches. Approved FRIMA
    funding of $44,727 leveraged a total project cost of $149,000. Species
    benefited include listed red-band trout and short-nosed sucker.
        Lakeshore Gardens Project.--Fishscreen project on a 2 cfs
    irrigation water diversion in the upper Klamath Basin near Klamath
    Falls, Oregon. Partners are the Lakeshore Gardens Drainage District and
    Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Approved FRIMA funding is
    $5,691, leveraging a total project cost of $18,970. Species benefited
    include red-band trout, short-nosed sucker and Lost River sucker.
        Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Inventory Project.--An
    inventory project to be conducted by Oregon Department of Fish and
    Wildlife to identify FRIMA-eligible passage and screening projects
    within the Rogue and Klamath basins of southwestern Oregon. Approved
    FRIMA funding is $76,000. Estimated total project cost is $125,000.
        (See total projects list, Pacific Region States at http://
    www.r1.fws.gov/Fisheries/Fish%20Passage-Screening%20Projects.htm.)

                          TOTAL OREGON PROJECT FUNDING
                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    5 Projects:
        FRIMA funds...........................................           0.9
        Applicant funds.......................................           1.2
                                                               -------------
          Total Project.......................................           2.1
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 WHY FUND NOW?

        Dollar-for-dollar, providing screening and fish passage at
    diversions is one of the most cost-effective use of restoration
    dollars, creating fishery protection at low cost, with low risk and
    significant benefits. That is why it is important that this program be
    funded now. We urge the full authorized funding for fiscal year 2004
    and urge Congress' oversight in encouraging the Service to budget for
    this successful program in the future.
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide this statement for the
    hearing record.

                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Tern and Plover Conservation Partnership

        The Tern and Plover Conservation Partnership (Partnership) was
    initiated in 1999 to protect and manage endangered least terns (Sterna
    antillarum athalassos) and threatened piping plovers (Charadrius
    melodus) that nest in Nebraska on river sand bars and on gravel mine
    spoil piles. Birds that nest at these mines are vulnerable to predation
    and potential conflicts with mining operations. The Partnership was
    formed to protect these and other river birds in a way that reduced
    conflicts with private industry and that educated and involved local
    communities. To further these goals an ``Adopt-a-Colony'' program was
    initiated in 2000 to help with project activities and to engage local
    community members in endangered species management and protection
    issues.
        The Partnership is run solely by the means of grant funds and is
    partially funded by the State Wildlife Grant program, being recommended
    for a $45,000 grant in 2003. The program received a Wildlife
    Conservation and Restoration Program GRANT for $75,000 in 2002. The
    Nebraska Environmental Trust and The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    also partially fund the Partnership.
        These grants have helped with needed supplies and have allowed us
    to meet the critical need of employing two seasonal technicians to
    assist with monitoring and protection efforts during each nesting
    season. Technicians are essential to the continuing success of the
    Partnership. Without efforts from technicians it would be impossible to
    monitor colonies on a regular basis, erect and maintain several
    protective electric fences, and successfully mitigate potential
    conflicts at sand mines. Technicians also help foster high quality
    working relationships with sand and gravel personnel and volunteers.
    Moreover, the grants have helped provide essential supplies such as
    protective fencing, field signs, educational materials, and video and
    GPS equipment.
                                     ______

      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. The UMRBA strongly
    supports funding necessary 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 Gape Girardeau,
    Missouri. This includes the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife
    and Fish Refuge (NWFR), Mark Twain NWR Complex, and Illinois River NWFR
    Complex. 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 for Refuge
    Operations and Maintenance in the President's fiscal year 2004 budget.
    In fiscal year 2003, funding for the three refuges along the Upper
    Mississippi and Illinois Rivers totaled $13.4 million, approximately 43
    percent of which was carryover for special flood-related repair needs.
    Yet there continues to be a routine maintenance backlog and a 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.
    In particular, the refuges along the Upper Mississippi River System
    have responsibility for the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) of projects
    that the Corps of Engineers constructs on those refuges, under the
    authority of the Environmental Management Program (EMP). Currently,
    those annual O&M costs are estimated to be $360,000, but will likely
    increase within 10 years to more than $560,000. Fully funding the O&M
    of EMP projects is vital to ensuring that these habitat restoration and
    enhancement projects are fully operational and provide lasting
    environmental and public use benefits.
        In order to properly care for the lands already in the National
    Wildlife Refuge System, the President's fiscal year 2004 budget request
    for acquisition of new lands is reduced by more than half. Despite this
    dramatic cut, the fiscal year 2004 budget includes $2 million to
    acquire lands for three refuges along the Upper Mississippi River.
    Included are $1 million for acquisition of 924 acres for the Great
    River NWR and $500,000 for acquisition of 400 acres for the Middle
    Mississippi River NWR. Both of these refuges are part of the Mark Twain
    NWR Complex for which 27,000 acres remain to be acquired. In addition,
    the fiscal year 2004 budget includes $500,000 for acquisition of 380
    acres for the Upper Mississippi River NWFR Complex, which has
    outstanding unmet acquisition needs of over 35,000 acres. The UMRBA
    supports the fiscal year 2004 budget request for refuge land
    acquisition and is pleased that the refuges in this region are
    recognized as a high priority, even in tight budget times.
        Ecological Services.--Funding from the Ecological Services account
    supports the field offices in Rock Island (IL), the Twin Cities (MN),
    and Marion (IL), which provide most of the ecological services work on
    the Upper Mississippi River (UMR) and tributaries. This includes work
    on threatened and endangered species, environmental contaminants, and
    habitat conservation. In fiscal year 2003, 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 thus recommends that, at
    a minimum, Ecological Services fiscal year 2004 funding be increased
    from the President's recommended level, to at least match the fiscal
    year 2003 appropriation.
        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, which conduct
    habitat restoration and assessments of paddlefish, pallid and
    shovelnose sturgeon, and freshwater mussels. 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 2004. In particular, of the $1 million increase proposed for work
    on aquatic nuisance species in fiscal year 2004, $250,000 is proposed
    for efforts in this basin related to Asian carp.
        The UMRBA is particularly pleased that the President's fiscal year
    2004 budget recognizes the needs related to hatchery operations and
    maintenance, by proposing an increase of $8 million in the hatcheries
    budget. The National Fish Hatchery on the banks of the Mississippi
    River at Genoa, Wisconsin has become a center of excellence in the
    recovery of endangered mussels. Additional funds proposed for the Genoa
    Hatchery in fiscal year 2004 would be used for production of freshwater
    mussels, lake sturgeon, and brook trout to meet restoration and
    recovery objectives. In particular, $370,000 is budgeted for large
    migratory species, such as lake and shovelnose sturgeon, and $55,000 is
    allocated for endangered mussels, such as the Higgin's Eye and Winged
    Mapleleaf. Additional funds proposed for the Fish Health Center in La
    Crosse, Wisconsin would be used for health diagnostics for lake
    sturgeon and lake trout and would enhance the Wild Fish Health Survey
    on the Upper Mississippi River.

                             U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

        In contrast to the deep cuts proposed for the U.S. Geological
    Survey over the past two years, the President's fiscal year 2004 budget
    signals strong support for the science mission of the USGS. Yet while
    the Administration's fiscal year 2004 request for water and for
    biological research reflects an increase over its prior years'
    requests, it is, in fact, slightly lower than the fiscal year 2003
    amounts recently appropriated by Congress. It is therefore important
    that Congress actually increase funding above the President's request
    just to maintain stable funding for these critical science programs.
        The states of the Upper Mississippi River Basin are concerned that
    the USGS' ability to provide timely and unbiased scientific information
    about complex natural systems not be compromised. There are several
    specific research and monitoring programs in the Water Resources and
    Biological Research programs that are of particular interest to the
    UMRBA.
        Water Resources Investigations.--The UMRBA strongly supports
    increased funding for the National Streamflow Information Program
    (NSIP). 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 675 stream gages operated by USGS in the five UMRBA states.
    Over recent years, 80 gages have become inactive in the five states,
    many as a result of funding cutbacks. The loss of gages means the loss
    of the historical record that is needed for managing our nation's water
    resources. The UMRBA shares the commitment of water resource managers
    across the nation to the long-term stability and security of the
    nation's stream gaging program. Toward that end, UMRBA joins other
    organizations, such as the Interstate Council on Water Policy (ICWP),
    in urging Congress to increase the Administration's fiscal year 2004
    proposed budget of $14.4 million for NSIP by $2 million.
        The UMRBA also strongly supports funding for the Federal/State
    Cooperative Water Program. The Coop Program is an essential tool in
    meeting state and local science needs, including both interpretive
    studies and stream gaging. Originally, the match between nonfederal
    cooperators and the USGS was 50-50. Over time, increased requests by
    cooperators for USGS services, coupled with stagnant federal funding,
    has altered that proportion. In 2002, cooperators generally matched
    every $1.00 in federal funds with $1.65, demonstrating the value they
    place on the program. In 2002, there were 182 nonfederal cooperative
    projects in the five UMRBA states, an increase of over five percent in
    just two years.
        In contrast to last year's proposal to eliminate USGS' Toxic
    Substances Hydrology program, the President's fiscal year 2004 budget
    proposes $11 million for this important research. 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 Agricultural Chemical Research Project,'' is helping to
    identify factors that affect dispersal of agricultural chemicals in
    surface and ground waters and evaluating the resulting effects in small
    streams and large rivers. The goal is to provide the general scientific
    basis needed to develop agricultural management practices that protect
    the quality of this region's water resources. Through its Toxics
    Program, USGS is also studying questions associated with hypoxia in the
    Gulf of Mexico, including the loads and sources of nutrients from the
    Mississippi River basin. Given the important work underway in the USGS
    Toxic Substances Hydrology Program, UMRBA urges Congress to provide
    $13.5 million, at a minimum, commensurate with the fiscal year 2003
    level of funding.
        The UMRBA continues to support funding for the National Water
    Quality Assessment (NAWQA), which is slated to be at $64 million under
    the President's fiscal year 2004 budget. 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 on a rotating basis every 3-4 years. The
    Upper Mississippi River Basin includes four NAWQA study units (Upper
    Mississippi, Eastern Iowa, Lower Illinois, and Upper Illinois). The
    first 3 of these are scheduled for assessment in fiscal year 2004.
        Biological Research.--The President's budget request for USGS
    Biological Research is $168.9 million, reflecting an increase over the
    fiscal year 2003 request, but a decrease from the fiscal year 2003
    appropriation of $170.9 million. The UMRBA recommends that, at a
    minimum, Biological Research be funded at the fiscal year 2003 level.
    Of particular interest to UMRBA is funding for invasive species
    research, including ballast water research and development of a
    prototype model for a national early detection network for invasive
    species. Also of interest is research into amphibian declines and
    malformations that have been occurring in recent years.

                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Wildlife Management Institute

        The Wildlife Management Institute (WMI) is submitting its comments
    on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) proposed budget for
    fiscal 2004. WMI is a scientific, educational non-profit organization
    that is staffed by professional wildlife biologists and is committed to
    the sustainable management of wildlife populations and habitats
    throughout North America. For 63-years we have worked closely with the
    FWS to identify wildlife conservation needs and resource management
    solutions. Our following comments include recommendations for the
    following spending increases over the Administration's FWS requests:
    $65 million for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants; $5 million for the
    North American Wetlands Conservation Fund; $1.2 million for Migratory
    Bird Management; $2 million for Neotropical Migratory Bird
    Conservation; and $10 million for controlling invasive species. It also
    includes a $24.9 million request for traditional state grants under the
    Cooperative Endangered Species Fund.
        During this time of war, we greatly appreciate the Administration's
    $9 million spending increase over the fiscal 2002 spending level. The
    Administration's $1.3 billion request recognizes the significant
    contributions of several partnership oriented programs and will help
    the FWS leverage significant support among private organizations and
    individuals when addressing critical issues confronting migratory
    birds, declining species and a host of other game and nongame animals.
    Specifically, we welcome the Administration's request for the following
    programs and urge your subcommittee to support these programs
    throughout the appropriations process:
        1. Landowner Incentive Program and Private Stewardship Grants ($50
    million);
        2. Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program ($38.4 million, of which
    $9.1 million is for habitat restoration projects);
        3. Joint Ventures under the North American Waterfowl Management
    Plan ($10.3 million);
        4. Refuge Challenge Cost Share Fund ($3 million);
        5. Replacement of bird survey aircraft ($1 million);
        6. Chronic Wasting Disease surveillance and control on National
    Wildlife Refuges ($500,000 although spending increases should be
    considered in future years); and
        7. Updating database for mourning doves ($250,000).
        WMI also supports the Administration's $25.5 million increase for
    the National Wildlife Refuge System's operations and maintenance
    account (total request is $402 million). Under the fiscal 2003 omnibus
    appropriations bill, that account received the largest increase any
    natural resources program had ever received in a single year ($48.4
    million). These consecutive increases will greatly improve the Fish and
    Wildlife Service's ability to reduce its operations and maintenance
    backlog. However, according to the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge
    Enhancement, the refuge system needs $700 million annually to expand
    its support staff, to oversee maintenance projects and to conduct daily
    operational work on refuges. To the degree that current circumnstances
    allow, we ask that your subcommittee narrow the gap between the
    Administration's $402 million request and the refuge system's $700
    million need.
        The Institute remains concerned about the lack of adequate funding
    for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program, North American
    Wetlands Conservation Fund, Cooperative Endangered Species Fund,
    Migratory Bird Management, land acquisition program, and invasive
    species control/eradication. Please accommodate the following comments
    and spending recommendations to the best of your ability.

                        STATE AND TRIBAL WILDLIFE GRANTS

        We are very concerned that the Administration has requested only
    $60 million for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program for the
    second consecutive year. This request represents a 30 percent reduction
    from the fiscal 2002 amount of $85 million and significantly limits the
    ability of State and Tribal fish and wildlife agencies to complete
    their Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plans and to implement on-
    the-ground projects that benefit game and nongame species. These
    agencies need a stable or growing source of funds to meet long-term
    planning objectives, and WMI is committed to locating a dependable
    source of funding that will provide states and Tribes with $350 million
    every year to fulfill their unique conservation, recreation and
    education needs. In pursuit of that $350 million per year goal, WMI
    asks that your subcommittee appropriate $125 million to the grant
    program in fiscal 2004.

                   NORTH AMERICAN WETLANDS CONSERVATION FUND

        WMI welcomes the Administration's request of $50 million for the
    North American Wetlands Conservation Fund, but according to the
    reauthorizing language for North American Wetlands Conservation Act,
    this fund is to receive $55 million in fiscal 2004. Since 1989, the FWS
    has used this fund to collaborate with more than 2,000 partners and to
    conduct at least 1,114 enhancement projects for wetlands and associated
    upland habitat in 48 states, U.S. Virgin Islands, 13 Canadian
    provinces, and 24 Mexican states. Moreover, every federal dollar in
    this fund leverages $2.88 from the Fish and Wildlife Service's state
    and private partners. For these reasons, we recommend that your
    subcommittee appropriate the authorized amount of $55 million to this
    fund.

                      COOPERATIVE ENDANGERED SPECIES FUND

        Through the Cooperative Endangered Species Fund, state fish and
    wildlife agencies receive necessary financial assistance to implement
    habitat conservation and population recovery efforts for imperiled
    species. However, the Administration's $86.6 million request for this
    fund includes only $7.5 million for the traditional Section 6 state
    grants program. We encourage your committee to support the Section 6
    grant program at $24.9 million so that 19 western states can
    participate in proactive, multi-state partnerships through efforts,
    such as State Conservation Agreements, Safe Harbor Agreements and
    Candidate Conservation Agreements.
        One specific project that requires additional resources is the
    Black-tailed Prairie Dog Conservation Agreement. This 4-year-old
    partnership involves 11 western states and each state is developing its
    own management plan to address prairie dog issues at the state and
    local level. However, the partnership needs $7.4 million in fiscal 2004
    so that each state can finalize its management plan and to let all
    partners establish an incentives program for private landowners. The
    High Plains Partnership is another effort that is proactively
    addressing the population declines of multiple animals dependant upon
    short and mixed grasslands (e.g., sage grouse, Cassin's sparrow and
    prairie chickens). At least $10 million is needed to insure that the
    Federal, State and private partners can restore grasslands and
    associated wildlife species throughout the Great Plains and can enhance
    the productivity of private land operations throughout the region.

                           MIGRATORY BIRD MANAGEMENT

        The North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) is an
    international effort between Canada, the United States, and Mexico to
    deliver bird conservation through regionally based, biologically
    driven, landscape-oriented partnerships. To date, there has been no
    authorization to provide the necessary staff to coordinate the program
    within the United States. Needed are a National Coordinator, a Database
    Manager, and 6 Regional All-bird Coordinators (Northeast, Midwest,
    Southeast, Alaska, Southwest, Northwest). We believe these positions
    should be funded through the Service's Migratory Bird Management
    Division, but we recommend the FWS director be authorized to enter into
    contracts with State wildlife agencies or non-governmental
    organizations to fill these important positions. We recommend an
    increase of $1.2 million in the Administration(s budget request for the
    Migratory Bird Management program to fund these 8 positions critical to
    NABCI. We also recommend that these positions be funded with new money
    opposed to shifting funds from other existing fish and wildlife
    programs.
        Also, NABCI partners met in February 2003 to identify priorities
    for fiscal 2004 and beyond and recognized the Neotropical Migratory
    Bird Conservation program as one of its top priorities. This program is
    authorized for $5 million but the Administration requested only $3
    million. WMI seeks your support for a $5 million appropriation to this
    account.

                            LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM

        In fiscal 2002, the FWS received $99.1 million to acquire
    ecologically valuable and sensitive lands from willing landowners. For
    fiscal 2004, however, the Administration requested only $40.7 million
    so that the FWS can invest more time and fiscal resources on presently
    owned lands. Although we support the Administration's decision to
    improve the management of existing federal lands, we caution your
    subcommittee against a drastic cut in this program. Over the course of
    one year, opportunities to protect critically important habitat for
    wildlife may be lost forever, which in turn would further limit the
    Service's ability to remove fish and wildlife from the threatened/
    endangered species list and to prevent the listing of other animals.

                            INVASIVE SPECIES PROGRAM

        Although the Administration has requested $2.1 million to combat
    the spread of non-native, invasive species in National Wildlife
    Refuges, the FWS does not have a comprehensive plan for controlling and
    eradicating invasives. Thus, WMI requests the appropriation of an
    additional $10 million so that the agency can strategically incorporate
    invasive species management activities into other conservation
    programs.
        In summary, we appreciate the Administration's $9 million boost for
    Fish and Wildlife Service programs during such a difficult time for our
    nation. Productive landscapes that host a diversity of wildlife and
    fish offer all Americans a peaceful playground in which they can
    connect to their local environment via fishing, hunting, wildlife
    watching and photography and other recreational pursuits. But many
    national conservation needs remain unmet, and WMI encourages you to
    consider and act upon our above spending recommendations.
        Thank you for reviewing our comments, and we look forward to
    working with you throughout the appropriations process. If you or your
    staff would like to discuss our recommendations further, please contact
    me or Terry Riley, Director of Conservation, at (202) 371-1808.

                                     ______

                   Letter From the Wyoming Water Association
                             Wyoming Water Association,
                                       Water is Wyoming's Gold!
                                            Cheyenne, WY, June 3, 2003.
    Hon. Conrad Burns, Chairman
    Hon. Robert C. Byrd, Ranking Minority Member
    Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, Committee on
            Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
        Dear Chairman Burns and Senator Byrd: The Wyoming Water Association
    sends this letter 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. The objectives of the Wyoming
    Water Association are to promote the development, conservation, and
    utilization of the water resources of Wyoming for the benefit of
    Wyoming people. Since 1932, the Wyoming Water Association has served
    the interests of Wyoming's water users. With changing and growing
    demands on Wyoming's limited water resources, complicated by an
    increasingly complex overlay of federal laws and regulations,
    management and development challenges and conflicts continue to become
    more numerous. The Association maintains an active role in supporting
    the State of Wyoming's efforts to put Wyoming water to use for
    Wyoming's citizens.
        The members of our Association supports the continuation of these
    two 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. The Wyoming
    Water Association respectfully requests support and action by the
    Subcommittee that will provide the following:
        1. The continued allocation of $700,000 in ``recovery'' funds
    appropriated to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for fiscal
    year 2004 to allow FWS's Region 6 to meet its funding commitment to the
    Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. This is the same
    amount appropriated in fiscal years 2002 and 2003 for this program.
    Funding will be used for FWS' program and data management costs,
    estimating the abundance of fish populations, evaluating stocking and
    monitoring fish and habitat response to recovery actions.
        2. The allocation of $444,000 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 2004.
        3. The allocation of $165,000 in ``recovery'' funds for the San
    Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to the FWS for fiscal
    year 2004 to meet FWS's Region 2 expenses associated with program
    management and implementing the San Juan Program's actions.
        The enactment of Public Law 106-392, as amended by Public Law 107-
    375, authorized the Federal Government to provide up to $46 Million of
    cost sharing for these two ongoing recovery programs' remaining capital
    construction projects. Additional hatchery facilities to produce
    endangered fish for stocking, restoring floodplain habitat and fish
    passage, regulating and supplying instream habitat flows, installing
    diversion canal screens to prevent fish entrapment and controlling
    nonnative fish populations are key components of the capital
    construction efforts. The four participating states are contributing
    $17 Million and $17 Million is being contributed from revenues derived
    from the sale of Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) hydroelectric
    power. Subsection 3(c) of Public Law 106-392 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. The Wyoming Water
    Association has for a number of years adopted a resolution supporting
    the appropriation of federal and state funds to carry out the purposes
    of these 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 effective partnership 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
    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.
                Sincerely,
                                               John W. Shields,
                                                   Executive Secretary.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of Bear Trust International; Boone and Crockett
       Club; Bowhunting Preservation Alliance; Buckmasters American Deer
        Foundation; Campfire Club of America; Congressional Sportsmen's
      Foundation; Conservation Force; Foundation for North American Wild
       Sheep; Houston Safari Club; International Association of Fish and
         Wildlife Agencies; Izaak Walton League of America; Mule Deer
       Foundation; National Rifle Association; National Shooting Sports
    Foundation; National Trappers Association; Pope and Young Club; Quality
      Deer Management Association; Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation; Ruffed
         Grouse Society; Safari Club International; Shikar Safari Club
    International; The Wildlife Society; Wildlife Management Institute; and
                           Whitetails Unlimited, Inc.

        We urge you to include adequate funding in the fiscal year 2004
    federal budget to fully implement the National Plan to Assist States,
    Federal Agencies and Tribes in Managing Chronic Wasting Disease in
    Captive and Free Ranging Cervids. We specifically ask your subcommittee
    to appropriate $7.75 million for agency programs within Department of
    the Interior and, further, $20.46 million for non-matching state and
    tribal grants to be administered either through USDA-Animal and Plant
    Health Inspection Service (APHIS) or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    (USFWS).
        Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) is always fatal for deer and elk. It
    has been found in either captive or free-ranging wildlife in 12 states
    and 2 Canadian provinces. Left unmanaged, this disease has the
    potential to devastate local deer and elk populations. Moreover,
    improper management of CWD will stimulate a major economic loss for
    state agencies and private businesses that rely on hunting and wildlife
    associated tourism for their livelihood. According to the USFWS's 2001
    National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated
    Recreation, 10.9 million sportsmen and women spent 153 million days
    hunting big game in 2001. Collectively, they spent $10.1 billion to
    purchase necessary equipment and to cover trip-related costs. And
    within Colorado, the Division of Wildlife estimated that deer and elk
    hunters generated $599 million for the state's economy in 2001.
    Furthermore, the Division collected $44 million through deer and elk
    license sales, which represented 54 percent of the agency's $81.9
    million budget for 2001.
        In May 2002, the House Resources Subcommittees on Forests and
    Forest Health and Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans held a
    joint oversight hearing on the CWD crisis. Invited witnesses were asked
    to provide suggestions as to how Congress and the federal government
    could most effectively assist states in the fight against CWD.
    Resultantly, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and U.S.
    Department of the Interior (DOI) were directed to prepare a national
    plan to address CWD.
        A national CWD task force was quickly formed to ensure that federal
    and state agencies cooperated in the development and implementation of
    an effective national CWD strategy and program. Membership for the task
    force, and its associated working groups, totaled 75 professionals who
    were knowledgeable in wildlife health, wildlife management, wildlife
    biology and livestock health and represented a myriad of state and
    federal wildlife management and animal health agencies, as well as
    universities.
        On June 26, 2002 the task force released the National Plan to
    Assist States, Federal Agencies and Tribes in Managing Chronic Wasting
    Disease in Captive and Free Ranging Cervids, also known as the National
    CWD Plan. This plan represents the most current scientific knowledge on
    CWD, and delineates a strategy to identify the extent of the disease
    and management actions necessary to limit its spread. An Implementation
    Document was then developed to identify who will be responsible for
    individual projects, how these projects will help control CWD, how much
    money is necessary to implement the projects, and when each project
    should be completed. The Implementation Document, dated October 16,
    2002, was provided to Bobby Acord, Director of APHIS, and Steve
    Williams, Director of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It is our
    understanding that the document has since been provided to the Office
    of Management and Budget for review and analysis. Both documents are
    available at http://www.cwd-info.org/index.php/fuseaction/
    policy.policy.
        According to the National CWD Plan, the primary federal role will
    be to provide coordination and assistance with research, surveillance,
    disease management, diagnostic testing, technology, communications,
    information dissemination, education and funding for state CWD
    programs. Federal agencies will provide tools and financial assistance
    to states and help develop consensus-based approaches to CWD control.
        The federal funding requirements identified in the Implementation
    Document total $108 million over a three year period. It is important
    to recognize that not all CWD funding has been or will be federal
    dollars. For example, it is estimated that the states of Colorado,
    Nebraska, and Wisconsin expended $3.6 million to combat CWD during
    2002. In Colorado, a portion of that money was used to cull
    approximately 450 mule deer and 200 elk, further evidence of the
    mounting need to protect the viability of wild and captive cervid
    populations.
        We are concerned that the collaborative science-based
    recommendations in the National CWD Plan and its associated
    Implementation Document have not been given due consideration during
    the development of the fiscal year 2004 budget. The Implementation
    Document recommends $13.6 million for USDA, $7.75 million for DOI and
    $20.46 million for state and tribal grants during the first year.
    However, the Administration only requested $14 million for USDA, of
    which only $7 million is for Plan activities. Moreover, DOI would
    receive $2.4 million under the Administration's request, less than half
    of what the Implementation Document's authors recommended, and the
    states would receive nothing. We believe this spending request is
    woefully inadequate to effectively implement the National CWD Plan.
        In summary, we urge you to include in the fiscal year 2004 federal
    budget the funding necessary to fully implement year one of the
    National CWD Plan. Both the DOI and the USDA Agriculture have been
    assisting states and tribes to the extent that their budgets permit;
    however, significant additional funding is needed to implement the
    actions and programs outlined in the National CWD Plan and its
    associated Implementation Document. Since the management of resident
    wildlife is the responsibility of the appropriate state wildlife
    agency, in addition to funding the CWD activities of both the DOI and
    USDA, the federal budget appropriation must provide funding that will
    be passed on to the states through a grant program that requires no
    match. The states have already spent millions of dollars on this issue
    and need federal funding assistance to continue the battle.
        Thank you for reviewing our comments, and we look forward to
    working with you on this important issue throughout the appropriations
    process.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the African Wildlife Foundation, The Nature
        Conservancy, American Zoo and Aquarium Association, Safari Club
     International, The Wildlife Conservation Society, American Veterinary
         Medical Association, World Wildlife Fund, International Rhino
     Foundation, International Elephant Foundation, WildAid, Conservation
      International, National Wildlife Federation, The Fund for Animals,
    Sierra Club, The Humane Society of the United States, National Audobon
    Society, Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International, Defenders of Wildlife,
     Wildlife Management Institute, Jane Goodall Institute, International
             Fund for Animal Welfare, and American Bird Conservancy

        We are writing as a coalition of conservationists, zoos, circuses,
    sportsmen, veterinarians, and animal protection groups to request your
    support of the Multinational Species Conservation Fund. This Fund has
    made an important contribution to the survival of wild tigers,
    elephants, rhinos, great apes, and neotropical migratory birds. Last
    year, Congress demonstrated its continued commitment to the Fund by
    increasing the appropriation to $4.8 million for the four mammal
    programs and $3 million for migratory birds. We ask for fiscal year
    2004 that you again support these successful programs by appropriating
    $2 million each for the Asian Elephant, African Elephant, and Great
    Apes Conservation Funds, $3 million for the combined Rhinoceros and
    Tiger Conservation Fund, and $5 million for the Neotropical Migratory
    Bird Conservation Fund.
        There have been significant improvements in the status of elephants
    and white rhinos in parts of southern Africa, rhinos in Nepal, and
    tigers in Russia as a result of grants from the Multinational Species
    Conservation Fund. The remaining 300 Sumatran rhinos and 60 Javan
    rhinos would not have survived without the Rhino Protection Units
    supported by the Fund. Black rhinos, whose numbers plummeted from
    70,000 in 1970 to 2,500 in 1993 are now recovering in many parts of
    Africa to a current total of about 3,100. These successes show that a
    species can survive if sufficient and reliable resources are provided
    for anti-poaching, habitat protection, disease control, public
    education, and measures to increase compatibility with humans.
        There are still many unfulfilled needs, particularly in India and
    Indonesia where burgeoning human populations have fractured habitat and
    isolated tiger, rhino and elephant populations. Great apes in the Congo
    Basin and in Indonesia continue to struggle for survival against
    disease, habitat reduction, and an increasingly commercialized trade in
    bush meat. Elephants, rhinos and tigers face challenges from poaching
    for ivory, horn, and body parts. Neotropical migratory bird populations
    that migrate from the United States to wintering grounds in the
    Caribbean and South America continue to suffer from environmental
    contaminants and loss of habitat. Many of the countries where these
    species are found cannot muster the resources to meet the needs of both
    people and wildlife. Continued support will be needed from the Fund to
    ensure the future of these species.
        The Multinational Species Conservation Fund has been especially
    effective in encouraging local and international matching contributions
    from governments and private organizations. The program's $23 million
    in grants over the past twelve years has leveraged almost $100 million
    in additional funding, including $14 million alone during the first
    year of neotropical migratory bird grants. The Fund benefits mammals
    and birds that are cherished by millions of Americans who visit zoos,
    watch birds, or adopt them as symbols of athletic prowess, corporate
    strength or political power. Continued support by the United States
    will conserve these highly threatened species, create a positive image
    for America in Asia, Africa and Latin America, and encourage public-
    private partnerships throughout the world. We urge you to support
    increased appropriations for the Multinational Species Conservation
    Fund and the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund in fiscal
    year 2004.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the American Association of Museums, the Society
      for Historical Archaeology, and the Society for American Archaeology

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: I am Jason Hall,
    Director of Government and Public Affairs for the American Association
    of Museums, presenting written testimony on behalf of a consortium
    consisting of the American Association of Museums, the Society for
    American Archaeology, and the Society for Historical Archaeology.
        As you know, Section 10 of the Native American Graves Protection
    and Repatriation Act (Public Law 101-601--``NAGPRA'') authorizes the
    Secretary of the Interior to ``make grants to Indian tribes and native
    Hawaiian organizations for the purpose of assisting such tribes and
    organizations in the repatriation of native American cultural items''
    and to ``make grants to museums for the purpose of assisting the
    museums in conducting the inventories and identification required under
    sections 5 and 6.'' While we appreciate the Congress and the President
    agreed in the Interior bill to provide funding of approximately $2.5
    million for fiscal year 2003 to allow the statutorily-mandated
    repatriation process to proceed, we respectfully urge Congress to
    increase the appropriation to at least $5 million for fiscal year 2004.
    We present the following reasons in support of this request.
        As you are aware, NAGPRA is remedial legislation. Congress enacted
    the law in 1990 in large part to assure that Native American remains
    and funerary and other objects retained by the federal government and
    museum community are returned under the law to appropriate tribes and
    organizations for reburial or other appropriate treatment. As remedial
    legislation, NAGPRA will not remedy the problem Congress sought to
    resolve unless adequate dollars are appropriated so that tribes and
    museums can complete the repatriation process--which is now under way
    but which necessarily proceeds slowly in many cases because of
    essential museum-tribe consultation and other factors. Repatriation is
    a high priority of the museum and tribal communities, which do not have
    adequate funds to do the necessary work required by NAGPRA.
        Since repatriation is the subject of federal legislation as well as
    regulations and administrative guidelines, the U.S. government has a
    trust responsibility to Indian tribes and their members in the area of
    repatriation. This trust responsibility imposes strict, binding
    fiduciary standards on the conduct of executive agencies, here the
    National Park Service and the Department of the Interior, in its
    treatment of tribes in repatriation matters. Adequate funding for
    tribes, museums and universities is necessary to carry out the
    statutory mandates of Congress.
        At the same time, it is clear that the communities and sovereign
    Indian tribes represented by the consortium have been called upon to
    take a much increased role in implementing Public Law 101-601 in the
    past several years, as the mandated summaries and inventories of museum
    holdings were largely completed by museums and sent to the tribes in
    mid-November, 1993, and mid-November, 1995, respectively. Activity has
    intensified immensely in recent years and will continue to do so as the
    number of actual repatriations continues to increase. The consortium's
    testimony provides information on how the requirements of the law are
    creating significant costs for our communities and seeks your support
    for funding for the grant program authorized in the law, so that we can
    continue to comply with it in a timely and responsible way.
        Let me start by addressing in generic terms the needs of the museum
    community. In order to comply with Public Law 101-601, museums have to
    engage in activities falling into four categories: (1) preparation of
    inventories, in the case of human remains and associated funerary
    object, and written summaries, in the case of unassociated funerary
    objects, sacred objects and cultural patrimony; (2) notification and
    consultation with Native American groups and visitation by those groups
    to museum collections; (3) research to identify cultural affiliation of
    human remains and objects; and (4) repatriation.
        To prepare the inventories of human remains and funerary objects
    which were due by November 16, 1995, museums have needed to: physically
    locate every item within the museum's storerooms; locate and review
    existing records to compile information necessary to determine whether
    a funerary object is ``associated'' or not, and to determine the
    cultural affiliation of the objects; catalog any remains ad objects
    that are not catalogued; document (e.g., measure and photograph) and
    analyze the human remains and funerary objects; and compile an
    inventory of human remains and funerary objects containing the
    information required under Public Law 101-601, including cultural
    affiliation. The delay in promulgation of the final regulations, and
    the late start and low level of grant funding for repatriation grants
    to the tribes and museums, have slowed the process such that a
    significant number of museums were not able to prepare inventories by
    the November 16, 1995 deadline, despite timely and continuing good
    faith efforts, and had to appeal for extensions.
        With respect to unassociated funerary objects, sacred objects and
    objects of cultural patrimony, museums were required to and did,
    prepare a written summary by November 16, 1993 rather than an itemized
    inventory of their collections. Nevertheless, many museums needed to
    undertake many tasks similar to those noted above in order to collect
    the required information. Throughout all of this, museums have needed
    to consult with native American tribes which might have an interest in
    the objects. The time and funds spent on consultation with Native
    American peoples varies according to the physical proximity of the
    museum to the particular group.
        Once the inventory and written summary are complete, the museum
    must identify the tribal representatives authorized to accept
    repatriable objects and formally notify those representatives. Tribal
    representatives must travel to the museums to examine the objects and
    consult with the museum. Remains and artifacts must be packed and
    shipped to the appropriate Native American group. During this process,
    disagreements may arise as to the disposition of items covered by
    Public Law 101-601, and these issues must be resolved.
        Let me turn to some specific cases. On December 6, 1995, the Senate
    Committee on Indian Affairs held an oversight hearing on the
    implementation of NAGPRA. Final NAGPRA regulations, with some sections
    still incomplete, were published two days prior to the hearing. Two
    years later, the Interior Department published an interim rule on one
    of those incomplete sections, the civil penalties section. But as of
    April 2001, there have been no final regulations issued on the three
    remaining sections (future applicability, culturally unidentifiable
    remains, and unclaimed items from Federal or tribal lands.)
        Representatives from the National Park Service, the NAGPRA Review
    Committee, three affected tribes, and a witness representing both the
    American Association of Museums and an affected museum, testified about
    compliance with the law. NPS witness Katherine Stevenson noted that the
    NPS had made 83 NAGPRA grant awards totaling $4.37 million since the
    beginning of the program, but that over that time, they had received
    337 grant proposal requests totaling nearly $30 million, and she
    conceded that the Interior Department's $2.3 million request for fiscal
    year 1996 did not meet the valid needs demonstrated in the grant
    applications from museums and the tribes. Since that 1995 testimony,
    the situation has remained much the same in terms of funding needs. As
    of April 2002, the NPS has been able to make 351 NAGPRA grant awards
    totaling approximately $21.3 million since the beginning of the
    program, but during that time, it has received well over 770 grant
    proposals totaling more than $52 million, and funding has essentially
    been flat at $2.3 million, and more recently $2.5 million annually. The
    $2.5 million appropriation continues to fall short of valid needs.
        The witness representing museums in 1995, William Moynihan,
    President of the Milwaukee Public Museum, testified about the effort of
    his museum to comply with the law. He noted that the ``Milwaukee Public
    Museum will have committed well in excess of half a million dollars by
    1997 to deal with the legislation. Existing staff in our Anthropology/
    History Section have been reallocated from their normal duties to
    NAGPRA-related activities, a large team of volunteers assembled, and
    trained student interns and work-study students hired.'' He noted that
    the Museum has been collecting anthropological and archaeological
    materials for over 100 years, that included in the holdings are the
    remains of 1,500 individuals, and that the collections are not
    computerized. Despite these difficulties, the museum had completed a
    physical inventory of over 22,000 Native American ethnographic objects,
    and a preliminary inventory of 50,000 archaeological objects; sent
    summaries to 572 tribes and native Alaskan and Hawaiian groups;
    followed up with hundreds of calls to tribes; and taken a variety of
    other actions to comply with the law.
        On a broader scale, we have results from the American Association
    of Museums' 1994 repatriation survey of 500 of its member institutions,
    including all of its natural history museums and a selected sample of
    its art and history museums. The survey response rate was 43.6 percent.
    Of those responding, 76 percent of the natural history museums, 43
    percent of the history museums and 23 percent of the art museums had
    Native American objects. Those respondents--a little more than 200--
    alone had almost 3.5 million objects which fell into NAGPRA categories,
    and that does not include 15 responding natural history museums,
    including 3 large institutions, which could not give an estimate of
    their NAGPRA- related holdings. An overwhelming number of these
    institutions noted how lack of final regulations and of NAGPRA grant
    funding had hindered or prevented their repatriation efforts.
        Estimating aggregate costs is not possible from the survey data,
    given the great disparities in how institutions calculated their own
    costs. It is clear, however, that thousands of institutions across the
    country are affected to some degree by NAGPRA costs.
        The Native American community is also incurring major expenses in
    attempting to comply with the requirements and deadlines of NAGPRA. As
    you know, the repatriation process involves sacred items and, most
    importantly, human remains, not just artifacts. In this light we must
    approach the funding issues related to the Act. A 1994 repatriation
    survey done by the National Congress of American Indians indicated that
    some tribes had received hundreds of NAGPRA summaries from museums, and
    that the need for outside funding to hire experts to help them analyze
    these materials and subsequent NAGPRA inventory materials is virtually
    universal. From the dozens of responses to the survey, it is apparent
    that most tribes do not have the capacity to comply with the Act. For
    example, the Shingle Springs Rancheria/Miwok/Maidu tribe reported,
    ``Our tribe has been well versed in the purpose and intent of NAGPRA.
    The response from museums--the sending out of surveys to the tribes at
    the November 1993 deadline--has been astounding. We have received over
    100 notices. However, we cannot respond or take advantage because of
    lack of funds.'' This tribe estimated its financial needs at
    approximately $35,830. And at the December 1995 Senate oversight
    hearing, Cecil Antone of the Gila River Indian Community noted that the
    Community had received over 150 letters from various museums and
    federal agencies about the disposition of NAGPRA-related collections.
    The needs of the tribes vary depending on the number of responses they
    have received, their present and future ability to comply with the Act,
    and what, if any, experience their tribe has had with projects of this
    sort. In fact, tribal responses estimating funding needs ranged from
    ``unknown'' to ``very much'' to ``$2 million.''
        In October 1990, the Congressional Budget Office estimated NAGPRA
    implementation costs to museums of $40 million and to tribes and native
    Hawaiian organizations of $5-10 million over 5 years, assuming that
    museums and federal agencies hold between 100,000 and 200,000 Native
    American remains and that the cost to inventory and review each remain
    would be $50-150. Those estimates now appear to be very low in light of
    our experience since that time. As a result, viable tribal and museum
    request for grants continue to exceed available funds by a large
    margin. In addition, museums cannot repatriate to the tribes until
    appropriate notices go into the Federal Register, and there is
    currently a backlog of about 150 such notices at the NPS, about a
    year's worth, due to lack of staff to process them.
        In closing, let me add that while the museums and tribes must have
    this grant program funded simply to comply with the requirements of
    NAGPRA, it is also true that the grant program will accomplish far more
    than compliance. Museums and tribes have discovered that the exchange
    of data required under NAGPRA is yielding new information that helps us
    all. In the process of identifying sensitive cultural items, museums
    are learning much more about their entire collections. Delegations of
    elders and religious leaders have supplied valuable new insights about
    many objects in the repositories they have visited, and in turn they
    are discovering items of immense interest to their own tribes, the
    existence of which had been unknown in recent generations. Few items in
    these categories are being sought for repatriation; it is simply that
    access to the collections has led to much better mutual understanding
    and exchange of knowledge. While the repatriation process will
    eventually end as the transfer of materials is completed, the long-term
    relationship created between museums and tribes will continue.
        Thus, this funding will not just support expenses mandated by law.
    It is also an excellent investment that serves the public interest
    now--and will continue to pay dividends in the future--through more
    accurate and respectful exhibits and education programs that are the
    fruits of long-term collaborations.
        Finally, we respectfully urge you to keep in mind that we are
    talking in large part about the reburial of the remains of human
    beings, and that under a reasonable and dignified standard, such
    repatriation and reburial should occur with all due haste. Certainly
    the United States government has acted urgently with due regard to
    repatriation of remains of American soldiers killed in foreign wars or
    missing in action. Native American repatriation and reburial should be
    treated with the same priority and dignity.
        The consortium appreciates this opportunity to testify on this
    issue.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Americans for National Parks

        Americans for National Parks (ANP) 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 2004 Interior and
    Related Agencies appropriations bill. We appreciate the opportunity to
    share our priorities for funding and we respectfully request that the
    Committee consider these views as the fiscal year 2004 budget is
    shaped. ANP requests an increase of $178 million over the current
    fiscal year 2003 spending levels, $102 million above the president's
    request, for a total of $1,633,351,000 in fiscal year 2004 for the
    operation of the National Park System.
        ANP is a growing coalition of people who care deeply about these
    awe-inspiring places. Today, we have more than 325 members, including
    chambers of commerce, nonprofit organizations, private businesses,
    government municipalities, and tourism and trade associations, working
    together to encourage Congress and the administration to address the
    critical needs of the National Park System.
        At a time when our country is at war, America's national parks
    provide a priceless opportunity to reconnect with our shared history
    and culture and awe-inspiring wilderness. From the hallowed grounds of
    Gettysburg National Military Park to the peaks of Wrangell-St. Elias
    National Park and Preserve. From breathtaking landscapes, like the
    scenic badlands of Theodore Roosevelt National Park, to crown jewels
    like Mesa Verde National Park, Bandelier National Monument, and other
    sites that preserve and interpret our culture. All of our 388 national
    park sites help define us, inspire us to continue to grow as a diverse
    nation, and, especially during difficult times, offer us solace.
        Now is the time to cherish these precious places, but sadly, many
    are in dire straits. While Congress has regularly increased funding,
    the budget of the National Park Service has failed to keep pace with
    need, crippling the ability of dedicated park staff to protect native
    plants and wildlife, and the cultural and historic artifacts within the
    parks, as well as meet the needs of millions of visitors.
        Examples of the dire need can be found across the National Park
    System: At Death Valley National Park, public education activities have
    been reduced by a third. Many of Mesa Verde's 600 archaeological sites
    containing prehistoric architecture have not been visited in 40 years
    due to inadequate staffing. These sites need to be assessed,
    documented, treated, and monitored, resulting in long-term preservation
    for research, interpretation and visitor education. Twenty-one Native
    American groups have a history in Yellowstone, yet only one percent of
    the park has been surveyed for Native American sites. Through natural
    erosion, land use, and vandalism, sites are being damaged before they
    can be studied. Great Smoky Mountains National Park doesn't have
    sufficient staff and funding to maintain the park's many historic
    structures, including historic log cabins and mills. White Sands
    National Monument needs additional staff to manage its museum
    collection, so that relics, such as Mogollon pottery shards, will be
    properly preserved. Mount Rainier National Park doesn't even have a
    volcanologist or geologist on staff to monitor the park's active
    volcano!
        Research in more than 50 parks has revealed that national parks are
    operating, on average, with only two-thirds of the needed funding-and
    annual shortfall of more than $600 million. A critical first step
    toward alleviating this shortfall is an increase of $178 million, a
    reasonable and manageable amount that would better enable the National
    Park Service to fulfill its mission and preserve our national parks
    unimpaired for future generations.
        The national parks inspire all who treasure the best of our nation
    to stand up as stewards for their protection. Please support a $178-
    million increase for our national parks. Because there's just too much
    to lose.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of Americans for Our Heritage and Recreation

                                    REQUEST

      --Full funding of the Interior Appropriation's Conservation Trust
            Fund (also known as the Conservation Spending Category) at its
            $1.56 billion level;
      --Funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund's stateside
            program at no less than $200 million; and
      --Funding for the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program at no
            less than $50 million.
        Americans for Our Heritage and Recreation is a broad and diverse
    organization representing more than 1,000 park and recreation
    associations, state and local elected and non-elected officials,
    conservation and wilderness proponents, the outdoor recreation and
    sporting goods industries, wildlife enthusiasts, smart growth
    champions, urban parks groups, historic preservationists, land trust
    leaders, the youth sports community, and civic groups.
        The organization works to communicate to policy makers at all
    levels of government the value of parks and recreation areas made
    possible by the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the need for
    support of these sites. AHR mobilizes this national coalition through
    its extensive grassroots communications network, employing regional and
    state leaders to coordinate an integrated public education campaign.
        AHR is committed to permanent full funding for the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund (LWCF), with an equitable allocation of funds between
    its federal and state matching grants programs. In addition, AHR
    supports a revived and substantially funded Urban Park and Recreation
    Recovery program (UPARR). We believe the Conservation Trust Fund,
    passed by Congress in 2000, is a significant short-term commitment.
    Accordingly, AHR supports full funding of this program in fiscal year
    2004 at its $1.56 billion level.
        The organization recognizes the original intent of LWCF as a long-
    term investment of proceeds from sales of non-renewable resources to
    acquire land and water within our nation's national parks, forests,
    wildlife refuges, and other public lands, and to enhance recreation
    opportunities at the state and community levels. That is why AHR
    supports the use of LWCF funds for these purposes but not for programs
    outside of its legislative mandate. We also ask the Senate
    Appropriators to follow the President's lead in fiscal year 2004 by
    protecting the traditional priority of stateside LWCF funds for
    accessible public recreation enhancement.
        In asking for your leadership, we believe:
      --LWCF and UPARR are programs that return conservation and recreation
            funds to states and local communities.--LWCF has been
            responsible for more than 38,000 community parks that reflect
            local concerns and needs. UPARR has been integral to a healthy
            and safe urban community life through funding municipal parks
            and creating urban soccer, baseball, and football fields.
            Collectively, these resources are nationally important.
      --LWCF and UPARR encourage and promote healthy lifestyles, an area of
            growing concern in our country.--Five chronic diseases--heart
            disease, cancers, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary
            diseases, and diabetes--account for more than two-thirds of all
            deaths and three-fourths of the $1 trillion spent on health
            care annually. Research is clear that aggressive health
            promotion, especially with regard to daily physical activity,
            can substantially alter the epidemic brought on by current
            trends in these chronic diseases. If funded at appropriate
            levels, LWCF and UPARR can continue to be instrumental in
            helping local communities develop close-to-home recreation that
            can serve as venues for physical activity.
      --LWCF and UPARR promote smart growth and livable communities.--LWCF
            and UPARR are a means to assist intelligent, planned growth,
            and to curb the detrimental effects of sprawl by protecting
            lands outside the borders of the city, and making efficient and
            attractive use of open space within it. LWCF and UPARR empower
            states and municipalities to accomplish these objectives
            through leverage by partnering of federal, state, and local
            funds.
      --LWCF and UPARR are critical resources for providing recreation
            places for America's kids.--LWCF has helped communities create
            more than 7,000 soccer and football fields, 6,000 baseball
            fields, and thousands of other recreation centers. UPARR
            provides recreation centers for children in the critical 3 p.m.
            to 6 p.m. time frame, providing learning environments where
            children are tutored and have access to mentors.
        Parks and recreation areas funded through LWCF and UPARR are
    integral components of community life for millions of Americans
    nationwide. They provide venues for everything from hiking and biking,
    to picnicking and playing ball. They serve as places for people to
    gather, gain strength, and affirm their faith in America's core values.
        The broad range of groups that comprise AHR evinces the
    enthusiastic support for LWCF and UPARR across the country. Fully
    funding the Conservation Trust Fund, with LWCF at no less than $200
    million and UPARR at no less than $50 million, will demonstrate to the
    American people that Congress recognizes the important role these
    programs have played in ensuring that parks and recreation centers will
    always be there. This appropriation, coupled with adequate funding for
    LWCF's federal program, will advance the goal of a national system of
    American parks. The time to make this commitment is now.

                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the American Hiking Society

        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, American Hiking
    Society represents 5,000 members and the 500,000 members of our 160
    affiliated organizations. As the national voice for America's hikers,
    American Hiking Society (AHS) promotes and protects foot trails and the
    hiking experience-and is a long time partner with the National Park
    Service (NPS), USDA Forest Service, and Bureau of Land Management
    (BLM). In order for Americans to enjoy the outdoors, we need protected
    open spaces and well-maintained trails and other recreation facilities.
    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 trail and recreation funding recommendations for
    fiscal year 2004:
        National Park Service:
        --Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance program.--$15 million
        --National Trails System.--$11 million
        --Geographic Information System Network for National Trails.--$1.25
                million
        USDA Forest Service:
        --Recreation Management, Heritage and Wilderness.--$320 million
        --Capital Improvement and Maintenance--Trails.--$100 million
        Bureau of Land Management:
        --Recreation Management.--$64 million
        Conservation Trust Fund.--$2.08 billion
        --Stateside Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).--$200 million
        --Federal LWCF, Ice Age National Scenic Trail, National Park
                Service.--$4 million
        --Federal LWCF, Appalachian National Scenic Trail, USDA Forest
                Service.--$8.3 million
        --Federal LWCF, Florida National Scenic Trail, USDA Forest
                Service.--$5 million
        --Federal LWCF, Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail, USDA Forest
                Service.--$5 million
        --Federal LWCF, Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail, BLM.--$1
                million
        --Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR).--$50 million

                         TRAILS AND RECREATION FUNDING

        Our public lands offer Americans outstanding outdoor recreation
    opportunities, especially hiking, to experience freedom and renewal
    while enjoying natural and cultural treasures. Hiking represents one of
    the fastest growing recreational activities--75 million Americans hike
    regularly or occasionally according to the Outdoor Industry
    Association's Participation Study 2001. However, many recreation
    opportunities are at risk, have deteriorated, or been lost due to
    funding shortages.
        Federal policy encouraging healthy lifestyles, promoting
    volunteerism, and backing partnerships to protect and maintain our
    public lands prompt and support funding increases for trail and
    recreation programs across the National Park Service, USDA Forest
    Service, and Bureau of Land Management. Targeted funding increases
    coupled with increased on-the-ground recreation staff, including trail
    and volunteer coordinators, is essential to providing and preserving
    hiking and other outdoor recreation opportunities nationwide.
        National Park Service.--The 17 national scenic and historic trails
    administered by the National Park Service require $11 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 2002, national trail volunteer organizations contributed more
    than $6.8 million in financial resources and over 662,429 volunteer
    hours with an estimated labor value of $10.6 million to the national
    scenic and historic trails (Partnership for the National Trails System
    data). Of this, the volunteer hours contributed to the 17 NPS
    administered trails represents approximately 11 percent of total
    volunteer hours contributed to the NPS. These volunteer contributions
    leverage federal funding significantly but 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. AHS endorses the specific figures submitted by the
    Partnership for the National Trails System.
        In addition, NPS requires $1.25 million to continue work on a
    Geographic Information System network for the national scenic and
    historic trails. This program, costing approximately $9.8 million over
    five years, will provide accurate information to assist the public,
    trail managers, and other stakeholders in trail protection,
    development, maintenance, interpretation, and resource management. The
    project applies state-of-the-art technology to better administer and
    protect trail resources and landscapes and facilitates interagency
    coordination of staff, data, and resources.
        The NPS' Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance (RTCA) program
    requires $15 million to help communities manage and protect their
    recreational and natural resources. Despite the program's successes in
    coordinating over 200 projects annually, RTCA funding has remained
    relatively stagnant during the last decade and lagged well behind the
    rate of inflation. The program's declining real budget has caused large
    cuts to staff and therefore, to projects.
        With its strong focus on partnerships, RTCA is exceptionally cost
    efficient and effective. In fiscal year 2002, RTCA helped develop more
    than 1,200 trail miles, protect more than 850 river miles, and preserve
    nearly 18,000 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 revitalize inner-city communities. RTCA
    has experienced a dramatic increase in requests for assistance but is
    only able to assist half of all applicants. The Administration budget
    includes a much needed $1.5 million increase, but the program needs a
    total of $15 million to put staff closer to the people they serve, to
    replace the staff they lost in years of declining real budgets, and to
    better help communities meet local conservation needs.
        USDA Forest Service.--We strongly support increased funding for two
    major Forest Service programs-Recreation Management, Heritage, and
    Wilderness and Capital Improvement and Maintenance for trails. The
    current investment in Forest Service recreation falls far below the
    level needed to support the role recreation plays in the agency and
    economy, 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 over 75
    percent of the Gross Domestic Product generated from Forest Service
    land, yet only about 10 percent of the Forest Service budget goes to
    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 and/or poorly maintained
    recreation facilities; reduce the maintenance backlog; augment on-the-
    ground recreation staff; and more effectively utilize and support
    volunteers. Increased funding is especially crucial to the Recreation
    Agenda goals of reducing the $298 million recreation maintenance
    backlog 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 backlog for the NPS, we urge Congress to appropriate funds
    to address the Forest Service and BLM 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 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 2002, more than 90,700 volunteers
    contributed three million work-hours valued at $38 million to the
    Forest Service; 70 percent of this contribution supported recreation.
    These 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 12.7 million visits in 2001, increased
    funding is necessary to provide quality recreation experiences with
    minimal impact to the environment 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 totals over $118 million. Inadequately maintained
    trails suffer from excessive erosion, trail widening, and braiding.
    Many trails are in such disrepair that they require re-construction.
    Increasing the trails budget is crucial to enable the agency to begin
    to address this significant recreational infrastructure need, including
    projects such as bridge replacement or trail relocation.
        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.
        Bureau of Land Management.--BLM manages over 4,700 miles of
    national scenic, historic, and recreational trails as well as thousands
    of miles of multiple use trails. BLM requires increased funding to
    manage rapidly expanding recreational use while protecting natural and
    cultural resources, including the special areas managed under the
    National Landscape Conservation System. Outdoor recreation is an
    important 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 efforts, including the
    engagement of local communities; adapt to increasing visitor demands;
    and to manage off-highway vehicle usage more effectively. Recreation
    facilities are inadequate or often in poor condition, 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.
        Conservation Trust/Land and Water Conservation Fund.--AHS strongly
    supports federal Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) appropriations
    for the Appalachian, Ice Age, Florida, and Pacific Crest National
    Scenic Trails. Only one of the eight 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. We
    support $200 million for the stateside LWCF program. UPARR should be
    restored at the amount of $50 million, and the Conservation Trust Fund
    should be funded at its dedicated amount of $2.08 billion in fiscal
    year 2004.
        Fee Demo.--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 we urge the
    Subcommittee to continue to oppose any trail and recreation
    appropriations offsets with Fee Demo revenues. American Hiking is
    committed to working with Congress and the agencies on the proper role
    and application of recreation entrance/user fees.
        On June 7, 2003, AHS will coordinate the eleventh National Trails
    Day (NTD) to raise public awareness and appreciation for trails.
    Participants will gather at more than 2,000 NTD events nationwide.
    Thank you for considering our request. AHS members and outdoorspeople
    nationwide appreciate the subcommittee's support in the past and look
    forward to continued strong support.
                                     ______

                    Prepared Statement of Audubon of Florida

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, on behalf of Audubon of
    Florida, a strategic alliance of the National Audubon Society, Florida
    Audubon Society and 43 chapters and 40,000 members in the State of
    Florida, thank you for the opportunity to express to your Committee our
    recommendations for fiscal year 2004 funding of specific programs and
    projects at the Department of the Interior related to the restoration
    of America's Everglades.
        The Everglades ecosystem, from the Kissimmee River Valley in the
    north through Lake Okeechobee, the Everglades, Florida Bay, the Keys,
    and the coral reefs to the south, is a unique and world-renowned eco-
    region. The Everglades has been abused for more than 100 years. Its
    restoration is the most ambitious environmental challenge our nation
    has ever undertaken. Congress approved, and the State of Florida
    supports, the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) as a
    framework for changes to the Central and Southern Florida (C&SF)
    Project. CERP, along with Modified Water Deliveries and C-111 projects,
    are needed to restore, preserve, and protect the South Florida
    ecosystem, while providing for other water-related needs of the region
    consistent with restoration goals. We urge support for the following
    funding needs for fiscal year 2004:

       LAND ACQUISITION ASSISTANCE TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA--ZERO FUNDING

        The Administration has proposed to zero out this critical program
    that provides assistance to the State in purchasing lands needed for
    Everglades restoration at the worst possible time, when the State of
    Florida has run out of money for land acquisitions. The program was
    funded at $20 million in the President's request last year and needs to
    be significantly increased, not zeroed out. Now is not the time to cut
    land acquisition assistance when over 200,000 acres needed for the
    Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) remain to be acquired
    at an estimated cost of approximately $2 billion and real estate prices
    are escalating dramatically. Restoration options are being foreclosed
    in South Florida as the CERP footprint is being developed, and the
    State is out of money for its land acquisition program, leaving crucial
    lands at risk. National Park Service Land Acquisition Assistance to the
    State of Florida should be funded at $20 million.

                                SCIENCE FUNDING

        We urge the Committee to fund U.S. Geological Services and NPS
    Everglades science programs at least $15 million. The National Research
    Council's December, 2002 report on Everglades science indicated that
    recent funding for the Critical Ecosystem Studies Initiative (CESI) of
    $4 million is inadequate. CESI funding should be gradually restored to
    its previous levels of $12 million. In addition to CESI, adequate
    funding should also be provided to ongoing critical Everglades studies
    regarding the sheet flow of water across the Everglades, water quality,
    the levels of mercury and other contaminants, nutrient levels, and the
    complex interaction of groundwater and surface water in South Florida.
    On-going science and research are critical to the successful use of
    adaptive assessment. Applied research that directly supports
    implementation and monitoring of project effectiveness is vital to the
    success of the CERP.

                                  CERP FUNDING

        The Administration's request of $9 million for CERP implementation
    for Fish and Wildlife Service and NPS in fiscal year 2004 should be
    increased to $10 million. The functions and responsibilities of the
    recently closed Interior South Florida office were transferred to the
    Miami Office of the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force. We
    urge the Committee to provide $1 million additional funding to support
    these additional functions and responsibilities.

         MODIFIED WATERS DELIVERIES TO EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK PROJECT

        Funding for this project, which would return critical sheetflows of
    water to Everglades National Park and Florida Bay, was cut by $300,000
    to $13 million. The Modified Water Deliveries project should be funded
    at $15 million, $2 million above the Administration's request. The
    budget must continue adequate funding for previously authorized
    programs such as this project 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 in 2005. This
    will require $15 million in fiscal year 2004 and an additional $15
    million in fiscal year 2005.

                   NO CONSTRUCTION FUNDING FOR PILOT PROJECTS

        While funding for the Pilot Projects comes under the purview of the
    Energy and Water Subcommittee, we feel it is appropriate to keep the
    Interior Subcommittee apprised of the urgent need to fund these
    projects since so much of the CERP is dependent on their results.
    Congress authorized Everglades restoration with the understanding that
    there were some unanswered questions regarding the technological and
    scientific challenges facing certain aspects of Everglades restoration,
    and that the plan would have to evolve and adapt over time to answer
    those questions. Pilot projects were designed to provide the technical
    detail needed to resolve some of the uncertainties surrounding the
    Aquifer Storage and Recovery, Seepage Management, and Lake Belt storage
    components of the CERP. Construction funding of $2.5 million is needed
    to begin these pilot projects that have been delayed for several years
    due to a lack of construction funding.
        The President committed on January 9, 2002 in the Comprehensive
    Everglades Restoration Plan Assurance of Project Benefits Agreement,
    ``To effectuate this agreement, the Federal party [President of the
    United States] agrees [t]o include within the President's budget
    submissions to the Congress requests for the Federal appropriations in
    the amount the President deems necessary to implement the Federal share
    of the Plan's implementation[.]'' We note that this funding was left
    out of the Administration's budget, and ask that Congress correct this
    apparent oversight in order to implement the plan with the requisite
    scientific rigor.
        We greatly appreciate this opportunity to provide the Committee
    with our views on the fiscal year 2004 Interior budget.

                                     ______

     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 2004 funding
    request of $1,000,000 for CCOS as part of a Federal match for the $9.1
    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
    $9.1 million for the field study. The federal government has
    contributed $3,730,000 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
    $6.25 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 2004, 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 2004, 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 for your consideration of our requests.

                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of Citizens For Mojave National Park

        Mr. Chairman, the Citizens For Mojave National Park (CFMNP) would
    like to thank you for the opportunity to provide recommendations and
    comments on the fiscal year 2004 Department of the Interior and Related
    Agencies Appropriations bill. On behalf of the more than 500 members
    and supporters of CFMNP, an organization dedicated to protecting the
    natural and cultural resources of the Eastern Mojave Desert, I provide
    below our fiscal year 2004 funding recommendations for the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund projects and Conservation Trust Fund. Our top
    priorities include:
      --$450 million for Land and Water Conservation Fund federal land
            acquisition within the Conservation Trust Fund in fiscal year
            2004:
      --we specifically recommend $2 million for the National Park Service
            to fund Mojave National Preserve federal LWCF projects;
      --the Conservation Trust Fund should be funded at its dedicated
            amount of $2.08 million in fiscal year 2004.
        Adequate fund for the programs discussed below is vital to protect
    America's wild areas and environmental values, essential components of
    our American identity and our heritage. The land and our relationship
    with it infuse our history, our heroes, and our hearts. We hope to work
    with you to find the resolve and funding to protect those values that,
    like freedom itself, are a national birthright.
        The Mojave National Preserve, managed by the National Park Service,
    is a diverse ecosystem that contains sand dunes, Joshua tree forests,
    desert washes, dry lakes, and mile-high mountains. The landscape
    provides habitat to a wide variety of animals including bighorn sheep,
    cougars, mule deer, and the threatened desert tortoise. Numerous
    private inholdings exist within the National Preserve, some of which
    have proposed development by the owners in the past. As these
    inholdings become available for purchase it is essential that they be
    acquired for preservation to prevent development and critical habitat
    loss. The purchase of critical inholdings within the Mojave National
    Preserve is an ongoing project and we request funding of $2,000,000 for
    fiscal year 2004. Funding will be used to secure the most urgent
    properties first.
        In conclusion, it is important to our high desert communities that
    willing sellers have an avenue with which to sell their inholding
    properties within the Mojave National Preserve. This relatively new
    national preserve is a great tourism attraction in our county and
    brings in thousands of dollars of income to our desert communities each
    year. Please fund the Land and Water Fund with $450 million for fiscal
    year 2004 and the Conservation Trust Fund at $2.08 billion. Thank you.

                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Civil War Preservation Trust

        On behalf of the 43,000 members of the Civil War Preservation Trust
    (CWPT), I respectfully ask the Subcommittee's support for the $2
    million requested in President Bush's fiscal year 2004 Budget for Civil
    War battlefield preservation matching grants. The request is included
    in the Federal side of the National Park Service's land acquisition
    appropriations account financed from the Land and Water Conservation
    Fund.
        In fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2002, Congress allocated a
    total of $19 million for Civil War battlefield preservation matching
    grants. Most of the funding has already been put to good use, saving
    more than 10,000 acres of key endangered battlefields in 14 states.
    CWPT has met with Subcommittee Majority and Minority staff to provide
    them with specific information demonstrating these results and
    contrasting them to the costly legislative taking at the Manassas,
    Virginia, battlefield in 1988.
        However, despite these accomplishments, much more needs to be done
    if our children and grandchildren are to have the opportunity to walk
    these precious and threatened historic resources.
        For this reason, Congress late last year authorized a total of $50
    million for Civil War battlefield preservation matching grants between
    fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2008. The bill, which received broad
    bipartisan support, was signed into law by President Bush on December
    17, 2002 (Public Law 107-359). These Federal grants must be matched on
    a one-to-one basis by the Government's partners in state and local
    governments and the private sector.
        The grants will be administered on a competitive basis through the
    American Battlefield Protection Program, an arm of the National Park
    Service. The program will employ ranking criteria developed by the 1993
    Congressionally established Civil War Sites Advisory Commission, on
    which House Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee
    Chairman Charles Taylor served.
        I should also emphasize that none of the matching grants will go to
    finance Civil War Preservation Trust or other non-Federal staff or
    overhead. All the funding will be directly used to protect America's
    historic battlefields.
        The President's $2 million request will build on the success of the
    fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2002 funding and last year's historic
    authorization legislation. It is an excellent example of sensible,
    cost-effective public/private land conservation.
        In addition, it will complement the ``Preserve America'' initiative
    announced by the First Lady on March 3, 2003. This initiative is
    intended to bring history alive for all Americans.
        The President's fiscal year 2004 request features:
      --cooperative Federal partnerships with state and local governments
            and the private sector;
      --acquisition of lands and interests in lands from willing sellers
            only, outside the boundaries of National Park System units
            (thus, not adding to the Park Service's backlog of deferred
            maintenance);
      --highly targeted funding using matching grants and the already
            established, Congressionally sanctioned, priority list of Civil
            War battlefield sites recommended by the 1993 Commission (this
            is no ``save everything everywhere program''); and
      --most importantly, the opportunity to preserve historic resources
            that illuminate the past and tell us what it means to be
            Americans (resources that will be gone forever over the next 5-
            10 years if we do not act now).
        Mr. Chairman, the Civil War Preservation Trust is grateful for the
    past support Congress has given to the issue of battlefield
    preservation. We look forward to working with Subcommittee Members and
    staff to ensure that the momentum of past accomplishments is maintained
    in the coming year.
        In particular, our chairman, Paul Bryant, our vice-chairman, John
    Nau (who is also the chairman of the Advisory Council on Historic
    Preservation), and I are especially appreciative of Congressional
    support of Civil War battlefield preservation, and what the previous
    appropriations and the $2 million request for fiscal year 2004 have
    meant, and will mean, for the permanent protection of hallowed ground
    throughout the nation.
        Thank you for your consideration and your attention to this matter.

                                     ______

                    Prepared Statement of Friends of Acadia

        I am writing on behalf of Friends of Acadia to respectfully request
    $1,633,351,000 in operations for the National Park Service in the
    fiscal year 2004 Interior Appropriations bill. This represents an
    increase to the Park Service's operating budget by $102 million above
    the President's request and $178 million above the enacted fiscal year
    2003 level.
        Friends of Acadia is a nonprofit conservation organization located
    in Bar Harbor, Maine. The organization's mission is to preserve and
    protect the outstanding natural beauty, ecological vitality, and
    cultural distinctiveness of Acadia National Park and its surrounding
    communities. Friends has approximately 4,000 members in Maine and 32
    other states who share a common love for the park, Maine's most visited
    natural destination.
        Two years ago, a business plan was completed for Acadia under the
    national Business Planning Initiative, a program started by the
    National Parks Conservation Association in conjunction with the
    National Park Service and several private foundations. On average,
    business plans completed at national parks across the country showed a
    32 percent annual operational funding shortfall ($600 million overall).
    At Acadia, the situation was much worse--a 53 percent or $7.3 million
    annual operating funding shortfall.
        Despite the best efforts of Acadia National Park staff, these
    operating funding shortfalls limit the Park Service's ability to fully
    manage park resources and serve the three million visitors who come to
    the park each year. Some examples:
      --The park's complex, 115-mile boundary and miles of roads and trails
            are not adequately patrolled, resulting in resource damage from
            illegal snowmobile and all-terrain vehicle use, illegal trail
            cutting, and poaching.
      --Acadia National Park owns or holds conservation easements on more
            than 70 coastal Maine islands. Due to operational funding
            shortfalls, park staff is unable to routinely monitor and
            protect important archaeological sites on these islands.
      --A pair of Civil War-era dueling pistols and museum artifacts that
            are centuries old sit in boxes at park headquarters, awaiting
            cataloging and preservation with more than a million other
            objects because there is not enough funding to do the job.
      --Over the next few years, Acadia will be restoring the natural and
            cultural environments of the Park's campgrounds (i.e.
            revegetate social trails, repair water and road systems, etc.),
            yet these improvements are at risk if operational dollars are
            not available to maintain them.
        Acadia is fortunate to have received several operating funding
    increases in recent years, and we thank you for your leadership in
    securing these crucial operating dollars. Unfortunately, however, the
    National Park Service operating budget, including Acadia, has failed to
    keep pace with the increasing demands being placed on our parks.
        Friends of Acadia recognizes that in these difficult times, there
    are many needs competing for limited funding. Our national parks,
    especially Acadia, represent an important quiet refuge for American
    citizens, and they help protect much of our natural and cultural
    heritage. We support a $178 million increase in the National Park
    Service operations over the fiscal year 2003 enacted level because we
    feel that it demonstrates long-term Congressional commitment to
    preserving the National Parks while preventing greater costs in the
    future to repair degraded national assets.
        Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of Friends of Great Smoky Mountains National Park

        As you prepare the fiscal year 2004 Interior Appropriations bill,
    Friends of Great Smoky Mountains National Park respectfully requests
    your support for $1,633,351,000 in operations for the National Park
    Service, an increase to the Park Service's operating budget of $102
    million above the President's request, $178 million above the enacted
    fiscal year 2003 level.
        We thank you for your leadership and commitment to our national
    parks, and appreciate the increase of $98 million that the Committee
    provided for park operations during the fiscal year 2003 appropriations
    process. As you know, unfortunately, this funding increase was
    significantly reduced in the final fiscal year 2003 figures.
        While the National Park Service's operating budget has increased in
    recent years, it has failed to keep pace with the increasing demands
    being placed on our parks. The Park Service operating budget is
    critical to protecting park resources and providing visitor services
    for the nearly 300 million people who visit our national parks
    annually.
        These funding shortfalls are a source of significant concern for
    Great Smoky Mountains National Park, the most popular national park in
    the country. This is especially true for the park's law enforcement
    program, which experiences one of the heaviest law enforcement
    workloads in the system. The park is also impacted by rapid
    development, intense visitation, and special events conducted in
    gateway communities. Over the years, the park's ability to sustain its
    law enforcement program has steadily eroded, resulting in a
    consolidation of districts, a reduction in law enforcement supervisory
    positions, and elimination of the park's dedicated backcountry patrol
    function. Even with a more streamlined organizational structure, at
    current levels, the Division needs an additional $532,000 to sustain
    currently approved positions on a year-round basis. To make ends meet,
    the Division has had to lapse a large number of positions for sustained
    periods and will have to do so for the foreseeable future. The safety
    and well being of remaining staff--and visitors--are compromised.
        Additional funding shortfalls have been identified in other aspects
    of the park's operations--from preventative maintenance to historic
    preservation. Similar stories can be told about other units of the
    National Park System ranging from Glacier National Park in Montana to
    Theodore Roosevelt National Park in North Dakota and many more. While
    we welcome line-item appropriations to address law enforcement and
    other operating needs in the Smokies and other specific parks, we
    realize that the funding problem affects the entire park system and
    that it requires a more comprehensive solution.
        By increasing operating dollars for the National Park Service,
    Congress can take a critical step toward providing Great Smoky
    Mountains National Park and the other 387 units of the National Park
    System the funding they need and deserve. An increase of $178 million
    in the parks' operating budgets this year represents a reasonable and
    manageable amount, and it signifies a wise investment to protect these
    priceless assets. It is critical to protect our national treasures at a
    time when their values and resources are so greatly needed by the
    American public.
        We thank you again for your support for our national parks, and we
    appreciate your continuing attention to this important matter.

                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Grand Canyon National Park Foundation

        As you prepare the fiscal year 2004 Interior Appropriations bill,
    we respectfully request $1,633,351,000 in operations for the National
    Park Service, an increase to the Park Service's operating budget by
    $102 million above the president's request, $178 million above the
    enacted fiscal year 2003 level.
        We thank you for your leadership and commitment to our national
    parks, and appreciate the increase of $98 million the Committee
    provided for park operations in its bill during the fiscal year 2003
    appropriation process. As you know, unfortunately, this funding
    increase was significantly reduced in the final 2003 omnibus
    appropriations act.
        While the National Park Service's operating budget has increased in
    recent years, it has failed to keep pace with the increasing demands
    being placed on our national parks. The Park Service operating budget
    is critical to protecting park resources and providing visitor services
    to the nearly 300 million visitors to our national parks annually.
        In Grand Canyon National Park, the operations budget has remained
    relatively flat over recent years. A Business Plan Initiative study
    conducted for the park last summer measured $8,500,000 as its annual
    operating budgetary shortfall. This limits the park's ability to
    provide transit needs in one of the world's most popular national
    parks. It limits the park's staff ability to manage and protect the
    endangered California condor. It limits the park's ability to defend
    remote backcountry canyons from the encroachment of nonnative plants
    like the widely spreading, water hungry tamarisk. Increased operating
    dollars for the Park Service represent a critical step toward providing
    Grand Canyon National Park and the other 387 units of the National Park
    System the needed funding to survive and meet the needs of
    constituents.
        An increase of $178 million in the parks' operating budgets this
    year represents a reasonable and manageable amount, and is a small
    price to pay to protect these priceless assets. While we recognize that
    our nation is faced with many important funding needs during these
    challenging times, shortchanging the Park Service's operating budget
    now will only result in escalating costs in the future.
        Americans are unified in supporting our national parks. On behalf
    of the Grand Canyon, and all our national parks, we urge your support
    so that current and future generations will enjoy these irreplaceable
    national treasures.

                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the International Association of Fish and
                               Wildlife Agencies

                          NATIONAL PARK SERVICE (NPS)

    Natural Resource Challenge
        The Association has previously raised serious concerns regarding
    the conduct and products of the National Resources challenge which
    National Park Service has not address to our satisfaction. Therefore,
    the Association can no longer support funding under the Natural
    Resource Challenge until the Association's concerns are adequately
    addressed. Despite repeated requests described below, to date we remain
    unable to ascertain what has actually been accomplished with the
    previous four years' expenditures in this program. We supported this
    program when it was established in fiscal year 2000 as a five-year
    effort ``to allow critical conduct of scientific inventory,
    preservation, protection and management activities, thus bringing the
    parks current data and other tools necessary to identify and address
    management needs'' by the end of fiscal year 2004. In fiscal year 2001,
    the Association continued to support the program but urged Congress
    request status reports to assess NPS' progress in meeting the original
    goals. The Association did not support funding increases requested in
    fiscal year 2002, the third year of the program, due to concerns
    regarding the conduct and lack of accountability in reaching identified
    products. The fiscal year 2002 budget stated ``there are nearly $470
    million in unfunded natural resource project needs identified in
    Resource Management Plans'' [p.41] and claimed that ``the percentage of
    the basic inventory needs completed has increased from 20 percent to
    approximately 40 percent by the end of fiscal year 2002 . . .'' [p.
    102]. Despite these statements, no accounting of the needs and products
    are provided. Thus, in fiscal year 2003 the Association refused to
    support any funding, noting it was the fourth year NPS requested
    significant increases, originally established as a five-year program.
    The NPS provided an Annual Performance Plan section in the fiscal year
    2002 budget and each year provided reports to Congress consisting of
    general overviews with few specific examples. The NPS has yet to list
    the items for which funding has been received each year and the status
    of completing the previously identified project and inventory needs.
        The fiscal year 2004 budget request is the fifth year of the five-
    year program. With the requested $8.5 million increase, the fiscal year
    2004 NPS budget includes a total of $76 million for the Natural
    Resource Challenge. The Association finds that it cannot support
    funding for this program until a clear presentation of the status of
    projects is available, as repeatedly requested, along with specific
    information on the natural resource information needs. Some of the
    fiscal year 2004 budget documents state the program is ``designed to
    protect native species and habitats through resource management and
    performance measures'' and that the fiscal year 2004 ``increase will
    focus on monitoring resources.'' Specifics in the fiscal year 2004
    budget indicate the increases will be used ``to establish 25 of 32
    monitoring networks that track the vital signs of the health of the
    national parks.'' Without the requested program specifics, we interpret
    from the above that considerable increases in staffing has occurred
    rather than actual data acquisition as justified at the program's
    inception: ``critical conduct of scientific inventory, preservation,
    protection and management activities, thus bringing the parks current
    data and other tools necessary to identify and address management
    needs'' by the end of fiscal year 2004.
        The Association is also concerned that projects have been developed
    without consultation with the State fish and wildlife agencies. While
    NPS may have exclusive jurisdiction within some units of the park
    system, the state fish and wildlife agency(s) authority overlays many
    park units. Furthermore, fish and wildlife move across boundaries.
    Thus, any inventory and monitoring efforts should be fully coordinated
    with the states prior to the selection, development, design, and during
    the conduct of the projects.
        The Association urges the NPS to coordinate closely with the
    respective state fish and wildlife agencies so that programs and
    activities do not compromise State jurisdictional authorities for fish
    and resident wildlife and to facilitate the cooperative design and
    conduct of research and management programs. Collaborative efforts
    between the NPS and the state fish and wildlife agencies play a
    critical role in achieving land and resource objectives for species and
    related resources. We are aware of numerous projects that have been
    conducted without appropriate coordination with the state to use
    current research techniques or collect useful information. The
    Association further recommends that funds be made available to the
    States to maximize discretion of the States in fish and wildlife data,
    monitoring, and management needs, wherever possible, instead of
    duplicating or authorizing conflicting programs.

    Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Units (CESU)
        The Association retains strong concerns about the establishment and
    continued expansion by NPS of the Cooperative Ecosystem Units and
    therefore requests that Congress direct the Secretary of the Department
    of the Interior to clearly and explicitly identify the need for CESUs
    and articulate the distinction between these entities and the Fish and
    Wildlife Cooperative Units in the BRD of USGS. It is the Association's
    conclusion that, unless such a distinction can be clearly articulated
    and the need clearly identified, Congress should ultimately transfer
    all monies budgeted for the establishment and operation of CESUs be to
    the Biological Resources Division of the USGS. NPS has used Natural
    Resource Challenge monies to create 12 CESUs located in universities
    and intends to establish 5 more in fiscal year 2004. The purpose of the
    CESUs is to coordinate and conduct resource research within and
    adjacent to the park units and to cooperate in other agencies'
    research. The BRD was created and continues to be funded to serve as
    the primary research arm for the Department of the Interior bureaus.
    This research function was solidified with the transfer of the
    Cooperative Research Units from the FWS to BRD, establishing one
    research arm to prioritize and conduct quality, credible, and
    coordinated research on resources. However, the creation of and
    continued expansion of natural resources research activities in the
    CESUs, separately established within NPS, has led to duplication of
    effort among federal and state agencies, confusion among cooperators,
    and significant expenditures of limited resources. Because Congress
    intends that BRD be the research arm of the USDI, the Association urges
    Congress to direct the Secretary to undertake the appropriate analysis
    of the need for CESUs in the NPS.

    Cooperative Conservation Initiative (CCI) and Traditional Land and
            Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) State Grants Program
        The Association supports the fiscal year 2004 funding of $12.0
    million in the Cooperative Conservation Initiative for natural resource
    protection as part of the Challenge Cost Share program. The proposed
    CCI's intended goal is ``restoration, protection and enhancement of
    natural areas.'' We urge NPS to thoroughly consult with the states,
    including the State fish and wildlife agencies, to ensure that the goal
    of the grants is appropriately addressed in dispersing this $12
    million. We similarly urge that the additional $10 million funded in
    the traditional NPS Challenge Cost Share and Public Lands Volunteers
    program be dispersed through a coordinated consultation process with
    the states.

    Brucellosis
        A significant problem still exists with regard to brucellosis,
    which affects domestic livestock and other animals and is present in
    elk and bison in the Greater Yellowstone Area, located within the
    states of Wyoming, Montana and Idaho. The Association understands that
    NPS and the Fish and Wildlife Service intend again this year to
    contribute to a research program conducted by the Biological Resources
    Division of USGS to improve the vaccination program for brucellosis in
    elk and bison. This continuing need should clearly be carried as a
    budget item, rather than identified as a program that will be funded on
    an ``ability to pay'' basis by the several agencies. The Association
    strongly supports this research endeavor, but remains concerned about
    the level of cooperation with the involved states. We urge the
    commitment of these several Department of the Interior Bureaus to this
    project be affirmed in their respective budgets through some type of
    formal agreement, in full cooperation with the states involved.

                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Japanese American Citizens League

        On behalf of the Japanese Americans Citizens League, the nation's
    oldest and largest Asian Pacific American civil rights organization, I
    am writing to express our unqualified support for funding to continue a
    study of the Eagledale Ferry Dock site on Bainbridge Island, Washington
    (authorized under Public Law No. 107-363).
        As you may know, on March 30, 1942, a little over one month after
    Executive Order 9066 was signed, 227 men, women and children on
    Bainbridge Island were herded onto a ferry at the former Eagledale dock
    to begin their journey to internment camps. This community was the very
    first group of Japanese Americans in the United States to be forced
    from their homes to be interned. Only allowed to bring what they could
    carry or wear, they boarded the ferry ``Kehloken'' with their friends
    and neighbors watching, and said goodbye to Bainbridge Island,
    beginning a lonely journey with an unknown destination and fate.
        This tragic episode in is an important part of American history
    that must be preserved to ensure that the full and rich diversity of
    our history is represented on the public record. This site is the
    literal and symbolic starting point for the Minidoka Internment
    National Monument (ID) and the Manzanar National Historic Site (CA),
    two internment camps already designated by the National Park Service,
    and it should be preserved for future generations to learn about the
    experience of Japanese Americans during the war. Bainbridge Island is a
    short ferry ride from Seattle and the site would be within easy reach
    for those discovering or wanting to learn about this period in our
    nation's history.
        The National Park Service has already demonstrated its their
    commitment to this project by allocating initial funds of $25,000, and
    while we believe this is an excellent start, the entire study is
    estimated at $250,000. We would like to urge the committee to fully
    fund the National Park Service's budget for special resources studies
    with an addition of $150,000 for the Bainbridge Island study, above and
    beyond the $500,000 request in the NPS budget.
        The Bainbridge Island site is a tremendous opportunity to allow
    history to come to life outside the confines of a classroom. The story
    of this community will educate future generations about the courage of
    Americans--those who suffered sixty years ago by being removed from
    their homes and those who supported their friends as they left, in
    their absence and upon their return home.
        Continuing the special resources study is essential to tell this
    American story, and we respectfully urge the committee to fully fund
    the National Park Service's budget for special resources studies with
    an addition of $150,000 for the Bainbridge Island site. Thank you for
    your consideration.

                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

        The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources strongly supports
    efforts by Congress to continue the Land and Water Conservation Fund
    (LWCF) stateside program. We urge the Subcommittee to allocate $200
    million to the LWCF stateside program for fiscal year 2004. In
    addition, we request that you fund the Conservation Trust Fund (CARA
    Lite) at the dedicated amount of $2.08 billion.
        Over the last three years, the reinvigorated LWCF stateside program
    has helped fund over 50 state and local park and openspace projects
    across Minnesota. Historically the LWCF projects include state parks
    and historic sites, trails, wildlife management areas, public water
    accesses, scientific and natural areas, state forests, and other areas.
        A few recent examples of projects that benefited from the LWCF
    program are:
      --Lake Gervais Park, a county park in the suburbs of St. Paul
      --Split Rock Lighthouse State Park, a well known landmark on Lake
            Superior
      --Tansem Prairie, a state Scientific and Natural Area in Clay County
      --Maple Creek Trail, a nature/walking trail in Owatonna.
        These and many other projects were made possible by the
    availability of the stateside LWCF funds. These funds allow for the:
      --Acquisition of critical open space threatened by development
      --Renovation of outdated, unsafe facilities
      --Protection of high quality natural areas
      --Improved accessibility of parks and trails for people of all
            abilities
      --Provision of a wide variety of outdoor recreational opportunities.
        For our Spring 2003 grant round, preliminary requests for local
    park, trail and open space projects in Minnesota alone total over $65
    million. In addition to this figure, the backlog of state park and
    trail acquisition and renovation needs is in the tens of millions. The
    current LWCF Program is able to meet only a fraction of these needs.
        One of our most urgent needs in Minnesota is to protect open space
    in rapidly developing portions of the state, particularly in counties
    surrounding the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. As land prices
    accelerate, however, local government resources are inadequate to meet
    these rising needs. For example, one county seeking to acquire
    lakeshore and a high quality wooded area near the rapidly growing City
    of St. Cloud requires an initial investment of at least $2 million.
    While local officials have identified willing sellers, they will be
    hard-pressed to raise all this money locally, without outside
    assistance. For many years, the LWCF program has provided such
    assistance.
        State projects would also benefit from LWCF funds. The new Red
    River State Recreation Area, the scene of massive residential flooding
    several years ago, has been reclaimed as a state park in East Grand
    Forks. With the assistance of the LWCF program we anticipate the
    potential development of a new campground. Another project that could
    benefit from the LWCF program is expanding our camper cabins in 15
    state parks throughout the state. In addition, near the City of Granite
    Falls, we hope to acquire a native prairie area that is home to
    threatened plant and animal species.
        These projects offer just a few examples of how the stateside LWCF
    program benefits the citizens of Minnesota. Increasing the LWCF
    stateside funding level to $200 million in fiscal year 2004 will help
    us reach our goals. We believe that this funding level is consistent
    with the commitment made by Congress and the current Administration to
    the LWCF program.
        Thank you for the opportunity to offer these comments.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Conference of State Historic
                             Preservation Officers

                                   SHPOS.--MAKING PRESERVE AMERICA A REALITY THIS YEAR
                                      [Historic Preservation Fund Fiscal Year 2004]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year
                                                                           2003            2004         2004 budget
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    State Historic Preservation Offices:
        Core........................................................     $33,779,000     $50,000,000     $34,000,000
        Expedite project reviews....................................  ..............      10,000,000  ..............
        Local communities' preservation.............................  ..............      30,000,000  ..............
    Tribes..........................................................       3,000,000      10,000,000       3,000,000
    Save America's Treasures........................................      29,805,000      30,000,000      30,000,000
    NTHP Hist. Sites Fund...........................................       1,987,000  ..............  ..............
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          Totals....................................................      68,571,000     130,000,000      67,000,000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Preservation is a high priority for this Administration.--On March
    3, 2003, the First Lady announced the Preserve America \1\ initiative
    and the President issued Executive Order No. 13287 directing federal
    agencies to assess, preserve and use the historic resources in their
    control, particularly for heritage tourism.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ All quotes in this testimony come from the First Lady's March
    3, 2003, ``Preserve America'' speech available at the White House
    website.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Historic Preservation Fund Puts Preserve America into Practice.--
    The Historic Preservation Fund has for three decades put the Preserve
    America principles in practice by laying the foundation for the
    nation's historic preservation program. The fundamentals of historic
    preservation are finding historic places, nomination of significant
    places to the National Register, opening the door to localities to
    participate officially, protecting historic National Conference of
    State Historic Preservation Officers 2004 Historic Preservation Fund
    Testimony Interior Appropriations Subcommittee places from inadvertent
    harm by federal agencies, and supporting private investment in
    rehabilitation through the rehabilitation tax credit (over $2 billion
    annually). State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) deliver these
    programs to the local level on behalf of the Department of the
    Interior. Preserve America updates historic preservation program
    launched by the National Historic Preservation Act (16 USC 470) in
    1966.
        Although the Administration recommended a reduced level of funding
    for the State Historic Preservation Offices for 2004, it is obvious
    from his Preserve America initiative that the President strongly
    supports historic preservation and the kind of federal/State/local
    partnership program the SHPOs administer. The cornerstone of the 2003
    Preserve America program is cooperation among federal, State and local
    governments to identify and use cultural resources for economic
    development, a function SHPOs have been performing since the passage of
    the National Historic Preservation Act in 1966. We hope the Interior
    Appropriations Subcommittee will use the 2004 Historic Preservation
    Fund appropriation to make the SHPO programs full partners in Preserve
    America.
        ``Our land is the foundation upon which the American story is
    written. Our history is rooted in buildings, parks and towns.''
        Congress: Make Preserve America a 2004 Reality for All Americans.--
    The National Conference of SHPOs request for fiscal year 2004 will make
    Preserve America a reality including funding for tribal grants and Save
    America's Treasures. The purpose of this testimony is to explain the
    need for a $50,000,000 withdrawal from the Historic Preservation Fund
    for the core preservation programs run by SHPOs. The First Lady said on
    March third, ``America is blessed with historic architecture,
    landscapes, and communities, everyone [emphasis added] tells a story. .
    . . But to prepare for the future, we must remember our history.''
    Before you can tell the story, you have to know the story which means
    research and study. An increase in core program funding will
    dramatically increase SHPOs' historic site inventory work, publication
    of results, and entry of the data on to computerized geographic
    information systems.
        Historic site research brings the past to life. Owners who want
    recognition for their stories look to the National Register to confirm
    the significance of their properties. Funding the core program at
    $50,000,000 will give the SHPOffices the resources to prepare
    nominations (which low funding has eliminated) and to help and train
    private citizens volunteering to prepare nominations.
        ``The second goal of Preserve America is to support community
    efforts to restore cultural resources for heritage tourism.''
        Heritage tourism is an important part of economic development for
    many communities. It relies on the authentic experience. SHPOs'
    historic site surveys and National Register nominations provide the
    facts upon which heritage tourism programs are built. $50,000,000 for
    States' core programs will benefit heritage tourism by expanding the
    number of heritage sites to visit.
        ``Preserve America . . . will provide . . . greater support to
    protect and restore our nation's cultural . . . from monuments and
    buildings to landscapes and main streets.''
        Preserve America Involves Protection.--Protection is an important
    part of historic preservation. State Historic Preservation Offices
    protect historic places in several ways. First, recognition and common
    knowledge about historic places helps the public support preservation.
    Second, the SHPOs operate a volunteer program for local governments who
    decide to enact local ordinances and operate historic preservation
    programs. Core program funding at $50,000,000 will automatically
    increase the pass-through to local government partners from $3.4
    million to $5 million. Third, SHPOs review every federal project
    proposed in their State--that's a national total of 100,000 projects
    annually. SHPOs work with federal agencies and applicants to minimize
    adverse impacts on historic places. Protecting properties is a high
    priority for SHPOs. While cuts in the HPF have reduced or eliminated
    activity in other program areas, SHPOs have (until recent federal and
    state cuts) maintained protection activities. Every preservationist in
    America, relies on the SHPOs' work reviewing federal projects and
    persuading agencies to modify the scope to protect historic places when
    needed.''The President wants to continue his support and the
    preservation of our heritage through Preserve America. Today, President
    Bush signed an Executive Order . . . [which] directs federal agencies
    to inventory and promote greater use of historic sites in partnership
    with state, tribal, and local governments. Preserve America will
    provide more opportunities for preservation and increase tourism and
    economic development.''

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Fiscal year
      North Carolina response times   --------------------------------------
                                              2001                2002
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At a HPF Allocation of...........  $897,000..........  $747,000
    To help developers using historic  30 days...........  60 days
     tax credit.
    On National Register nominations.  3 months..........  7 months
    to local governments seeking       3 days............  3 weeks
     information.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Historic Preservation Fund Decisions Adversely Affect the Private
    Sector.--There are consequences when the Historic Preservation Fund is
    cut. Discretionary programs get cut first. As cuts go deeper, non-
    discretionary programs get cut too which means reductions in force.
    These cuts cost time and money to everyone who uses SHPO services. The
    impacts fall hardest on private business and federal projects. Reducing
    the resources to SHPOs has the same effect as narrowing the neck of a
    funnel--the flow is constrained. As an example, Wyoming's average
    response time for individual federal projects increased from 12 days in
    fiscal year 2001 to 18 days in fiscal year 2002 following the decline
    in their allocation from $680,000 to $569,000.
        These increases in response time affect applicants who need SHPO
    comments. Applicants for an oil and gas lease or for an Army Corps
    permit and developers borrowing money to invest in a historic
    rehabilitation project face increased carrying costs because of
    extended response times.
        The National Conference of SHPOs proposes a special $10,000,000
    withdrawal from the Historic Preservation Fund to focus exclusively on
    upgrading historic site surveys, inventory information and geographic
    information systems in areas of high potential for development and
    future federal agency activity. Historic preservation needs to stop
    being an obstacle to project planning and to streamline and expedite
    project reviews.
        Preserve America Through Private Investment and Economic
    Development.--America has seen a decade of private investment in
    historic preservation at a level of $2 billion a year. Investors have
    seen the potential in America's underused historic resources for
    productive, modern uses. The rehabilitation investment tax credit has
    provided the incentive for this voluntary commitment to America's
    historic downtowns and neighborhoods. State Historic Preservation
    Offices are the delivery system for developers and owners. Increasing
    the core funding for SHPOs to $50,000,000 will provide the resources
    for the time consuming, pre-construction technical assistance to advise
    on historic preservation alternatives. Equally important, an increase
    in core programs to $50,000,000 will provide resources to expedite
    National Register nomination processing. (National Register listing is
    a requirement for rehab tax credit eligibility.)
        ``Preserve America will promote historic and cultural preservation
    and encourage greater public appreciation of our national treasures.''
        ``Help Americans Volunteer for Preservation.''--Core funding of
    $50,000,000 for the State Historic Preservation Offices will mean a
    return of preservation education programs to help volunteers prepare
    National Register nominations, work toward local preservation
    ordinances, and prepare for heritage tourism. Further beneficiaries of
    public education will include federal agencies working to fulfill the
    mandates of the President's Executive Order 13278 whose offices are
    closer to a State capitol than to Washington.
        Preserve America and Preserving America's Beloved Landmarks.--The
    First Lady said, ``Many of our historic sites and monuments are
    deteriorating and need to be preserved.'' That is why the National
    Conference of SHPOs is proposing a special grant program to flow
    through the SHPOs to localities to provide matching, restoration grants
    for the landmarks that have meaning to ordinary American's. Montana's
    Treasure State Treasures Survey will identify what Montanans what they
    value from the past. While the companion Save America's Treasures is
    reserved for an elite category of properties that people in Washington
    see as nationally significant, the $30,000,000 for local landmarks will
    be dedicated to the places that everyday Americans value.
        Preserve America: , ``. . . what will we pass down to our
    children--what will their heritage be?''--SHPOs want to work with
    Congress and the First Lady to Preserve America.

                                     ______

       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 2004 Interior and Related Agencies appropriations bill. We
    appreciate the opportunity to share with you our priorities for funding
    and respectfully request the Committee consider these views as the
    fiscal year 2004 budget is shaped.

                        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 requests an increase of $178 million over the current
    fiscal year 2003 spending levels, $102 million above the president's
    request, for a total of $1,633,351,000 in fiscal year 2004 for the
    operation of the National Park System.
        NPCA greatly appreciates your leadership and commitment to our
    national parks, demonstrated in the increase of $98 million that the
    Committee provided for park operations in the fiscal year 2003 Interior
    appropriations process. As you know, this funding increase was
    unfortunately significantly reduced in the final 2003 omnibus
    appropriations act.
        As you know, park operational funding continues to lag behind the
    need. This situation is further aggravated by homeland security needs,
    which have put increased pressure on park budgets and staffing. For
    example, many park rangers have been reassigned to security detail at
    icon and border parks, leaving their visitor interpretation and
    resource protection duties unmet. In addition, National Park Service
    Director Fran Mainella recently stated that added security expenditures
    since the Code Orange alert are anticipated to cost the national parks
    an additional $23 million annually.
        While Congress has regularly increased the operating budget of the
    parks, research in more than 50 parks has shown that funding fails to
    keep pace with need. On average, the national parks are operating with
    only two-thirds of the needed funding--an annual shortfall of more than
    $600 million system-wide. An increase of $178 million in the national
    parks' operating budget this year represents a reasonable and
    manageable amount, and a critical step toward fulfilling the mission of
    the Park Service and protecting our national heritage.
        Just last month, Director Mainella testified to the House Interior
    Appropriations Subcommittee that, ``support of park operations is
    integral to fulfilling the mission of the National Park Service.'' As
    caretaker of some of our nation's most valued natural, cultural, and
    historic resources, the Park Service has a tremendous responsibility,
    managing 388 sites nationwide.

                        NPS NATURAL RESOURCES CHALLENGE

        NPCA strongly supports the National Park Service's Natural
    Resources Challenge(a successful multi-year program to preserve and
    protect the natural resources of the national parks. We request an
    increase of $20 million above enacted fiscal year 2003 level, $11.5
    million above the administration's request for this important program.

                  NATIONAL PARK SERVICE HISTORIC PRESERVATION

        Frederick Douglass National Historical Site, Washington, D.C.--$2
    million in fiscal year 2004 for historic preservation of this important
    home. Mr. Douglass' historic 1850s home in Anacostia is in need of
    immediate repair. The National Park Service lacks critical funding and
    staff to meet day-to-day needs and to protect Mr. Douglass' personal
    belongings and the integrity of the property. For example, $550,000 is
    needed to restore light-damaged photographs from the 19th century and
    to restore Mr. Douglass' treasured library collection. The site also
    needs funding to complete a Landscape Maintenance Plan and to hire
    archaeological expertise to inventory and protect the park's cultural
    and archaeological resources.

                     NATIONAL PARK SERVICE LAND ACQUISITION

        Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas.--$10 million in fiscal year
    2004, $6.6 million above the administration's request, to complete
    acquisition of land previously owned by timber companies within the
    1994 boundary expansion. Big Thicket National Preserve, often called
    the ``biological crossroads of North America,'' contains a unique mix
    of southeastern swamps, eastern deciduous forest, central plains, pine
    savannas, and dry sandhills. This acquisition is critical to protecting
    this unique area.
        Cedar Creek & Belle Grove National Historical Park, Virginia.--$2
    million in fiscal year 2004 to acquire land from willing sellers in
    this model partnership park dedicated in January 2003. Private
    landowners have expressed an interest in the National Park Service
    acquiring land in Cedar Creek & Belle Grove. $2 million is a reasonable
    amount to provide the Park Service a foundation for moving forward with
    serious discussions.
        Everglades Restoration, Florida.--$20 million in fiscal year 2004
    to provide assistance to the State of Florida in purchasing lands
    needed to restore the Everglades. The Comprehensive Everglades
    Restoration Plan (CERP) requires that more than 200,000 acres of land
    be purchased for water storage, flow and treatment. With the rising
    cost of real estate and increasing pressure to develop land in South
    Florida, it is critical that land acquisition remain on track.
        Fort Clatsop National Memorial, Oregon.--$8 million in fiscal year
    2004 to purchase from willing sellers a portion of the 1,500-acre
    expansion of the memorial. President Bush signed the Fort Clatsop
    National Memorial Expansion Act into law on August 21, 2002,
    authorizing the expansion. Acquiring this land is important step in
    preparation for the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial event to culminate at
    Fort Clatsop in November 2005. The Clatsop County Board of
    Commissioners and Governor of Oregon support this acquisition.
        Mojave National Preserve, California.--$2 million in fiscal year
    2004 to complete purchase of approximately 4,000-6,000 acres of the
    nearly 150,000 acres of privately held lands in the Preserve. We
    appreciate the $1 million provided by the Committee in fiscal year
    2003. $2 million in additional funds are needed in fiscal year 2004 to
    continue the purchase of sensitive lands within the boundary of the
    Mojave Preserve.
        Tumacacori National Historical Park, Arizona.--$3 million in fiscal
    year 2004 to acquire 310 acres. The Tumacacori National Historical Park
    Boundary Revision Act of 2001, signed into law by President Bush on
    August 21, 2002, expanded the boundaries of the park to protect
    portions of the original mission, historic orchards, and ancient
    irrigation systems that are extremely vulnerable to subdivision
    development.
        Obed Wild and Scenic River, Tennessee.--$1.5 million in fiscal year
    2004 to acquire approximately 1,000 acres of inholdings within the Obed
    Wild and Scenic River corridor in Tennessee. We appreciate the
    Committee including this request in the fiscal year 2003 House bill,
    which was not, as you know, included in the final conference. 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.
        Petrified Forest National Park, Arizona.--$5 million in fiscal year
    2004 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, archaeological,
    and scenic resources is important to their long-term protection.
        Valley Forge National Historical Park, Pennsylvania.--$10 million
    in fiscal year 2004, $5 million above the president's request. Of this
    amount, $6 million for acquisition of the Toll Brothers tract, and $4
    million for additional acquisition, potentially approximately 100 acres
    owned by St. Gabriel's School for Boys. Valley Forge preserves the
    history of the American Revolution through 190 historic structures and
    more than 600 archaeological sites, various wetlands, grasslands,
    woodlands, and wildlife, including more than 200 species of birds and
    several state-listed rare plants.

                       NATIONAL PARK SERVICE CONSTRUCTION

        Denali National Park, Alaska.--$750,000 in fiscal year 2004 to
    complete environmental reviews and compliance with all design and
    permitting requirements for the South Denali Nature Center. This
    funding was provided in the Senate fiscal year 2003 bill, but
    unfortunately, was not included in Conference. This funding will help
    to alleviate visitor pressure on the existing park infrastructure and
    to provide a new opportunity for visitors on the south side of Denali
    National Park. The State of Alaska and the Park Service are working
    cooperatively on a South Denali Nature Center to be sited in Denali
    State Park, near the border of the national park. The Nature Center
    will focus visitor attention to the alpine environment through
    interpretive programs and a trail system.

                          NATIONAL PARK SERVICE--OTHER

        Everglades Modified Waters Deliveries Project.--$15 million in
    fiscal year 2004 for the Modified Waters Deliveries Project, an
    important Everglades restoration project launched prior to CERP. This
    project would return critical sheetflows of water to Everglades
    National Park. $30 million over the next two years is needed to
    complete this project, so we recommend $15 million this year.
        Everglades Restoration Plan Funding.--$10 million in fiscal year
    2004 for the Department of Interior's Comprehensive Everglades
    Restoration Plan (CERP) funding. This important funding will enable the
    Park Service and other Interior agencies to carry out critical
    Everglades restoration projects.
        Everglades Science Funding.--$6 million in fiscal year 2004 for the
    Critical Ecosystem Studies Initiative (CESI), the Department of
    Interior's research program designed to help guide Everglades
    restoration planning and project designs. A December 2002 report of the
    National Research Council of the National Academies of Science found
    that $4 million is insufficient to allow CESI to meet pressing science
    needs of the restoration program.
        National Park Service Soundscape Program Office.--$6 million in
    fiscal year 2004 to hire contractors for research and development of
    air tour management plans in national parks. The National Park Air Tour
    Management Act of 2000 directed the Park Service to cooperate with the
    FAA on the development of air tour management plans in parks. While
    originally the Park Service and FAA anticipated that air tour operators
    would wish to fly over 55 parks, they have received applications for
    flights over more than 102 park units and require $6 million in fiscal
    year 2004 to meet its mandate on air tour management plan development.
        Tribal Historic Preservation Officers.--$11 million in fiscal year
    2004 through the Historic Preservation Fund to stabilize funding for
    all Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs) and to accommodate
    new THPOs at a base level funding of $275,000 per Tribe. Increased THPO
    funding will enable Tribes to achieve more timely compliance with
    federal, states, and tribal historic preservation laws. The THPO
    program represents a successful partnership; tribes match federal THPO
    dollars at least 3 to 1. Examples of partnerships include the Navajo
    National Historic Preservation Department working with the Park Service
    at Chaco Culture National Historic Site and at Canyon de Chelly
    National Park.

                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Partnership for the National Trails System

        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: The Partnership for
    the National Trails System appreciates your support over the past
    several years, through operations funding and earmarked Challenge Cost
    Share funds, for the national scenic and historic trails administered
    by the National Park Service. We 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 23 national scenic
    and historic trails for Fiscal year 2004 through these appropriations:
      --National Park Service.--$10.965 million for the administration of
            18 trails and for coordination of the long-distance trails
            program by the Washington Park Service office.
      --USDA Forest Service.--$3.07 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 million for the Continental Divide Trail,
            $500,000 for the Florida Trail and $865,000 for the Pacific
            Crest Trail.
      --Bureau of Land Management.--To administer the Iditarod National
            Historic Trail: $410,000, the Camino Real de Tierra Adentro
            National Historic Trail: $380,000, the Old Spanish National
            Historic Trail: $100,00 and $2.78 million to manage portions of
            9 trails administered by the Park Service or the Forest
            Service; $385,000 for the Iditarod Trail interpretive center
            feasibility study.
      --We ask that you appropriate $9 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 $4 million (approximately $1,326,000) for the
            other 17 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 the second year of 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, $5 million to acquire land for the Florida Trail,
            $3 million to acquire land for the Appalachian Trail in
            Georgia, Tennessee and Virginia;
      --To the Bureau of Land Management.--$1 million to acquire land for
            the Pacific Crest Trail, $2 million to acquire land for the
            Oregon Trail in Oregon, $500,000 to acquire land for the Juan
            Bautista de Anza Trail in Arizona;
      --To the Park Service.--$4 million to grant to the State of Wisconsin
            to match state funds to acquire land for the Ice Age Trail;
            $1.5 million to grant to the States of Wisconsin, Michigan and
            Ohio to match state funds to acquire land for the North Country
            Trail.

                             NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

        We request $1.253 million to fund the second year of a 5 year
    interagency effort to develop a consistent GIS for all 23 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 $10.965 million we request for Park Service operations includes
    increases for many of the trails to continue the progress and new
    initiatives made possible by the $975,000 funding increase provided for
    nine of the trails in fiscal year 2001. $124,000 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 $381,000 will enable the Park Service to
    begin managing the three new national historic trails--Ala Kahakai, El
    Camino Real de Tierra Adentro, and Old Spanish--the latter two
    administered collaboratively 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 $51,000 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.
        We request an increase of $316,000 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 $111,000 to expand cooperative interpretation
    with schools and Latino communities along the Juan Bautista de Anza
    Trail. An increase of $251,000 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 $402,000 increase we request for the interagency Salt Lake City
    Trails office will enable the Park Service to work with CALTRANS to
    mark the California and Pony Express Trails auto routes and to develop
    interpretive plans for wayside exhibits for these trails and the 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 $840,000
    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 $1,001,000 we request will enable the Park Service to expand
    the Geographic Information System (GIS) capability to more efficiently
    plan resource protection, trail construction and maintenance to correct
    unsafe conditions and better mark the 1,200 mile Ice Age Trail for
    users. The funds will also provide assistance to the Ice Age Park &
    Trail Foundation to better equip, train and support the volunteers who
    build and maintain the Ice Age Trail and manage its resources. Some of
    the funds will be used to develop an interpretive plan for the Trail.
        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 $8.98 million in Challenge
    Cost Share funding to the Park Service for fiscal year 2004 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
    $3.98 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 $3.07
    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 four
    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 and the Choctawahatchee River, adding about
    100 miles to the completed Florida Trail. The Partnership requests an
    additional $500,000 for trail construction in fiscal year 2004 by the
    Forest Service on these and other segments of the Florida Trail.
        The Continental Divide Trail Alliance, with Forest Service
    assistance and funding from the outdoor recreation industry, surveyed
    the entire 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 $1,050,000 to plan 383 miles of new trail
    and $1 million to build or reconstruct 114 miles of the Continental
    Divide Trail and 7 new trailheads in fiscal year 2004.
        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 $200,000 to
    continue the work of the fulltime Trail Manager and the lands team and
    $100,000 for Optimal Location route planning. We also request $865,000
    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 2004.

                           BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

        While the Bureau of Land Management has administrative authority
    only for the Iditarod, El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro, and the Old
    Spanish 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 2004
    $410,000 for the Iditarod National Historic Trail, $380,000 for El
    Camino Real de Tierra Adentro National Historic Trail, $100,000 for the
    Old Spanish National Historic Trail and $2,780,000, 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 $1
    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 and acquisition has begun in earnest along the
    Pacific Crest Trail. The requested funding for the Appalachian National
    Scenic Trail will help complete its protection in Tennessee, Georgia,
    and Virginia.
        The $2,500,000 requested for the Bureau of Land Management will
    help protect important cultural resources along the Juan Bautista de
    Anza National Historic Trail in Arizona and along the Oregon National
    Historic Trail in Oregon.
        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 more than $10 million to
    help conserve the resources of the Ice Age National Scenic Trail. With
    fiscal year 2000-2002 LWCF funding, matched more than 2:1 by State
    funds, Wisconsin has purchased 12 parcels and now has another 12
    parcels under appraisal or option to purchase. The requested $4 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.

             PRIVATE SECTOR SUPPORT FOR THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM

        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 2002 the trail organizations channeled 662,429
    hours of documented volunteer labor valued at $10,631,985 to help
    sustain the national scenic and historic trails. This is a 6.5 percent
    increase over the volunteer labor reported for 2001. The organizations
    also applied private sector contributions of $6,850,214 to benefit the
    trails. These contributions are documented in Attachment #1.

     ATTACHMENT 1.--CONTRIBUTIONS MADE IN 2002 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....................................         184,216      $2,956,667      $4,100,000
    Continental Divide Trail Society................................       \1\ 1,500          24,075  ..............
    Continental Divide Trail Alliance...............................          22,256         357,209         319,242
    Florida Trail Association.......................................          53,540         857,712         159,000
    Ice Age Park & Trail Foundation.................................          73,440       1,178,712         550,705
    Iditarod National Historic Trail, Inc...........................      \1\ 17,900         287,295      \1\ 75,000
    Heritage Trails/Amigos De Anza..................................             422           6,773  ..............
    Anza Trail Coalition of Arizona.................................           3,068          49,241  ..............
    Lewis & Clark Trail Heritage Foundation.........................      \1\ 40,000         642,000         313,395
    Mormon Trails Association.......................................           7,956         127,694      \1\ 20,068
    Iowa Mormon Trails Association..................................         \1\ 750          12,038       \1\ 1,000
    Nebraska Mormon Trails Association..............................             203           3,258           1,022
    Natchez Trace Trail Conference..................................           2,062          33,095  ..............
    National Pony Express Association...............................          33,168         532,346         215,472
    Pony Express Trail Association..................................           3,444          55,276          51,140
    Nez Perce Trail Foundation......................................           1,457          23,385           5,244
    North Country Trail Association.................................           5,986         577,575         195,413
    Old Spanish Trail Association...................................           5,697          91,726          23,222
    Oregon-California Trails Association............................          72,725       1,167,236         264,553
    Overmountain Victory Trail Association..........................           6,005          96,380          29,138
    Pacific Crest Trail Association.................................          44,100         707,805         395,600
    Potomac Trail Council...........................................       \1\ 4,800          77,040           1,700
    Santa Fe Trail Association......................................      \1\ 19,000         304,950          69,000
    Trail of Tears Association......................................          28,816         462,497          60,300
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          Totals....................................................         662,429      10,631,985       6,850,214
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Estimate.

                                   ATTACHMENT 2.--PARTNERSHIP FOR THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM REQUESTED FISCAL YEAR 2004 APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Fiscal year      Fiscal year
                                                        2003             2004         Fiscal year
                    Agency/Trail                   congressional    administration   2004 partners                           Project/programs possible with increased funding
                                                   appropriation       request          request
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    PARK SERVICE

    Ala Kahakai.................................         $181,000         $181,000         $181,000  Begin preparation of Comprehensive Management Plan for new trail;
    Appalachian.................................        1,041,000        1,044,000        1,044,000  Operations of NPS A.T. Park Office; $300,000 of the total supports volunteer-based trail
                                                                                                      maintenance and construction and land and resource management guided by ATC;
    Natchez Trace...............................           26,000           26,000          150,000  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..................................          200,000          200,000          351,000  Interpret more auto tour routes with CALTRANS; Enhance Four Trails GIS database;
    Ice Age.....................................          498,000          501,000        1,001,000  Trail corridor planning; Coordinate land acquisition by agency partners and Trail maintenance
                                                                                                      and resource management by IAP&TF; Develop Trail interpretive plan;
    Juan Bautista de Anza.......................          189,000          189,000          300,000  Coordination of Trail site protection, interpretation & development projects with local
                                                                                                      agencies & organizations; Outreach to schools and Latino communities;
    Lewis & Clark...............................        1,707,000        1,712,000        3,734,000  Planning, coordination & support for local Bicentennial projects and ``Corps II'';
    Mormon Pioneer..............................          127,000          127,000          128,000  Enhance Four Trails GIS database; Interpret additional auto tour routes;
    North Country...............................          547,000          547,000          840,000  Advance Trail construction, Trail route protection and support for volunteers and partners
                                                                                                      through regional trail centers, greater technical assistance and route planning;
    Old Spanish.................................  ...............  ...............          100,000  Collaborative administration with Bureau of Land Management;
    Oregon......................................          215,000          216,000          366,000  Update and upgrade Four Trails GIS database and mapping;
    Overmountain Victory........................          135,000          135,000          186,000  New route signs & interpretive exhibits; mapping Trail sites for protection inventory, and
                                                                                                      archaeology in Cherokee County, North Carolina;
    Pony Express................................          180,000          181,000          281,000  Develop Interpretive Plan for wayside exhibits for Pony Express and California trails;
    Potomac Heritage............................          198,000          198,000          250,000  Assistance to local agencies & organizations for planning & educational projects;
    Santa Fe....................................      \1\ 596,000      \1\ 603,000          919,000  Cultural resource preservation, design & distribute interpretive media with partners;
    Selma to Montgomery.........................          260,000          261,000          261,000  Comprehensive management plan developed and trail interpretation begun in collaboration with
                                                                                                      citizen support organizations & local agencies;
    Trail of Tears..............................          247,000          247,000          498,000  Preserve & interpret critical Trail sites & provide new visitor facilities with TOTA;
    NTS-Washington Office.......................          217,000          218,000          275,000  Program coordination and special projects funding.
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------
          National Trails System................        6,594,000        6,605,000       10,965,000  Total National Trails System operations funding.
                                                 ===================================================
    Challenge Cost Share........................    \2\ 6,980,000    \3\ 8,980,000        8,980,000  $5 M for Lewis & Clark; one-third of remaining $3.98 M for rest of National Trails System;
    Interagency GIS Project.....................    \4\ 1,000,000  ...............    \5\ 1,253,000  Development of GIS for National Trails;

                         BLM

    Iditarod Trail..............................          330,000          160,000          410,000  Coordination and support for collaborative management with other Federal agencies, Iditarod
                                                                                                      Trail organizations and State of Alaska; bridges and cabins;
    El Camino Real..............................          330,000          380,000          380,000  Collaborative administration and management with National Park Service;
    Old Spanish.................................  ...............          100,000          100,000  Collaborative administration and management with National Park Service;
    Continental Divide..........................          117,000          117,000          117,000  Marking 230 miles of CDT in Wyoming; Interagency management collaboration;
    Pacific Crest...............................          190,000           90,000           90,000  PCT maintenance in California; Interagency management collaboration;
    Juan Bautista de Anza.......................           80,000           80,000           80,000  Interpretive exhibits for Anza Trail at Painted Rock, Arizona;
    California..................................          136,000          151,000          151,000  California Trail resource inventories in Wyoming and California;
    Lewis & Clark...............................        1,642,000        1,937,000        1,937,000  Lewis & Clark Bicentennial preparations in Idaho and Montana;
    Mormon Pioneer..............................           94,000           94,000           94,000  ...............................................................................................
    Nez Perce...................................           33,000           33,000           33,000  Lewis & Clark Bicentennial preparations in Idaho and Montana;
    Oregon......................................          124,000          184,000          184,000  Interagency management collaboration;
    Pony Express................................           70,000           95,000           95,000  Archaeology at Little Sandy and Dry Sandy Pony Express Stations, Wyoming and marking 120 miles
                                                                                                      of Pony Express Trail in Nevada;
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------
          National Trails System................        3,146,000        3,421,000        3,671,000  Total National Trails System operations funding.
                                                 ===================================================
    Iditarod Trail..............................  ...............  ...............          385,000  Feasibility study for Iditarod Trail Interpretive/visitor Center;
    El Camino Real..............................          172,000  ...............  ...............  Developing Comprehensive Management Plan with Park Service;
    Construction of:
        California Trail Interpretive Center--NV        1,000,000  ...............        1,000,000  Continued funding for construction of California National Historic Trail interpretive center in
                                                                                                      Elko, Nevada;
        Pacific Crest Trail.....................          100,000  ...............          100,000  Annual maintenance of sections of the Pacific Crest Trail on BLM land.

                   FOREST SERVICE

    Continental Divide..........................          655,000  ...............        1,350,000  Continued support for full administrative responsibility and leadership for consistent
                                                                                                      interagency collaboration for each trail; support for consistent management with trail
                                                                                                      organization and local agency partners; trail brochures, signs, project planning etc.; Also
                                                                                                      $1,050,140 to plan 383 new miles of CDT; $200,000 to support work of full-time Trail
                                                                                                      administrator and $100,000 for Optimal Location Planning for PCT and $70,000 to increase Trail
                                                                                                      maintenance by volunteers coordinated by PCTA; $750,000 to continue collaborative work with
                                                                                                      Florida Trail Association to inventory 500 miles of the Florida Trail and continue development
                                                                                                      of Trail GIS;
    Florida.....................................          556,000  ...............          750,000
    Pacific Crest...............................          735,000  ...............          620,000
    Nez Perce Trails............................          536,000  ...............          350,000
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------
          Total.................................    \6\ 2,482,000        1,000,000        3,070,000
                                                 ===================================================
    Appalachian, North Country, Ice Age,                  746,000          350,000          750,000  Improved trail maintenance, marking, interpretation, archaeological studies, historic site
     Iditarod , California, Juan Bautista de                                                          protection and trailhead facilities for trail segments in National Forests; $200,000 to
     Anza, Lewis & Clark, Oregon, Mormon                                                              address deferred maintenance, make improvements and provide liaison for collaborative
     Pioneer, Overmountain Victory, Pony                                                              management of the North Country Trail with National Park Service;
     Express, Santa Fe, Trail of Tears.
    Continental Divide Trail....................          994,000  ...............        1,000,000  Trail construction projects along the Continental Divide Trail: 90 miles of new trail, 24 miles
                                                                                                      of trail reconstruction and 7 new Trailheads;
    Florida Trail...............................          497,000  ...............          500,000  Trail construction projects in Eglin Air Force Base, Ocala National Forest, Big Cypress
                                                                                                      National Preserve and along the Choctawahatchee River;
    Pacific Crest Trail.........................  ...............  ...............          865,000  Trail construction projects along the Pacific Crest Trail, including reconstruction of fire and
                                                                                                      storm damaged bridges and structures in California and Washington; Fabrication and
                                                                                                      installation of roadside interpretive signs at Trail highway crossings;
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------
          National Trails System................        4,719,000        1,350,000        6,185,000  Total: National Trails System funding.
                                                 ===================================================
    Nat. Forest System Trail Maintenance........       36,664,000  ...............  ...............  Trail maintenance throughout the National Forest System.
    Nat. Forest System Trail Construction.......       33,015,000  ...............  ...............  New trail construction and trail re-construction throughout the National Forest System.
    Nat. Forest System Capital Improvement &           69,679,000  ...............      100,000,000  Trail maintenance and new trail construction throughout the National Forest System.
     Maintenance-- Trails.

                   LWCF FOR TRAILS

    LWCF grant--FS Pacific Crest................        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--FS Florida......................        3,000,000  ...............        5,000,000  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--FS Appalachian..................        7,600,000  ...............        8,300,000  The total supports three USDA-Forest Service acquisition projects in the Georgia Mountains,
                                                                                                      Tennessee Mountains, and Virginia Mountains. Of that total, about $3 million would acquire
                                                                                                      Appalachian Trail-related tracts; the balance would acquire other significant inholdings
                                                                                                      within the affected forests.
    LWCF grant Ice Age--Wisconsin \7\...........        2,000,000  ...............        4,000,000  Assistance provided to State of Wisconsin to protect threatened Ice Age Trail corridor and
                                                                                                      connect trail segments across private land in Dane, Chippewa, Columbia, Marathon, Polk,
                                                                                                      Portage, Walworth, Washington, Waupaca and Waushara Counties. NPS will purchase one
                                                                                                      interpretive site for the Ice Age Trail.
    LWCF grant--NPS North Country--WI, MI \8\...  ...............  ...............        1,500,000  Assistance provided to States of Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio to acquire critical links in the
                                                                                                      North Country Trail;
    LWCF grant--BLM Pacific Crest...............  ...............  ...............        1,000,000  BLM acquisition of land along the Pacific Crest Trail in California.
    LWCF grant--BLM Oregon......................  ...............        2,000,000        2,000,000  BLM acquisition of land along the Sandy River and the Snake River Rim in Oregon.
    LWCF grant--BLM Juan Bautista de Anza.......          800,000          500,000          500,000  BLM acquisition of land at Sears Point Area of Critical Concern along the Juan Bautista de Anza
                                                                                                      Trail in Arizona.
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------
          Total.................................       16,400,000        2,500,000       27,300,000  ...............................................................................................
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Includes $261,000 for operations of Santa Fe Park Service office, not related to the Santa Fe Trail.
    \2\ Includes $5 million 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: $2.5 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.
    \7\ This would be a grant to the State of Wisconsin to be matched at least 1:1.
    \8\ These would be grants to the States of Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio to be matched at least 1:1.

                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the National Recreation and Park Association

        This statement is to share with the Subcommittee the views of the
    National Recreation and Park Association on fiscal year 2004
    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 to meet the
            highest land conservation priorities of eligible federal land
            systems. Funds should be allocated to the states as authorized
            by current law.
      --$50,000,000 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, through
            Federal Lands to Parks, Rivers, Trails, and Conservation (RTC)
            and other programs to collaborate with state and local
            recreation and park agencies and others on such matters as
            conservation and use of excess surplus federal real property
            and rivers and trails.
      --Sufficient funds to support sustainable public recreation use of
            national forests, parks, refuges, and public lands.
        These recommendations, if enacted, will help address the national
    imperative to improve physical and mental health, sustain the
    environment, and stimulate economic growth.

               LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND STATE ASSISTANCE

        We commend the Subcommittee's actions to build and sustain fiscal
    partnerships with state and local recreation and park authorities. We
    share with many legislators and advocates the disappointment that the
    fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations act ultimately resulted in a
    reduction of some $80 million in LWCF state assistance and the urban
    park programs. Our request for fiscal year 2004 equals the
    Administration's LWCF state assistance request for fiscal year 2003--
    $200,000,000--absent restrictions that would have been imposed by the
    ``Cooperative Conservation Initiative.''
        We also commend the President for his commitment to appropriations
    from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. However, we urge the
    Administration in future budgets to more accurately affect actual
    public needs and the basic authority of the LWCF act.
        Recent (2000-2002) requests for LWCF assistance exceed $3.26
    billion, according to applications submitted to state officials. This,
    we believe, is a very conservative estimate of need. In general,
    project priorities reflect a nationwide demand to increase the
    recreation capacity of public systems.
        We remain deeply concerned that the Administration's budget
    proposes access to the Land and Water Conservation Fund for a number of
    programs not presently authorized to do so. The LWCF act, while broad
    in its application and diversity of projects, is very specific in its
    policy objectives--provision of recreational opportunities to improve
    public health and conservation of lands and waters for public
    recreation. If the Subcommittee in its wisdom accepts the
    Administration's interpretation of LWCF authority, then it should
    specifically stipulate that state and local public recreation and park
    entities are fully eligible to access these programs, and that assisted
    resources be publicly accessible for appropriate forms of recreation.
        Non-federal recreation and park resources are fundamentally
    essential to quality recreation experiences for all people.
    Collectively, these systems--with strong citizen support and executive
    and management expertise--provide the majority of public recreation
    destinations, services, and visitor experiences. While diverse and
    widespread, until all people have appropriate access to recreation and
    parks our collective missions will remain unfinished. Beyond our fiscal
    year 2004 recommendation, we urge the Subcommittee to move quickly
    toward annual full funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

                   URBAN PARK AND RECREATION RECOVERY PROGRAM

        The Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program recognizes the
    recreation values associated with conservation of the built
    environment. We believe these values are of no less importance than
    conservation of other recreation spaces and places of high ecological
    and aesthetic value. Demand for Urban Park and Recreation Recovery
    Program assistance remains high. This interest is reflected in both the
    number of requests for assistance and the quality and objectives of
    projects. While no fiscal year 2003 funds were appropriated, the record
    of interest expressed in previous fiscal years is revealing. For
    example, 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. Nearly 200 communities requested 2002 funds, and only 71 were
    assisted with available funds. UPARR projects emphasize the national
    importance of bringing quality recreation resources and services to
    children and youth in more economically distressed cities and
    neighborhoods. Our request for increased investment is based in part on
    the ultimate loss of $30 million included in the fiscal year 2003
    House-passed bill.
        Despite a degree of fiscal stress impacting many state and local
    governments as a direct or indirect result of terrorist activities,
    ``homeland security'' costs, or economic conditions there is no
    information that suggests that our recommended LWCF assistance minimum
    of $200 million and $50 million for urban parks will not be fully
    utilized within allowable time frames.

               NATIONAL PARK SERVICE INTERGOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES

    Rivers and Trails Conservation Assistance Program
        We recommend $15,000,000 for the Rivers, Trails, and Conservation
    Assistance Program administered by the National Park Service. This
    amount is based in part on emerging interest in partnerships and
    resource conservation strategies that often result in less than fee
    title actions. The RTCA program illustrates the critical importance and
    federal contribution to public/private partnerships for conservation of
    natural and cultural resources, and public access for recreation. The
    program provides technical assistance to local governments, citizen and
    community organizations, and state agencies to consider recreation and
    conservation strategies. The results include restoration of rivers,
    planning and development of trails, conservation of open space and
    greenways, among other types of projects.
        Our proposed funding will allow the NPS RTCA program to assign
    staff resources to initiatives in each state. It will leverage
    additional funds and bring projects to completion earlier than might
    otherwise be possible. Our request also recognizes that requests for
    assistance outpace program capacity by about 4 to 1. That is, the
    National Park Service annually receives about 400 requests for
    assistance, but presently has the capacity to start about 100. Early
    federal technical support is critical to the long-term success of
    local, often citizen-driven initiatives. NPS anticipated that its
    involvement will be relatively short term--1 to 2 years--and it does
    not measure its contribution to a project until at least 5 years after
    providing technical assistance. This ``delayed evaluation'' approach
    enables NPS to more effectively assess the outcomes arising from early
    organization and technical support. We urge the Subcommittee to resist
    so called ``hard earmarks'' and instead rely on the relative quality of
    proposals and conservation priorities to determine support.

    Federal Lands to Parks Program
        We recommend an appropriation of at least $1 million to support the
    Federal Lands to Parks program administered by the National Park
    Service. Our recommendation will address what we believe to be a long-
    standing budget shortfall relative to program demands. The FLP program
    is an exemplary partnership. It guides and assists in the conversion of
    surplus federal properties to state and local governments for public
    recreation and park use. Unfortunately, the program was downsized in
    the early 1980s, and funding has remained essentially flat.
    Concurrently, property potentially available for state and local parks
    and demand for federal assistance has increased beyond the capacity of
    program staff. A large part of this demand is the result of the closure
    of military bases between 1988 and 1995. In fiscal year 2002, FLP
    program staff assisted in the transfer of twenty-four properties valued
    at nearly $30 million. Today, there is a backlog of some sixty pending
    transfers, mostly resulting from the closure of military installations.
        Local and state park systems are critical to the American people
    and others who work and reside among us. With sufficient funds, more
    recreation resources could become accessible. These resources address
    the diverse public interests and our collective need for quality
    recreation and associated services for children of working parents.
    They host programs that serve millions of nutritious breakfasts,
    lunches, snacks, and suppers to needy children, and help reduce crime
    and delinquency, especially after school hours. Public recreation and
    park mangers and sites recognize that at any given time perhaps 50
    million people have a disability, and attempt to accommodate their
    desire for recreation.
        State and local agencies contribute importantly to plant and
    wildlife diversity. Nationwide, over 5,000 local park systems, for
    example, contain about 9 million acres. Hundreds of local systems have
    more than 5,000 acres, with many systems 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 opportunities for environmental awareness and
    experiential education.
        The National Recreation and Park Association appreciates the
    opportunity to comment. NRPA public policy director, Barry Tindall
    (202-887-0290) is available to provide additional perspectives and to
    respond to questions.

                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation
                           and Historic Preservation

        Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on behalf of the
    New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation.
    My purpose in presenting this testimony is to support the State Side of
    the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), and to respectfully
    request an appropriation of $160 Million for fiscal year 2004. In
    addition, I ask that you support the Urban Parks and Recreational
    Recovery Program (UPARR), and I would resectfully request that this
    program be restored, and funded in the amount of $50 Million for fiscal
    year 2004.
        As you know, your predecessors in Congress conceived a simple, but
    powerfully effective idea in 1964: a pay-as-you-go program that takes a
    small portion of the fees generated from oil & gas drilling on the
    Outer Continental Shelf, the portion designated for state side funding
    that is to support the creation, development, and enhancement of a wide
    variety of community parks and recreational resources.
        Those bodies promised the American people that, where on the one
    hand we are generating billions of dollars in revenue by the depletion
    of one non-renewable resource, we would invest in the environment by
    dedicating a small portion of those funds to the acquisition,
    preservation and development of recreational resources in states and
    communities across America.
        It is a program that works. From 1965 to 1995, NYS Parks, as
    administrator for LWCF, directed 58 percent of the NYS allocation of
    some $200 million to Municipal Park acquisition and development
    projects, (33 percent to cities, 5 percent to counties, 14.5 to towns,
    4.5 percent to villages). Since its inception, this program has
    resulted in over 1,100 projects undertaken throughout New York State,
    and LWCF projects exist in virtually every county in the state. These
    projects have built and illuminated baseball and soccer fields, hiking
    trails and camping facilities, and provided for open spaces for our
    youth, adults and seniors.
        Not all of our citizens realize that the State side of LWCF touches
    the lives of every one of our residents and constituents.
        Because grants may not exceed 50 percent of the total project
    costs, the program is enormously successful in leveraging these federal
    dollars, literally allowing communities to create parks and
    recreational opportunities where none would otherwise exist. These
    projects are so important because they provide close-to-home
    opportunities for Americans to exercise, recreate, and simply get
    outdoors and play with their children, and the development of
    recreational facilities creates jobs.
        From 1994 through 1999 stateside LWCF received no funding, and the
    entire program simply disappeared. As a result of widespread support
    from all around the country, stateside LWCF was restored by the 106th
    Congress for fiscal year 2000, with an appropriation of $40 Million.
    Funding gradually increased through fiscal year 2002, until the program
    suffered substantial cuts in the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus Budget
    Resolution.
        As Commissioner for the New York State Agency responsible for the
    administration of the program, I can report that since the year 2000
    alone, approximately 60 projects have been funded throughout the state,
    from eastern Long Island to the Niagara Frontier, to New York City, and
    north to the Thousand Islands. These include 30 municipal projects in
    22 counties, and 26 state park projects in communities throughout every
    region of New York State. We have taken great care to balance our use
    of these funds so that they benefit all residents of our state. I thank
    the members of this committee for that support, and for keeping the
    vision behind LWCF alive.
        However, I must also report that even in fiscal year 2002, the best
    year for LWCF funding thus far in my tenure, there were some 170
    project applications that could not be funded, representing some $30
    million in unmet needs. Precisely because this program reaches all
    Americans where we live, the demand for recreational facilities close
    to home continues to grow, and I must ask, on behalf of your
    constituents, that you prevent the deterioration of one of the most
    successful and cost-effective domestic programs at this critical time.
        For fiscal year 2004 please support the state side LWCF by
    providing the $160 million appropriation to this program that is
    contained in the Administration's budget request, thereby preserving
    the effectiveness of this program for this generation of Americans, who
    were no less the recipients of the promise made by your predecessors
    than their forbears.
        The funding source for this program, fees generated from
    exploration on the Outer Continental Shelf remains intact. The
    financial commitment necessary to keep state side LWCF intact is a
    small percentage of those fees realized. And yet, the cost in lost
    opportunities will be great indeed, if this Congress fails to preserve
    the program at the $160 million figure.
        The other program that I would like to add my support to today is
    the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program, or UPARR.
        UPARR is another program that seeks to improve recreational
    facilities in neighborhoods throughout the country, with a special
    focus on underserved communities. Similarly effective by the use of
    leveraged matching grants, this program helps urban communities
    rehabilitate existing but deteriorating facilities. This program will
    suffer greatly this year by an elimination of funding. I strongly urge
    you to restore this program by providing $50 million in funding for
    fiscal year 2004.
        By preserving these two complimentary programs, we can live up to
    the promises made, and the commitment to our communities, our families,
    our neighborhoods, and our children. Thank you for the opportunity to
    present my views as New York State Parks Commissioner on a program that
    I know works for New Yorkers, and for all Americans.

                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of Preservation Action

        Between fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2003, funding for Historic
    Preservation Fund has been cut by 28 percent with the overall
    appropriation dropping from $94 million to just $67 million. President
    Bush's fiscal year 2004 budget proposes level funding for the program.
    Preservation Action and its national membership of citizens dedicated
    to historic preservation in their communities, respectfully requests
    that funding be restored to the Historic Preservation Fund. We request
    $50 million for State Historic Preservation Offices; $10 million for
    Tribal Historic Preservation Offices; $30 million for Save America's
    Treasures Grants; and $10 million to assist states to complete and
    digitize their historic site surveys--totaling $100 million.
        The national historic preservation program is unique among federal
    initiatives because it does not rely on acquisition or federal
    intervention to achieve its objective: to discover, celebrate and
    protect America's rich architectural heritage. Rather, it gives
    property owners and local citizens the tools they need to restore and
    protect heritage resources for the benefit of the entire community. In
    effect, the National Historic Preservation Act creates an extremely
    effective partnership between the federal government, States, Tribes
    and local governments as a way to deliver these tools to citizens,
    property owners and developers. This partnership is underwritten by the
    Historic Preservation Fund and matched by the State Historic
    Preservation Officers, Tribal Historic Preservation Officers and
    Certified Local Governments. We ask that the federal government not
    renege on its part of the bargain by under funding its financial
    commitment to this important program.

                                    DISCOVER

        The number one priority of the national historic preservation
    program at its inception was to survey and document the immensely rich
    architectural and archaeological resources across this nation, from the
    smallest town to the largest city. The survey was intended to serve as
    the basis of federal, state, tribal, and local protection efforts. It
    was also envisioned as a way to expedite the 106 review process,
    mandated by federal law. Under funding has dramatically reduced the
    number and scope of survey work. Indeed, most states have been forced
    to turn their attention to ``demand'' responsibilities at the expense
    of survey work. Lack of adequate surveys actually costs process. If
    Congress had provided sufficient funding for the Historic Preservation
    Fund over the past 15 years, historic site inventories would be
    complete. Federal agency planners could access historic site
    information including descriptions and photographs from the Internet on
    their desktop computers and proceed with project planning in an
    atmosphere of knowledge and forethought. Increased funding can help
    States complete their survey work to the benefit of their historic
    resources and federal agency planners.

                                   CELEBRATE

        Importantly, survey and subsequent nomination and listing on the
    National Register were intended to offer a way to celebrate and promote
    a community's heritage resources boosting pride, stimulating economic
    investment and inviting heritage tourism. Unfortunately, it is
    estimated that cuts to State Historic Preservation Offices between 2001
    and 2003 have already reduced annual National Register nominations by
    some 15,000 properties. That means that hundreds of communities are
    unable to take advantage of restoration grants, commercial
    rehabilitation tax credits, and heritage tourism plans that could help
    them save and sustain their historic resources.

                                    PROTECT

        From our perspective, there is no component of the program that
    better illustrates the power of the federal-State partnership than the
    Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit. This tax incentive program
    leveraged more than $3.27 billion in private investment for historic
    resources in 2002 and created 13,886 housing units, 5,673 of them for
    low to moderate income individuals. On the ground these numbers
    translate into comfortable high-quality places for people of average
    means to live. They mean that boarded up and vacant buildings are
    restored and re-opened as viable business enterprises and are put back
    on the tax rolls for the benefit of the entire community. They mean
    that the federal government, working with its partners, quadrupled its
    investment, put people to work, and repaired the fabric of our
    neighborhoods. The tax act program carries out the spirit of the
    National Historic Preservation Act in concrete ways.
        For this program to work, owners and developers must be able to
    turn to State Historic Preservation Officers for National Register
    nominations, for advice on project design and for timely review and
    certification. Unfortunately, State Offices have been forced to cut
    back on staff, slowing tax act reviews and seriously curtailing their
    ability to partner with developers to save historic resources.
        Similarly, when the Historic Preservation Fund appropriation
    allows, State Offices offer grants to help restore National Register
    properties. These grants are often the catalyst for additional public
    and private investment. When restoration grants are not available,
    historic buildings are allowed to deteriorate. For the first time since
    the 1970's increased funding in fiscal year 2001 allowed substantial
    disbursement of restoration grants, it also gave State Offices the
    opportunity to invest in long overdue infrastructure improvements
    (e.g., geographic information system upgrades). These investments
    totaled nearly $11 million in fiscal year 2001. However, the cuts in
    fiscal year 2002 reduced that investment to an estimated $3 million and
    with the cuts in 2003 many states simply were unable to extend
    restoration and project grants leaving untold thousands of projects
    without the seed money they need to ensure there success.

                                   CONCLUSION

        We are a nation at war, facing a new and uncertain era. Our
    citizens are turning to their neighborhoods, town centers and heritage
    resources as a source of comfort. In small towns and big, rural, urban
    and suburban areas, our history--embodied in the built environment--
    gives context and meaning to the American experience. We must find a
    way, even in difficult fiscal times, to discover, celebrate and protect
    our heritage and to build a thriving future that does not compromise
    our historic resources. Now, more than ever, historic preservation, as
    defined and guided by the National Historic Preservation Act, must be
    an integral part of how we do business in all our communities. This can
    not happen without adequate funding for the Historic Preservation Fund.
    Please approve funding for the Historic Preservation Fund at $100
    million for fiscal year 2004.

                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the American Geological Institute

        Thank you for this opportunity to provide the American Geological
    Institute's perspective on fiscal year 2004 appropriations for
    geoscience programs within the subcommittee's jurisdiction. The
    president's budget requests significant cuts in the U.S. Geological
    Survey (USGS). If enacted, these reductions would hamper the Survey's
    ability to carry out its important missions to ensure adequate natural
    resources, monitor environmental conditions and reduce the nation's
    vulnerability to natural hazards. Specifically, we ask the subcommittee
    to restore funds to the USGS Mineral Resources, Advanced National
    Seismic System, National Cooperative Geologic Mapping, and Toxic
    Substances Hydrology programs. In addition, the president's request
    would decimate the Department of Energy's Office of Fossil Energy oil
    and natural gas research programs, and we ask for restoration of those
    to their fiscal year 2002 levels.
        Geoscience activities are also found in a number of other agencies
    within the subcommittee's jurisdiction. We ask the subcommittee to
    provide adequate funds for geoscience activities in the Minerals
    Management Service (MMS) Environmental Studies Program, the National
    Park Service Geologic Resources Division and the U.S. Forest Service
    Minerals and Geology Management Program, and to fully fund scientific
    research programs at the Smithsonian Institution. MMS does important
    work in energy resource assessment and collection of geoscience data.
    Geoscience programs within the land management agencies provide a
    scientific basis for land-use decisions, a role that they share with
    the USGS. The Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History plays a
    dual role in communicating the excitement of the geosciences and
    enhancing knowledge through research and preservation of geoscience
    collections.
        AGI is a nonprofit federation of 40 geoscientific and professional
    associations that represent more than 100,000 geologists,
    geophysicists, and other earth scientists. The institute serves as a
    voice for shared interests in our profession, plays a major role in
    strengthening geoscience education, and strives to increase public
    awareness of the vital role that the geosciences play in society's use
    of resources and interaction with the environment.

                             U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

        For the third year in a row, the USGS faces substantial cuts in the
    administration's request. AGI thanks the subcommittee for its record of
    restoring cuts and recognizing the Survey's broad value to the nation.
    This year, we urge the subcommittee to not only put back funds cut in
    the president's request but also to provide enough additional support
    to stop the ongoing erosion of the Survey's ability to carry out its
    programs due to the rising costs of doing business. Uncontrollable
    expenses, such as cost-of-living increases for salaries, should not cut
    into the funds available to fulfill the agency's mission.
        AGI has recently signed on as a charter member of the USGS
    Coalition, a newly formed alliance of organizations united by a
    commitment to the continued vitality of the unique combination of
    biological, geological, hydrological and mapping programs of the U.S.
    Geological Survey. The Coalition supports increased federal investment
    in USGS programs that underpin responsible natural resource
    stewardship, improve resilience to natural and human-induced hazards,
    and contribute to the long-term health, security and prosperity of the
    nation.
        Virtually every American citizen and every federal, state, and
    local agency benefits either directly or indirectly from USGS products
    and services. As was made clear by the recent National Research Council
    report Future Roles and Opportunities for the U.S. Geological Survey,
    the USGS's value to the nation goes well beyond the Department of the
    Interior's stewardship mission for public lands. USGS information and
    expertise address a wide range of important problems facing this
    nation: earthquakes and floods, global environmental change, water
    availability, waste disposal, and availability of energy and mineral
    resources. Some of the most important activities of the Survey serve
    the entire nation and often are most applicable to those non-federal
    lands where the nation's citizens reside. At the same time, AGI
    recognizes that the Survey does have a responsibility to provide
    scientific support for its sister land management agencies at Interior,
    an important mission that needs to be well executed if land management
    decisions are to be made with the best available scientific
    information. It is imperative that both these missions be recognized
    and valued within the Department and the White House. AGI asks the
    subcommittee to continue its efforts to help the administration better
    understand the Survey's value to the nation as a whole
        National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program.--AGI urges the
    subcommittee to reject the administration's requested cuts to the
    National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program and to fund this
    important program at the fiscal year 2003 appropriated level. This
    important partnership between the USGS, state geological surveys, and
    universities provides the nation with fundamental data for addressing
    natural hazard mitigation, environmental remediation, land-use
    planning, and resource development.
        Mineral Resources Program.--This highly regarded research program
    is the nation's premier credible source for regional, national and
    global mineral resource and mineral environmental assessments,
    statistics and research critical for sound economic, mineral-supply,
    land-use and environmental analysis, planning and decision making. AGI
    urges the subcommittee to reject the administration's requested cuts to
    this program and to fund it at the fiscal year 2003 appropriated level.
    If additional funds are available to grow this program, we ask the
    subcommittee to consider the Mineral Education and Research initiative
    that would establish an external grant program to support university-
    based applied mineral deposits research and training in mineral
    resource issues. Such a program has been recommended by the National
    Research Council as a means of improving cooperation between the
    minerals industry, universities and government, and of arresting the
    decline in geoscience faculty research expertise in minerals geology.
        Advanced National Seismic System.--A key role for the USGS is
    providing the research, monitoring, and assessment that are critically
    needed to better prepare for and respond to natural hazards. When a
    massive quake struck Alaska in December, a major economic and
    environmental disaster was averted because the Trans Alaska Pipeline
    System did not rupture where it crossed the fault. The pipeline's
    resilience, despite the 14 feet of ground movement, was due to
    stringent design specifications based on USGS geologic studies three
    decades ago. To ensure future successes in hazard identification and
    mitigation, the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Authorization Act of 1999
    called for a significant federal investment in expansion and
    modernization of existing seismic networks and for development of
    ANSS--a nationwide network of shaking measurement systems centered on
    urban areas. ANSS can provide real-time earthquake information to
    emergency responders as well as building and ground shaking data for
    engineers and scientists seeking to understand earthquake processes.
    AGI urges the subcommittee to reject the administration's requested
    cuts to this program and to fund it at the fiscal year 2003
    appropriated level. If additional funds are available, this program
    should grow toward its authorized levels of $35 million.
        Hydrology Programs.--Although the administration has abandoned its
    fiscal year 2003 proposal to transfer the Toxic Substances Hydrology
    program to the National Science Foundation, it is still requesting a
    significant cut. The Toxics program supports targeted, long-term
    research on water resource contamination in both surface and
    groundwater environments. Such problem-specific research in this area
    is highly appropriate for USGS. The president's request also calls for
    the termination of the Water Resources Research Institutes. AGI
    strongly encourages the subcommittee to oppose these reductions and to
    fully support these programs. AGI is pleased that the administration
    has requested full funding for the National Water Quality Assessment
    and National Streamflow Information programs, both of which make
    important contributions to the nation.
        Homeland Security.--Another troubling aspect of the president's
    request that is not apparent from the budget documents is the lack of
    funding for the USGS activities in support of homeland security and the
    war on terrorism overseas. All four disciplines within the Survey have
    made and continue to make significant contributions to these efforts,
    but the fiscal year 2004 request does not provide any direct funding.
    Instead, those costs must be absorbed in addition to the proposed cuts.
    AGI encourages the subcommittee to recognize the Survey's important
    role in homeland security and ensure adequate support for its newfound
    responsibilities.

                   DOE FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

        AGI is very concerned by the significant reductions in the
    President's budget request to the Oil Technology R&D and Natural Gas
    R&D programs. The proposed 65 percent cut to oil research and 43
    percent to natural gas research would decimate these programs. The cuts
    to upstream exploration and production research are even more drastic,
    reaching 96 percent in the case of upstream oil research. The research
    dollars spent by these programs go largely to universities, state
    geological surveys and research consortia to address critical issues
    like enhanced recovery from known fields and unconventional sources
    that are the future of natural gas supply. This money does not go into
    corporate coffers, but it helps American businesses stay in business by
    giving them a technological edge over their foreign competitors. AGI
    strongly encourages the subcommittee to restore these funds and bring
    these programs back to at least fiscal year 2002 levels.
        Research funded by DOE leads to new technologies that improve the
    efficiency and productivity of the domestic energy industry. Continued
    research on fossil energy is critical to America's future and should be
    a key component of any national energy strategy. The societal benefits
    of fossil energy R&D extend to such areas as economic and national
    security, job creation, capital investment, and reduction of the trade
    deficit. The nation will remain dependent on petroleum as its principal
    transportation fuel for the foreseeable future and natural gas is
    growing in importance. It is critical that domestic production not be
    allowed to prematurely decline at a time when tremendous advances are
    being made in improving the technology with which these resources are
    extracted. The recent spike in both oil and natural gas prices is a
    reminder of the need to retain a vibrant domestic industry in the face
    of uncertain sources overseas. Technological advances are key to
    maintaining our resource base and ensuring this country's future energy
    security.
        The federal investment in energy R&D is particularly important when
    it comes to longer-range research with broad benefits. In today's
    competitive markets, the private sector focuses dwindling research
    dollars on shorter-term results in highly applied areas such as
    technical services. In this context, DOE's support of fossil energy
    research is very significant both in magnitude and impact compared to
    that done in the private sector. Without it, we risk losing our
    technological edge with this global commodity.

                            SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

        This venerable institution was established for ``the increase and
    diffusion of knowledge.'' Those dual charges require that the
    Smithsonian not only welcome visitors to its museums but also produce
    new knowledge through scientific research. Earlier this year, a
    specially appointed science commission released a report outlining the
    role of research within the Smithsonian. The report noted that funding
    erosion has placed the institution's world-class research facilities
    and researchers in poor financial standing. The National Research
    Council has released a report with similar findings. The message,
    however, does not appear to have had a significant impact on the
    president's fiscal year 2004 request, which calls for a 6 percent cut
    in research funding. AGI asks the subcommittee to embrace the findings
    of these reports and build up Smithsonian research.

                             NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

        The national parks are very important to the geoscience community
    as unique national treasures that showcase the geologic splendor of our
    country and offer unparalleled opportunities for both geoscientific
    research and education of our fellow citizens. The National Park
    Services's Geologic Resources Division was established in 1995 to
    provide park managers with geologic expertise. Working in conjunction
    with USGS and other partners, the division helps ensure that
    geoscientists are becoming part of an integrated approach to science-
    based resource management in parks. AGI asks the subcommittee to fully
    support the president's requested increase for the Natural Resources
    Challenge. AGI would like to see additional support for the Volunteer
    in the Park program and its associated partnerships as well as
    additional geological staff positions to adequately address the
    geologic resources in the national parks.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony to the
    subcommittee. If you would like any additional information for the
    record, please contact me at 703-379-2480, ext. 228 voice, 703-379-7563
    fax, applegate@agiweb.org, or 4220 King Street, Alexandria VA 22302-
    1502.

                                     ______

          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 2004 budget of $896 million for the U.S. Geological
    Survey (USGS). 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 is a world leader in the natural sciences and serves the
    nation by furthering our understanding of the Earth and its ecosystems.
    Through the management of water, biological, energy, and mineral
    resources, USGS research is providing novel solutions to pressing
    issues in the geological, hydrological, geographical, and biological
    processes. USGS's ability to carry out large scale, multi-disciplinary
    studies on a national scale are critical to advancing this knowledge.
    Through its long-term monitoring and assessment programs of the
    nation's natural resources, the USGS provides the impartial science
    that federal, state and local governments need in order to respond to
    changing environmental conditions.
        The USGS's environmental monitoring capabilities also make it the
    lead science provider for accessing information and facts necessary for
    resolving complex natural science problems across the nation and around
    the world. For instance, the USGS is collaborating with the Centers for
    Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
    in order to better understand the west Nile Virus (WNV) and its effects
    on humans and animals. This type of collaboration relies on USGS's
    unique, nation-spanning monitoring systems that allow the USGS to track
    and evaluate disease-causing vectors in an effort to protect human and
    animal health. The USGS is also co-sponsoring 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 2004 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 $30 million
    for the USGS, or 3 percent, to $895 million for fiscal year 2004.
    Within the USGS budget, the Biological Resources Division (BRD) is
    essentially level funded at $168 million; the Water Resources Division
    is cut by 5 percent to $200 million and the Geologic Division is cut by
    5 percent to $222 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 2004.

                   NATIONAL WATER-QUALITY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM

        Since 1991, USGS scientists with the National Water-Quality
    Assessment Program (NAWQA) have been collecting and analyzing data and
    information on more than 50 major river basins and aquifers across the
    nation. Its efforts focus on long-term, independent water quality
    research that is otherwise unavailable. NWQAP is made-up of 42 sites
    nationwide, which provide quantitative information on: (1) long-term
    trends in concentrations of nutrients, pesticides, and sediment that
    enter the water system; (2) regional source areas of contaminants; and
    (3) the effects of population and land use on the concentrations of
    contaminants. Through NWQAP, the USGS is able to leverage its nation-
    spanning environmental monitoring facilities to provide local
    government, resource managers and industry the means to protect
    drinking water and water ecosystems. NWQAP other partners for
    responding to local, state, regional, and national efforts to protect,
    improve, and manage water resources.
        The Administration's budget proposes a $64 million budget for the
    NWQAP, a 10 percent increase over fiscal year 2003, but level with
    fiscal year 2002.--This level of funding will allow the program to
    continue microbial sampling initiatives, which were singled out by the
    National Academy of Science-National Research Council's (NRC) Water
    Science and Technology Board (1999) as a priority.
        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 ASM is pleased to see the Administration has supported this
    program in its fiscal year 2004 budget proposal.--The ASM recommends
    that Congress meet or exceed the Administration's funding of $11
    million. The Toxics program is a major resource in the nation's effort
    to identify harmful pharmaceuticals, hormones, and other organic
    wastewater contaminates in the water system. The ASM supports the focus
    and mission of this program and its efforts to combat increasing levels
    of toxic substances and water-borne pathogens in our drinking water
    supplies.
        The Toxic Substances Hydrology Program (Toxics) is conducting long-
    term research to improve our understanding of the behavior of
    contaminants in the nation's ground and surface waters. The Toxics
    program is also an essential partner in 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. In 2004, the program will focus on identifying new
    contaminants (e.g., hormones, animal-based pharmaceuticals), and
    developing the analytical methods needed to protect the integrity of
    our water resources, one of the most important issues of the 21st
    century. For instance, the Toxics program is involved in research to
    identify the factors that control where and when mercury accumulates to
    toxic levels in the food chain. This research is an important component
    in restoration efforts of the Florida Everglades ecosystem.

                STATE WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH INSTITUTE PROGRAM

        The ASM requests that Congress continue to fund this program
    despite the Administration's plan to eliminate it in fiscal year 2004.
    The funding level for the program in fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year
    2003 was $6 million. Therefore, the ASM highly recommends that the
    Subcommittee allocate the necessary funds (at least $6 million) to
    maintain program viability. 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. For example, in 2002, the program
    requested funding (USGS and University of Arizona scientists) to
    examine the impact of agricultural chemicals as a major non-point
    source of arsenic, by monitoring the microbial processes and
    microorganisms responsible for the conversions of arsenic compounds.
    Such water quality research is essential if the toxicity of
    agriculturally based arsenic is to be determined and plans for
    amelioration developed.

                          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 2004, 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 (FMD). 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. However, it should be
    noted that the agent of bovine Tuberculosis can cause TB in humans. 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 an 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.

                                   CONCLUSION

        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 the Ground Water Protection Council

        Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My
    name is Tom Richmond and I am a member of the Board of Directors of the
    Ground Water Protection Council and the Administrator of the Montana
    Board of Oil & Gas Conservation. This agency is responsible for the
    environmental safeguards related to oil and gas exploration and
    production, including the re-injection of produced salt water into
    geologic formations below underground source of drinking water. This
    Underground Injection Control (UIC) program assures the safety of our
    underground water supplies. My testimony today is submitted on behalf
    of the Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC).
        The Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC) is responsible for the
    development and operation of the nationally acclaimed Risk Based Data
    Management System (RBDMS) system. GWPC has received DOE's Energy 100
    Award for RBDMS. This recognizes RBDMS as one of the top 100 of all DOE
    projects. Research indicates that agencies with data management systems
    that provide access to oil and gas data experienced a conservative
    estimated increase of 10 percent for new developments as a result of
    the much improved data access. The GWPC is made up of state oil and gas
    agencies, as well as, those that regulate ground water and other
    underground injection control programs. Through the GWPC, the states
    are all working together to protect ground water resources while
    holding down the cost of environmental compliance.
        We would like to thank the Committee for the previous support of
    approximately $950,000 in the fiscal year 2003 budget. The funding has
    given the states the opportunity to develop additional software and
    management tools that enables states to make decisions that result in
    the best possible balance of exploration and environmental
    considerations. We, in turn share that information with the public and
    companies we regulate, many of which are small businesses that would
    not otherwise have the ability to access such accurate information. We
    ask for continued support and assistance to state oil & gas agencies
    and the independent oil & gas industry with continued funding of the
    Risk Base Data Management Systems (RBDMS) and urge the Committee to
    hold the funding for RBDMS at the same level ($950,000) for fiscal year
    2004 so we can continue to expand the system to every oil and gas
    producing state. The system is currently operational in Alaska,
    Montana, Nebraska, Mississippi, North Dakota, Ohio, New York,
    Pennsylvania, Utah, New Mexico, Alabama, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas,
    Florida, Kansas, as well as the Osage Tribe in Oklahoma. In 03 we are
    installing RBDMS in Nevada and California and we are beginning the
    process in Oklahoma and Louisiana. Additional funding would allow each
    remaining state to initiate the program as well. This funding will be
    used to enhance the current capabilities of RBDMS to make it accessible
    to both the public, local governmental agencies and the companies
    through the Internet. We are learning that electronic commerce mutually
    saves time and money for both the oil and gas industry and the
    regulatory agencies. On-line permitting and reporting is cost effective
    and saves industry time and money. One California operator estimated
    that an automated permitting system for new drills and reworks could
    increase production from one of its larger oil and gas fields by
    500,000 barrels per year. Therefore, any delay in issuing a permit
    caused by the inefficiencies of manual processes and analyses can have
    a significant impact on production. This funding will provide the
    smaller independent oil producers access to this environmental data
    management system. Smaller producers are often the most in need of such
    a system because high regulatory costs hit them the hardest.
        I want to stress that states are dedicating their own financial
    resources to RBDMS. For example Ohio, is using almost $600,000 in state
    capital improvement and $400,000 of operations funding to implement
    RBDMS. Every state currently using the system has also contributed to
    building the system and I know all additional states are planning on
    using state dollars as well as federal funds. But what the remaining
    states need is a relatively small amount of start-up assistance after
    which time they have shown they are willing to begin applying their own
    resources. State match for federal funding exceeds 100 percent. We are
    more than doubling the investment of federal dollars we receive.
        With past assistance from the U.S. Department of Energy, the GWPC
    assembled a project team with extensive knowledge and experience in
    state oil and gas agency environmental data management to develop
    RBDMS, the only comprehensive, fully relational, PC-based oil & gas
    regulatory data management system in the country. By allowing the oil
    and gas industry to participate in the next phase of development of the
    system, we will assure that it will be useful and effective for them.
    Continued funding at $950,000, the fiscal year 2004 level, will be
    mutually beneficial to the private sector and the states by keeping
    environmental compliance costs down.
        RBDMS is one of the best examples we have seen of how the states,
    working with the private sector, can improve both industry production
    and environmental protection at the same time. Included with my
    testimony within the ``RBDMS Annual Report'' are endorsement letters of
    RBDMS as an alternative to costly command and control regulatory
    policies. It is supported by both the regulated community and the
    regulators themselves. Continuing to fund the states in this manner
    allows us to tailor our regulatory program needs to the industry which
    operate in our respective states. There is no federal alternative, or
    ``one size fits all'' national approach that would work as efficiently
    as this cooperative multi-State effort.
        In summary, the funding we are requesting will provide a means for
    the successful expansion of the Risk Based Data Management System and
    will provide the following benefits: (1) improve environmental
    protection, (2) less regulatory and compliance costs for producers, (3)
    better state enforcement of environmental regulations, (4) increased
    exploration activity by small and independent operators and (5)
    increased oil and gas production. The remainder of my testimony
    provides a more detailed explanation of how we have used prior funds
    and how we would use the requested increase. Due to its length, the
    GWPC will submit it independently in the form of an ``RBDMS Annual
    Report''.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the International Association of Fish and
                               Wildlife Agencies

                     BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES DISCIPLINE, USGS

        Since fiscal year 1994, the base level of funding for BRD has
    lagged more than $30 million behind the rate of inflation, to say
    nothing about the inability of BRD to realize substantial increases in
    program funding to meet the basic research needs of the natural
    resources community. The President's proposed fiscal year 2004 budget
    continues to reflect an emphasis on meeting needs identified by
    Department of the Interior land management bureaus, while biological
    research needs for the remainder of the land area in the United States,
    including that managed by the States, remains largely ignored.
        The Association is disappointed that the biology component of the
    fiscal year 2004 USGS budget request reflects a 1.2 percent reduction
    from the fiscal year 2003 enacted. This reduction is due primarily to
    the lack of continued funding for several Congressional Add-ons, most
    of which are intended to provide critical, timely information to
    improve natural resource management in the United States. We recommend
    that Congress continue to fund the following projects in the BRD budget
    for fiscal year 2004: Amphibians Research and Monitoring ($500,000),
    Ballast Water Research ($499,000), Mark Twain National Forest Mining
    Study ($750,000), Yukon River Chum Salmon ($180,000), Molecular Biology
    Studies ($400,000), Pallid Sturgeon Study ($500,000), Diamondback
    Terrapin Study ($100,000), Atlantic Salmon ($50,000), DNA Bear Sampling
    in Montana ($1 million), Multidisc Water Resources--Leetown ($300,000),
    Additional Work at Lake Tahoe ($500,000), Great Lakes Vessel Operations
    ($120,000), Two Additional Researchers--GLSC ($180,000), Genetic
    Research at Wellsboro Lab ($500,000), and Cherokee National Forest
    Inventory and Monitoring ($300,000). These projects are of particular
    importance to State fish and wildlife agencies in providing necessary
    information to address these local, regional and national needs.
        Of particular concern in the fiscal year 2004 BRD budget request is
    the reduction of support for continuation of the long-term Fire Science
    initiative. These fire ecology studies represent collaborative efforts
    with the Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service and Bureau of
    Land Management. These studies are intended to enhance our
    understanding of the effects of fire, subsequent recovery of the
    landscape, and improve our ability to manage burned landscapes. 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. Long term studies need stable and predictable
    funding. The Association recommends that $2.8 million be restored by
    Congress for this effort.
        BRD is proposing to absorb approximately $1.9 million of $3.4
    million in uncontrollable costs in the fiscal year 2004 budget. This
    reduction will result in significant losses in operational funds. The
    Association recommends that Congress provide $1.9 million of additional
    funds to fully fund uncontrollable costs in BRD.
        The Association is also concerned that BRD is disproportionably
    allocating information technology (IT) reductions. It is vital that
    these reductions be implemented in a manner that best preserves all
    programs' viability. The Association recommends that the proposed IT
    reductions be spread equitably among all BRD programs.
        The Association applauds the Administration, DOI, and USGS for
    their recognition of the value and growing importance of the Gap
    Analysis Program and the National Biological Information Infrastructure
    (NBII) and supports the $1 million increase in funding requests for
    fiscal year 2004 for the latter. However, we also support Congressional
    direction in the fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations bill to BRD to
    further refine the objectives for NBII and clearly define a strategy
    for achieving those objectives. As we have stated in the past, these
    two programs are good examples of the results that may be derived from
    placing an emphasis on partnerships with States and others, as long as
    those partnerships are meaningful.
        The Association has long supported GAP's inclusion of, and reliance
    on, State agencies for GAP projects, and looks forward to the expansion
    of States' roles in Aquatic GAP. The Association is nearing the
    conclusion of its second year of close partnership with the NBII, and
    has seen, with gratification, the growing number of States that are
    beginning to reap the benefits of this liaison. Examples include sage
    grouse conservation/sagebrush habitat, chronic wasting disease, West
    Nile virus, and Internet access to Breeding Bird survey data. The
    Association seeks to expand the relationship of the States with the
    NBII Program, and recommends Congress increase the fiscal year 2004
    budget for NBII by $2 million to support a pilot project designed to
    fund States' data management needs through a grants award process to be
    administered by the Association. Furthermore, the Association
    recommends Congress increase NBII's fiscal year 2004 budget by an
    additional $500,000 to fund the Northern Rockies Node at a level of
    $500,000 (a $350,000 increase over what is proposed) and the Pacific
    Northwest Node at a level of $350,000 (an increase of $150,000 over
    what is proposed). The Association supports the proposed expansion of
    the California Node and the proposed initiation of the Mid-Atlantic
    Node in the fiscal year 2004 budget request, but also strongly believes
    existing nodes must be adequately funded. Such is the case with the
    Northern Rockies and Pacific Northwest nodes where demands far outstrip
    the modest funding levels currently in place. This disparity should be
    addressed in this budget cycle, in advance of other nodes scheduled for
    initiation next year and beyond.
        The Association applauds Congress' past efforts at fully funding
    the Cooperative Research Units, thereby allowing Unit productivity to
    rise to record levels. Since that was first achieved in fiscal year
    2001--at $14 million--there has been some erosion of available fiscal
    resources for the Units, principally due to uncontrollable costs. These
    have been disproportionately high since 90 percent of the budget for
    the Units is salaries. This first surfaced in the fiscal year 2002
    enacted budget when the Units were $400,000 short. Because of the high
    proportion of personnel costs, the burden was high, yet the budget
    remained flat at $14 million. In the fiscal year 2003 enacted budget,
    the Units were funded at $14.9 million. The President's proposed fiscal
    year 2003 budget had actually left the budget flat, but funds were
    added in markup as follows: $400,000 for operating costs for the new
    Nebraska Cooperative research unit and $500,000 for uncontrollable
    costs--although the $400,000 uncontrollable shortfall from fiscal year
    2002 still remains. In the President's fiscal year 2004 budget request,
    the Units would be funded flat, based on the President's fiscal year
    2003 request. This means there would be no money for the Nebraska
    Cooperative research Unit to operate in 2004, and there would be a
    $600,000 shortfall in uncontrollables. Because of the flat budget, this
    would mean a net uncontrollable cost shortfall for three consecutive
    years. In short, the impact on the other Units would be significant.
        To maintain full funding for the Cooperative Research Units, the
    Association recommends Congress increase the fiscal year 2004 budget by
    $1 million over the fiscal year 2003 enacted--to $15.9 million--in
    order to maintain the new Nebraska Unit that Congress established in
    fiscal year 2003, plus again cover uncontrollable costs as Congress did
    in fiscal year 2003 enacted.
        Three states have fisheries units only and 12 states have neither
    fisheries nor wildlife units. Most states have expressed an interest in
    entering into a partnership between the BRD, a State University and the
    state fish and wildlife agency to bring one or both Cooperative
    Research Units to their state. The Association is pleased that the
    fiscal year 2003 Appropriations language directs BRD ``to develop a
    priority system for expanding the current program.'' The Association
    looks forward to participating in this strategic planning process and
    we urge Congress to approve budget requests in subsequent years based
    on this undertaking.
        The Association strongly supports BRD's proposal to fund the
    aquaculture chemical and drug registration effort. The continuation of
    this cooperative project between BRD, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the state fish and
    wildlife agencies is critically important to assure that approved,
    effective and safe treatment measures are available to private, state
    and federal aquaculture programs. Great progress has been made in
    registration of drugs and chemicals for the treatment and prevention of
    diseases in important aquaculture species but additional work remains
    to increase and expand the treatment options that are available to
    aquaculture managers. BRD is uniquely qualified for its leadership role
    in this project and we recommend that Congress express its support for
    BRD's continued participation in this cooperative effort.
        A significant problem still exists with brucellosis, a disease that
    affects domestic livestock and other animals, and is present in elk and
    bison in the Greater Yellowstone Area, located within the states of
    Montana, Wyoming and Idaho. The BRD has a key responsibility, working
    with other agencies, to help resolve this issue, with the goal of
    eliminating the disease from the region by 2010. Both the National Park
    Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have contributed to a
    brucellosis research program conducted and partially funded by BRD to
    improve the vaccination program for brucellosis in elk and bison. These
    commitments have been on an ``ability to pay'' basis. The Association
    recommends that in addition to BRD's own $500,000 programmed for
    ongoing brucellosis studies, the other USDI agencies cooperating in
    this research be required to specifically identify the amount intended
    for this purpose in their respective budgets, and then transfer that
    amount to BRD's budget to allow the Division to meet its
    responsibilities in resolving this issue. The Association strongly
    supports this research endeavor, but encourages ongoing communications
    and cooperation with the involved States.
        Emerging disease issues, such as West Nile virus, chronic wasting
    disease, foot-and-mouth disease, avian vacuolar myelinopathy, and
    whirling disease represent significant threats to fish and wildlife.
    The Association strongly recommends that Congress direct BRD to enhance
    its ability to assist state fish and wildlife management agencies in
    dealing with disease issues by increasing by an additional $500,000 the
    funding of the National Wildlife Health Center (NWHC). Further, the
    Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study (SCWDS) provides vital
    diagnostic services to the States and is the principal coordinating
    entity between the State fish and wildlife agencies and the U.S.
    Department of Agriculture with respect to epizootics that can affect
    both domestic animals and wildlife. The funding of SCWDS has been
    static since 1987 at $250,000 (minus $18,500 in administrative fees
    paid to NWHC). Inflationary erosion has reduced the purchasing power of
    the SCWDS appropriation to approximately 25 percent of its value at
    inception in 1963 and an ever-expanding workload due to emerging
    disease issues threatens to compromise the ability of SCWDS to continue
    to provide all its state and federal supporters with the level of
    service they have come to expect. The Association strongly recommends
    that an additional $150,000 be appropriated to BRD for SCWDS to bring
    the total to $400,000. The Association further strongly encourages BRD
    to request incremental increases in future years in their budget
    request to enable adequate funding of SCWDS. Additionally, the
    Association recommends that BRD increase consultation and cooperation
    with other wildlife resource, land management, agriculture, and human
    health agencies to control diseases that threaten the health of the
    Nation's wildlife.
        The BRD was created to serve as the primary research arm for USDI
    bureaus. This research function was solidified with the transfer of the
    Cooperative Research Units from the U.S. Fish and wildlife Service to
    BRD. However, the creation of, and continued expansion of, natural
    resources research activities in the Cooperative Ecosystem Studies
    Units (CESU) within the National Park Service has led to duplication of
    efforts, confusion amongst cooperators, and significant expenditures of
    limited resources. Because Congress intended that BRD be the research
    arm of the USDI, the Association recommends Congress direct the
    Secretary of the Department of the Interior to clearly and explicitly
    identify the need for CESUs and articulate the distinction between
    these entities. It is the Association's conclusion that, unless such a
    distinction can be clearly articulated and the need clearly identified,
    Congress should ultimately transfer the funding for NPS' CESUs to BRD
    and have BRD assume the CESU's ecological research function.
        The Association strongly supports BRD's requested funding increase
    of $1 million to expand research on chronic wasting disease, a
    progressively degenerative and ultimately fatal disease in deer and
    elk; the $500,000 increase in amphibians research; and $4 million
    increase to expand invasive species research and begin developing a
    prototype model for a national early detection network for invasive
    species in U.S. terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. At the same time,
    however, the Association urges BRD and Congress not to diminish funding
    directed at ongoing research needs that may not, at present, be
    garnering the kind of public attention as those targeted here, but for
    which there remain many unanswered questions and the consequences of
    not continuing the research in earnest has dire consequences.

                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Interstate Council on Water Policy

        The Interstate Council on Water Policy (ICWP), a national
    organization representing state, local and interstate water resource
    agencies, would like to take this opportunity to comment on the
    Administration's proposed budget for the U.S. Geological Survey in
    Federal fiscal year 2004.
        ICWP is pleased to see that, in contrast to the past two years when
    USGS water data collection programs faced severe cuts, the President's
    2004 budget proposes to at least maintain stable funding for the U.S.
    Geological Survey's Cooperative Water Program and National Streamflow
    Information Program (NSIP). Stream-gaging has been the hallmark
    function of the USGS for over a century. Water management involving
    water supply, water quality protection, flood control and recreation
    all require information on the flow condition of streams throughout the
    United States. While the President's budget does hold the funding of
    these programs steady, it does not keep up with the anticipated four
    percent increase in costs typically seen annually in the stream-gaging
    program. Therefore, loss of gages across the country is an inevitable
    result of this budget.
        ICWP has made the long-term stability and security of the nation's
    stream-gaging program a priority concern. In 2001, ICWP convened four
    regional workshops across the nation to discuss a national network of
    stream gages, the purposes for such gages and the financial
    responsibility of this network. Concurrently, USGS was implementing the
    first stages of its National Streamflow Information Program to deal
    with the erosion of national gage coverage in recent years. The ICWP
    workshops also provided a forum for critiquing USGS's NSIP program.
    This critique and recommendations for a national stream-gaging network
    are contained in an ICWP report from February 2002, which is enclosed.
        One of the basic tenets of building the national network of stream
    gages has been the need to shore up the Cooperative Water Program. This
    Co-op program matches state and local funds with a match from the USGS.
    The program supports two main functions, data collection, such as
    stream-gaging, and interpretive studies. Originally, the match between
    non-federal cooperators and the USGS was 50:50. Over time, increased
    requests by cooperators for USGS services, coupled with stagnant
    federal funding has altered the proportion of funding within the Co-op
    Program, such that, in 2002, there was $65 million of unmatched
    cooperator funds supporting projects and gages. While there is
    substantial support for the USGS to continue its NSIP initiative to
    stabilize the national network of gages, there is an overwhelming need
    by cooperators to see USGS rebuild its level of commitment to the
    Cooperative Water Program and the gages supported by that program.
        Based on the findings of the ICWP regarding stream-gaging in the
    country, we would request Congress increase the federal investment in
    gages managed and maintained under the NSIP and the Cooperative Water
    Programs. To that end, ICWP requests Congress increase the
    Administration's proposed 2004 USGS budget to add $2 million for NSIP
    and $2 million to the Cooperative Water Program, earmarked specifically
    for supporting stream gages with state and local cooperators. While
    there are a number of other programs of USGS that deal with hydrologic
    monitoring, assessment and research, ICWP believes that the paramount
    concern of state and local water managers is the acquisition of
    streamflow data. Without the provision of basic data from the nation's
    rivers and streams, all other water resource information has marginal
    utility. Increased funding over current levels for the NSIP and
    Cooperative Water Program remains our first priority, and we believe it
    should be the priority of the federal government as well.
        As a side note, ICWP has become aware of Draft Office of Management
    and Budget Circular A-76, which effectively limits state and local
    governments' use of USGS expertise, unless they can demonstrate the
    absence of a private sector vendor who can perform the same service. We
    believe this limitation applies to both interpretive studies and basic
    data collection. Given the over $65 million in unmatched funds directed
    toward USGS through its Cooperative Water Program, it is small wonder
    that the private sector would seek to re-direct those resources to
    engineering and consulting firms. While there may be some opportunity
    to utilize other investigators for interpretive analysis, ICWP believes
    that the basic USGS data collection responsibilities should be immune
    from this type of institutional approach. The value of having USGS,
    rather than the private sector, collect water data is significant. It
    ensures quality control by an impartial party, a factor that is often
    critical in potentially controversial water allocation decisions or
    litigation. We encourage your committee to examine the intent and
    effect of the OMB Circular on acquisition of water resource
    information.
        ICWP recognizes ongoing budget struggles aggravated by the
    hostilities in Iraq and need for Homeland Security, however, we would
    observe that providing water supplies to communities and industries,
    warning citizens to stay out of harm's way during flooding events and
    protecting the nation's waters from the continual threat of pollution
    are intrinsic to Homeland Security. Those functions of water management
    must have reliable information upon which to act, thus increased
    investment in acquiring that hydrologic intelligence is a reasonable
    and prudent act on the part of the federal government.
        ICWP appreciates your consideration of these remarks. Please feel
    free to contact me at 785-296-6170 or ICWP Executive Director Susan
    Gilson at 202-218-4133 to continue this discussion.

                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the Mineral Policy Center

        On behalf of the Mineral Policy Center and its members around the
    country, we appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony on three key
    hardrock minerals-related issues in the Interior Appropriations bill
    that are vital to the public interest.
        First, we urge the Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee to
    provide full funding for United States Geological Survey (USGS), and in
    particular, the Mineral Resources Program. Unfortunately, the
    Administration's fiscal year 2004 budget request would cut funding to
    an unacceptable level for both of these programs. The President's
    fiscal year 2004 budget request for the USGS is $895.5 million, a
    decrease of $24 million or 2.6 percent relative to the fiscal year 2003
    enacted level of $919.3 million. The Mineral Resources Program would
    suffer even further--the President's fiscal year 2004 budget request is
    $43.4 million, a decrease of $12.4 million or 22.2 percent from the
    fiscal year 2003 enacted level of $55.8 million. Such cuts would make
    it extremely difficult for the USGS to produce the same quality and
    quantity of information that it has in the past, with the result that
    the public's awareness of such information would also decline. It is
    critical that the USGS be fully funded, with adequate levels for the
    Mineral Resources program to research and produce national and
    international information products.
        The USGS and the Mineral Resources Program collect, analyze and
    provide data that is of vital use to the public and to public interest
    groups. For example, the Western Region Mineral Resources Project works
    to assess the mineral resources and mineral related environmental
    problems of the western region of the United States, focusing on
    impacts to the environment and public health; sustainability and
    societal need; the economy and public policy; and more. Other programs,
    such as the Minerals Information Team, provide key data on the domestic
    and international supply and demand for minerals via the Minerals
    Yearbook and Mineral Commodity Summaries. Because of the often
    devastating impacts that hardrock mining in the United States and
    internationally can have on communities, water supplies, habitat and
    other crucial natural resources, not to mention taxpayers and local
    economies, such information is invaluable to for the public.
        It is difficult to overstate the importance of the Mineral
    Resources Program. As identified by the National Academy of Sciences
    and others, those charged with administering U.S. minerals resources--
    the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service--inadequately
    document and/or publicize their mineral management activities and the
    consequences of mineral activity under their management. If it weren't
    for the USGS Mineral Resources Program, the public would know little
    about mineral activity in the United States.
        Additionally, the international aspect of the Mineral Resources
    Program must not be overlooked--many hardrock mining companies are
    active both here and abroad, and many are also foreign-owned. Data on
    mining overseas can directly impact the situation on the ground here.
        The USGS and its programs are the only source of minerals
    information that is both readily available and affordable to ordinary
    citizens and public interest groups. As such, this remains one of the
    only ways that public interest groups and concerned members of the
    public can check on the accuracy of information disseminated by the
    hardrock mining industry itself.
        In addition to full funding for the USGS, Mineral Policy Center
    highly supports the retention in the Interior Appropriations bill
    placing a moratorium on any new patent applications under the general
    mining laws. This provision has been reinstated every year since 1994
    and represents sound public policy. Prior to the enactment of this
    moratorium, mining companies acting under the 1872 Mining Law purchased
    public land equal in size to the state of Connecticut, containing
    minerals worth more than $245 billion. In 1994, the Canadian company
    Barrick Resources purchased the Goldstrike Mine in Nevada, which is
    worth $10 billion, for about $9,765--literally a millionth of its
    worth. Such a giveaway of public resources should never be allowed to
    occur again.
        Finally, we would like to praise the Interior Appropriations
    Subcommittee for its past efforts to keep many anti-environmental
    riders out of the bill and urge that this bill be kept clean of any
    such anti-environmental provisions this year.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to submit testimony.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Council for Science and the
                                  Environment

                                    SUMMARY

        The National Council for Science and the Environment (NCSE) urges
    Congress to appropriate $959.7 million for the U.S. Geological Survey
    in fiscal year 2004, an increase of 4.4 percent over the fiscal year
    2003 enacted level of $919.3 million (Table 1). Our national interests
    will be served if Congress provides adequate resources for the USGS to
    fulfill its mission, including its critical role in homeland security.
    NCSE supports increased federal investment in USGS programs that
    underpin responsible natural resource stewardship, improve resilience
    to natural and human-induced hazards, and contribute to the long-term
    health, security, and prosperity of the nation. A 4.4 percent increase
    in the USGS budget in fiscal year 2004 would provide new funding to
    support the agency's responsibilities related to homeland security and
    other priorities and support an adjustment that accounts for inflation
    and uncontrollable costs.
        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.
        The National Council for Science and the Environment 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 2004.

                           FEDERAL INVESTMENTS IN 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 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.
        The U.S. Geological Survey is a critical component of the nation's
    R&D portfolio. NCSE supports the continued vitality of the unique
    combination of biological, geological, hydrological and mapping
    programs of the U.S. Geological Survey. The USGS provides independent,
    high-quality data, information, research support and assessments needed
    by federal, state, local and tribal policymakers, resource and
    emergency managers, engineers and planners, researchers and educators
    and the public. NCSE supports increased federal investment in USGS
    programs that underpin responsible natural resource stewardship,
    improve resilience to natural and human-induced hazards, and contribute
    to the long-term health, security and prosperity of the nation.

                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 has produced 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 program 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.
        Some of the proposed cuts in the USGS fiscal year 2004 budget
    request are in areas related to homeland security, such as topographic
    mapping and research on the dispersal of toxic substances in lakes,
    streams, and aquifers. At a time when the federal government is
    allocating tens of billions of dollars 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.

           U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BUDGET REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

        The National Council for Science and the Environment urges Congress
    to appropriate $959.7 million for the U.S. Geological Survey in fiscal
    year 2004, an increase of 4.4 percent over the fiscal year 2003 enacted
    level of $919.3 million. Our national interests will be served if
    Congress provides adequate resources for the USGS to fulfill its
    mission. A 4.4 percent increase in the USGS budget in fiscal year 2004
    would provide new funding to support the agency's responsibilities
    related to homeland security and other priorities as well as an
    adjustment that accounts for inflation and uncontrollable costs.
        The President's fiscal year 2004 budget request would cut nearly
    every line item in the USGS budget relative to the fiscal year 2003
    enacted level (Table 1). The budget request would cut funding for
    Biological Research by 0.6 percent, Geologic Hazards and Resources by
    5.0 percent, Mapping, Remote Sensing and Geographic Investigations by
    9.6 percent, and Water Resources by 3.4 percent. Total funding for the
    USGS would decrease by $24 million or 2.6 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. For example, the Toxic Substances Hydrology program
    would receive a disproportionate cut of 17.7 percent. USGS water
    programs are essential for maintaining safe and secure water resources
    for citizens of the United States.
        NCSE greatly appreciates the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on
    Interior and Related Agencies' sustained support for the U.S.
    Geological Survey. We are especially grateful for the Subcommittee's
    leadership in restoring past cuts in the USGS budget. Thank you very
    much for your interest in improving the scientific basis for
    environmental decisionmaking.

                                     TABLE 1.--U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY APPROPRIATIONS
                                        [Budget authority in millions of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Budget Authority          Change from fiscal
                                                              --------------------------------- year 2003 enacted to
                                                                                                  fiscal year 2004
                    USGS Activity/Subactivity                    Fiscal     Fiscal     Fiscal          request
                                                                  year       year    year 2004 ---------------------
                                                                 actual    enacted     request    Amount    Percent
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mapping, Remote Sensing, & Geog. Investigations..........     $133.1     $133.2     $120.5     -$12.7       -9.6
        Cooperative Topographic Mapping......................       81.0       81.1       74.1       -7.0       -8.6
        Land Remote Sensing..................................       35.8       35.7       34.0       -1.7       -4.7
        Geographic Analysis and Monitoring...................       16.3       16.4       12.3       -4.0      -24.7
    Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes...............      232.6      233.2      221.6      -11.6       -5.0
        Geologic Hazard Assessments..........................       74.9       75.0       72.8       -2.2       -3.0
        Geologic Landscape & Coastal Assessments.............       77.9       78.7       79.4        0.7        0.9
        Geologic Resource Assessment.........................       79.7       79.5       69.4      -10.1      -12.7
    Water Resources Investigations...........................      206.4      207.2      200.1       -7.1       -3.4
        Hydrologic Monitoring, Assessm'ts & Research.........      136.1      136.8      135.6       -1.2       -0.9
        Cooperative Water Program............................       64.3       64.4       64.5        0.1        0.2
        Water Resources Research Act Program.................        6.0        6.0        0.0       -6.0     -100.0
    Biological Research......................................      166.2      169.8      168.9       -0.9       -0.6
        Biological Research and Monitoring...................      133.4      132.1      134.0        1.9        1.4
        Biological Information Management & Delivery.........       18.9       22.8       20.7       -2.1       -9.2
        Cooperative Research Units...........................       14.0       14.9       14.1       -0.8       -5.1
    Science Support..........................................       86.2       85.2       91.5        6.4        7.5
    Facilities...............................................       89.4       90.8       92.9        2.2        2.4
                                                              ------------------------------------------------------
          Total..............................................      913.9      919.3      895.5      -23.8      -2.6
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: ``The Interior in Brief Fiscal Year 2004'' and USGS.
    \1\ Included in the fiscal year 2002 Actual Column are: enacted funding ($914.0 million); Across-The-Board (ATB)
      reduction (-$0.9 million); and transfer to Water for Cyprus Work ($0.8 million).
    \2\ Included in the fiscal year 2003 Enacted column are: enacted funding ($925.3 million) and ATB reduction (-
      $6.0 million)

                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the National Institutes for Water Resources

        I am Robert Ward, President of the National Institutes for Water
    Resources and Director of the Colorado Water Resources Research
    Institute at Colorado State University. My testimony requests the
    Subcommittee to provide $8,775,000 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. You have recognized the importance of
    local, state and federal government agencies cooperating with
    universities to produce new the knowledge and understanding and also
    well trained and educated water professionals who will design and
    operate our increasingly sophisticated water systems in the future. 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 provides the science needed to manage the nation's natural
    resources.
        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 $8,775,000 in the U.S. Geological Survey's fiscal year
    2004 budget for the state water resources research institutes program.
    This recommendation is based on the following components:
      --$7,000,000 in base grants for the water resources research
            institutes as authorized by Section 104(b) of the Water
            Resources Research Act, including state-based competitive
            grants;
      --$1,500,000 to support activities authorized by section 104(g) of
            the Act, a national competitive grants program, and
      --$275,000 for program administration.
        This recommendation would provide a $125,000 base grant to support
    the institutes that 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 national competitive grants program.

                                 JUSTIFICATION

        Homeland security, drought, salinity control, TMDLs, and source
    water protection are a few of the difficult water-related issues facing
    communities across the U.S. today. Each issue has a scientific
    foundation upon which local communities and state and federal agencies
    base water management decisions. As our population grows and the
    concern about environmental quality continues, unbiased knowledge and
    insight are demanded to insure fair and equitable decision-making.
    Furthermore, as new water-related problems emerge (such as those
    surrounding forest fire cleanup in the West), gaps in the science that
    underpins management decision-making are exposed. This, in turn, can
    greatly complicate the decision-making process for not only water
    managers, but also, in the case of the forest fires, forest managers.
    The term ``sound science'' is often used to describe the sought after
    knowledge and insight.
        For more than 37 years the 54 state water resources research
    institutes have served to link university scientists working in the
    water quality and water quantity arenas with governments, business and
    industry, and citizens in efforts to produce sound science to assist in
    resolving difficult water issues at the local, state and national
    levels. In addition, the water resources research institutes, in many
    cases, are the means by which the search for new knowledge is joined,
    in a collaborative manner, by local, state, federal and university
    managers and scientists. The state water resources institutes represent
    ``sound science'', networked among levels of government and
    universities.
        The water resources research institute program is constantly
    striving for efficiency in research administration and collaboration.
    In cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey (which administers the
    water resources research institute program), the water institutes are
    developing and implementing modern electronic information technology to
    manage their nationally networked water research programs. Proposals
    for the national competition are submitted electronically, peer
    reviewed electronically (by a list of scientists from across the United
    States), and reported electronically. The water research management
    system is now being employed by some of the state institutes to manage
    state-based water research competitions. The resulting database of
    current research plans and activities, as well as past results, are
    increasingly being made readily available to the public and
    professionals alike via the internet. Electronic administration of
    water research assists in fostering research collaboration in ways not
    dreamed of just 10 years ago. This is but one example of the value of a
    national network of water institutes working together with local, state
    and federal partners, particularly the U.S. Geological Survey.
        State water resources research institutes take the relatively
    modest amount of federal funding appropriated by this Subcommittee,
    leverage it 2:1 with state matching funds and funding from other
    sources, including local governments, and use it to put university
    scientists to work finding solutions to the most pressing local and
    state water problems that are of national importance. In fiscal year
    2002, the institutes generated about $22.70 in support for each federal
    dollar appropriated to them through this program and put three-quarters
    of every dollar they received into research projects. The remainder
    supports information transfer, training activities, etc. This program
    does not provide any indirect costs to universities, unlike most
    federal research programs. All of the funding goes to support the goals
    set forth in the Water Resources Research Act.
        Federal funding for the water resources research institute program
    is therefore the catalyst that moves states to invest in university-
    based research to address their own water management issues. The added
    benefit is that often research to address state and local problems
    helps solve problems that are of regional and national importance, as
    well. Perhaps most important, the federal funding provides the driving
    force of collaboration in water research and education among local,
    state, federal and university water professionals.
        How do water resources research institutes know they are working on
    the most pressing water issues? Each institute brings together a local
    advisory panel typically consisting of local, state, and federal agency
    officials, representatives of business and industry, and representative
    of non-governmental organizations. These panels identify the most
    important water problems facing their states, establish priorities for
    research, and rank proposals as to relevance.
        The work of the water resources research institutes does not stop
    with identifying needs and arranging for research to address the needs.
    Once research is completed, institutes also see that the results are
    transferred to federal, state, and local agencies and the general
    public via publication of reports; newsletters; presentation of
    seminars, workshops and conferences; maintenance of Internet sites, and
    one-on-one contact with agency personnel. Many institutes collaborate
    directly with Cooperative Extension in distributing water research
    findings.
        Institutes also help educate future water scientists. Quite often a
    significant portion of a research grant goes to pay part of the stipend
    of a master's or PhD student studying in such critical fields as
    watershed hydrology, hydrogeology, aquatic ecology, toxicology,
    sanitary engineering, and water resources engineering. In fiscal year
    2002, institutes provided research support for more than 1,165
    students. As you know, our scientific workforce is aging and a mass
    exodus through retirements is expected in government, academia and
    industry over the next decade. Supporting the education of new
    scientists is a critical role of institutes that should be expanded.
        In fiscal year 2002, water resources research institutes across the
    nation funded 198 research projects from their base grants and 936
    projects from additional research funds. Typically, institutes can fund
    only one of every four or five proposals they receive in response to
    solicitations based on their established priorities.
        The state-based water research collaboration focus of the core
    funding is complimented by a national water research competition
    referred to as the national competitive grants program (or Section
    104(g) grants). The national competitive grants program is administered
    by USGS in collaboration with the National Institutes for Water
    Resources. Priorities for this program are set jointly by USGS and the
    institutes. This program received 75 proposals in fiscal year 2002 and
    was able to fund only eight. Here again, regional and national research
    needs are not being met. For instance, in much of the Southeast we are
    suffering from a 3-year drought that some are now predicting to stretch
    out another 7 years. There are many unanswered questions about the
    effects of this drought not only on regional water supplies but also on
    water quality and habitat. We should already be planning how to respond
    to the potential for long-term drought, but there are many gaps in the
    information base. An increase in the competitive grants funding could
    catalyze additional research on regional problems such as effects of
    drought in the same way that an increase in base grants would catalyze
    research on local and state water resources problems.
        There are many pressing needs for new knowledge in the water
    resources area. For 37 years, the Water Resources Research Institute
    program has been linking university scientists to government, business
    and citizens to provide new knowledge and help solve problems. This is
    a productive, useful, and valuable partnership that should be continued
    and expanded.
        Mr. Chairman, basing water quality and water quantity management on
    sound science is worthy goal. But, we have to invest to produce sound
    science. Congress must invest to catalyze states and states must invest
    to address their own issues. You can rest assured that if you do your
    part, the water resources research institutes will carry the challenge
    to state and local governments, business and industry, foundations and
    environmental groups to invest in sound science for water resources
    management. The National Institutes for Water Resources respectfully
    recommend this Subcommittee provide $8,775,000 to the USGS for the
    state water resources research institutes program authorized by the
    Water Resources Research Act. Thank you.

                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Wildlife Management Institute

        The Wildlife Management Institute (WMI) is submitting these
    comments regarding the fiscal year 2004 proposed budget for the U.S.
    Geological Survey's Biological Resources Division (BRD). WMI is a
    private, non-profit scientific and educational organization dedicated
    to the conservation of wildlife through wise stewardship and management
    of species and habitats. WMI consists of highly respected wildlife
    professionals each with considerable experience with wildlife and
    natural resources agencies prior to joining WMI. Our comments include
    recommendations for the following increases over the Administration's
    budget request: $1.4 million for Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research
    Units; $1.9 million for uncontrollables; $2.8 million for the Fire
    Science Initiative; $500,000 for the National Wildlife Health Center;
    $150,000 for the Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study; and
    $3 million for the DOI Landscape Initiative.
        The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CRUs) are
    fundamental to producing both the natural resources scientists needed
    for the future and the science information needed by federal and state
    land management agencies. In recent years, Congress has recognized the
    need to support appropriations to fully staff the CRUs, and provided
    consistent increases in funding to fill vacant positions. CRUs are
    unique in that over 90 percent of their budget is for salaries.
    However, OMB and Department of Interior budget guidance assumes that 50
    percent of budgets are salaries. This discrepancy, added to the budget
    guidance directing BRD to absorb more than half of the uncontrollables,
    will result in significant shifts in costs just to cover salaries, and
    will again jeopardize the ability of CRUs to fill vacancies. This is
    exactly the situation Congress attempted to correct in the recent past
    by adding additional funding to permit full staffing of the CRUs. In
    addition, a new CRU was established in Nebraska in fiscal year 2003,
    with $400,000 appropriated to fund that Unit. The dollars to fund that
    Unit again in fiscal year 2004 are absent from the budget request. WMI
    recommends that Congress add $900,000 to the CRU budget to provide the
    $400,000 needed for continued funding of the new Nebraska CRU and an
    additional $500,000 to fully cover the uncontrollables of CRUs and
    correct the discrepancy between actual salary costs and those assumed
    by OMB and DOI budget guidelines.
        Three states have fisheries units only, and 12 states have neither
    fisheries nor wildlife Units. Most states have expressed an interest in
    entering into a partnership with BRD, a state university, the state
    fish and wildlife agency, and the Wildlife Management Institute to
    bring one or both CRUs to their state. An initiative is underway by
    WMI, BRD, state fish and wildlife agencies and other stakeholders to
    review the Research Unit program and to develop recommendations to
    ensure that critical research needs are met in the future. We recommend
    that Congress direct BRD to consider these recommendations and in
    future years to develop appropriate budget requests consistent with
    those recommendations.
        Since fiscal year 1994, the base funding level for BRD has lagged
    more than $30 million behind the rate of inflation, at a time when real
    increases are needed to meet the basic research and information needs
    of the natural resources community. We are especially concerned that
    BRD is now being asked to absorb almost $1.9 million out of $3.4
    million in uncontrollable costs. This will force significant reductions
    in operational funds for critical programs. WMI recommends that
    Congress fully fund uncontrollable costs by adding $1.9 million for
    uncontrollables.
        We are disappointed by the proposed reduction in support for the
    long term Fire Science initiative. These fire ecology studies are
    collaborative studies with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National
    Park Service, and Bureau of Land Management and are needed to enhance
    understanding of the effects of fire and landscape recovery, and to
    improve our ability to manage burned landscapes. WMI recommends that
    $2.8 million be restored by Congress for this effort.
        WMI strongly supports the proposed budget of $1.25 million for
    studies of Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) and the $4.05 million proposed
    budget for studies of invasive species. Control of CWD is a major
    concern to state and federal agencies and to sportsmen, and will
    continue to be for some years. We are also concerned about the spread
    of West Nile Virus (WNV) and its impacts on bird species throughout the
    United States. WMI recommends that Congress fully fund the requested
    $1.25 million for CWD and $4.05 million for invasive species, and we
    further recommend that Congress add an additional $500,000 to the
    funding of the National Wildlife Health Center and an additional
    $150,000 to the Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study to
    conduct the research needed to cope with CWD, WNV, and other diseases.
        WMI also is concerned about special research needs of other DOI
    agencies, and BRD's ability to meet those needs. The Science on the DOI
    Landscape initiative proposed budget includes $1.3 million for
    biological research programs to meet regional priorities designated by
    the DOI Bureaus. WMI recommends that Congress increase this research
    support to $3 million for biological programs, and that Congress direct
    that research should include sage grouse conservation needs, wildlife
    impacts of energy exploration and development, and the population and
    habitat surveys necessary to support waterfowl seasons and conservation
    of other priority bird species.
        Finally, I would just reiterate our concerns that the Cooperative
    Fish and Wildlife Research Units be fully funded and that 100 percent
    of uncontrollable costs be included in that funding. These Units have a
    lengthy history of partnerships and successes, and are vital to states
    and others for providing answers needed for management of our nation's
    fish and wildlife resources.
        Thank you for considering our comments. We look forward to working
    with you and your staff throughout the appropriations process. If you
    or your staff would like to discuss our recommendations further, please
    contact me or Terry Riley, Director of Conservation, at (202) 371-1808.
                                     ______

         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 2004 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 2004, despite the states' projected need for
    additional moneys to meet actual program expenses.
        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 2004, the states (and tribes) have
    projected a need for $64.4 million for Title V grants based on
    a new and improved budget forecasting methodology. This
    represents a well-documented and well-justified increase of $3
    million over our request of last year ($61.3 million) and yet
    we are faced with an OSM proposal that does not provide for any
    increase in funding for Title V grants in fiscal year 2004.
    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.
        It is essential that the states be made whole in fiscal
    year 2004 and thus we are requesting Congress to appropriate
    the full amount requested by the states and tribes of $64.4
    million. If this does not occur, it likely 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 to
    minimize the impact of coal extraction operations on people and
    the environment. 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 a State were to relinquish 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 65.]

        Some may argue that there are at least a handful of states
    who either are unable to meet the 50 percent state match or are
    unable to spend all of the federal funds allocated to them in a
    particular grant year. This merely reflects the reality of the
    significant fiscal challenges facing these states as they
    attempt to balance record deficits with their desire and intent
    to continue operating effective state regulatory programs.
    Rather than focus on the occasional inability to match federal
    dollars or the limited deobligation of year-end moneys, we
    believe it is more critical to investigate the potential
    mechanisms for assisting the states to meet their financial
    requirements, either through increased overall grant funding
    (as we propose) or through adjustments to the current funding
    formula. This will become increasingly important as the federal
    government is faced with the dilemma of either securing the
    necessary funding for state programs or implementing those
    programs (or portions thereof) themselves--at significantly
    higher costs.
        Suffice it to say that should our proposed increase not be
    approved, 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 impossible 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 2004 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 insufficient 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. In
    recent years, 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 $17 million reduction for state AML grants, which
    Congress ultimately (and thankfully) restored. This year, we
    see a continued attempt 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, 2002, the states have obligated 93 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 $6.6 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. In this regard, we are very encouraged by OSM's
    statement of intent in its proposed budget to support extension
    of the fee collection authority under Title IV of SMCRA, as
    well as its intent to propose a mechanism whereby more receipts
    from the Fund are targeted to abandoned mine reclamation, thus
    increasing the pace of the overall reclamation program. This is
    consistent with the position we have been advocating for the
    past several years. We look forward to working with OSM, the
    Congress and other affected parties to seek the expeditious
    reauthorization of fee collection authority prior to the
    expiration date of September 30, 2004. Please see the attached
    resolution recently adopted by IMCC, which addresses AML
    reauthorization.
        In the meantime, 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 $143 million, for a total of $163 million for
    state/tribal grants in fiscal year 2004. 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.
                                    ------

     Prepared Statement of the National Association of Abandoned Mine Land
                                    Programs

        My name is Murray J. Balk, and I administer the State of Kansas'
    Abandoned Mine Land (AML) Program as well as being this years'
    President of the National Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs
    (Association). In my capacity as President of the Association, I would
    like to thank you for allowing me the opportunity to submit this
    statement regarding the views of the Association concerning the U.S.
    Department of Interior, Office of Surface Mining's (OSM) fiscal year
    2004 Budget Request to this subcommittee.
        The Association is a 501(c)(6) tax exempt organization made up of
    30 states and tribes, all with a history of coal mining and coal mine
    related hazards. The states and tribes within the organization
    administer Abandoned Mine Land Programs, funded and oversighted by OSM,
    as provided for in Title IV of the Surface Mining Control and
    Reclamation Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-87). The mission statement of
    the Association is: (1) to provide a forum to address current issues,
    discuss common problems, and share new technologies regarding the
    reclamation of abandoned mine lands, (2) foster positive and productive
    relationships between the states and tribes represented by the
    Association and the federal government, (3) serve as an effective,
    unified voice when presenting states'/tribes' common viewpoints, and
    (4) coordinate, cooperate, and communicate with the Interstate Mining
    Compact Commission, Western Interstate Energy Board, and all other
    organizations dedicated to the wise use and restoration of our natural
    resources.
        The 30 Abandoned Mine Land Programs represented by the Association
    have accomplished some very impressive reclamation which has remediated
    serious hazards created by past coal mining. The states and tribes are
    abating these hazards in a very cost effective and efficient manner.
    Information presented to the Association by OSM indicates that the
    states and tribes have obtained a 93 percent obligation rate as of
    September 30, 2002. This is an outstanding number considering some of
    the states and tribes do not begin their grant year until July 1, which
    allows them only 3 months to get the funds encumbered.
        This means that the states and tribes are utilizing the funding
    provided by OSM in a very timely manner, and they have a number of
    projects engineered, and ready to implement as soon as funding is
    available. Besides having an outstanding obligation rate, the states
    and tribes are doing a very good job of administering their programs by
    keeping their administrative costs to a minimum. Of the $3.2 billion
    given to the States and Tribes to conduct Title IV reclamation, only 15
    percent of the these funds have been used to administer these AML
    Programs. This indicates that the states and tribes are very successful
    at running their programs without being top heavy in the area of
    administration. With a 93 percent obligation rate and only 15 percent
    of funds going to administration, it is apparent that the states and
    tribes are quite capable of properly utilizing the funds given to them
    through SMCRA.
        What has been accomplished to date has made our country a safer
    place, but due to the magnitude of the problems associated with past
    coal mining, much more is needed. The following is a nationwide list as
    of March 28, 2003, of Priority 1 and 2 inventory problems that still
    need to be remediated including their cost:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Problem type                 Units \1\            Costs
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Clogged Streams (miles)...........              1,021        $59,016,880
    Clogged Stream Lands (acres)......             26,883        201,931,496
    Dangerous Highwalls (feet)........          4,335,947        665,168,960
    Dangerous Impoundments (count)....                811         15,735,570
    Dangerous Piles & Embankments                   9,017        267,921,479
     (acres)..........................
    Dangerous Slides (acres)..........              4,649         69,089,199
    Gases: Hazardous/Explosive (count)                 86          2,775,001
    Hazardous Equipment/Facilities                  2,485         24,735,001
     (count)..........................
    Hazardous Water Body (count)......              1,062         62,516,077
    Industrial/Residential Waste                      387          9,897,797
     (acres)..........................
    Portals (count)...................              8,925         29,697,601
    Polluted Water: Agricultural/                     567         99,611,275
     Industrial (count)...............
    Polluted Water: Human Consumption               4,798      3,718,081,865
     (count)..........................
    Subsidence (acres)................              9,040        484,626,549
    Surface Burning (acres)...........                475         19,909,448
    Underground Mine Fires (acres)....              4,198        857,501,301
    Vertical Openings (count).........              7,306         47,619,380
                                                          ------------------
          Total costs.................                        6,635,834,879
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Count indicates individual incidences.

        As can be seen from these figures taken directly from AMLIS, there
    is over $6.6 billion in Priority 1 and 2 coal mine hazards left to
    remediate before we can say our work is complete. This undeniably
    demonstrates that there is much left to be done to correct the problems
    caused by past coal mining. Because of the extreme hazards associated
    with Priority 1 and 2 AML problems, the Association would encourage the
    committee to release additional funds so the States and Tribes can
    accelerate their AML work, helping to protect the population of this
    country from the hazards created by past coal mining.
        The Association encourages the committee to adopt a Title IV budget
    for non-Clean Streams/non-Emergency AML grants of $163 million for
    fiscal year 2004, an increase of $20 million over last years budget of
    $143 million. A portion of this increase, $5 million, could then be
    used to fund the ``underfunded states'' (or minimum program states) at
    the minimum level of $2 million, as promised by Congress and provided
    for in Section 402 (g)(8) of SMCRA. The remaining $15 million could
    then be distributed among the remaining states to help alleviate more
    hazards associated with Priority 1 and 2 AML problems. The projected
    receipts collected through SMCRA entering the AML Fund this year,
    exclusive of interest, will be approximately $285 million. This amount,
    along with the $1.4 billion which remains unappropriated in the AML
    Fund, will more than offset the amount requested, which is a very valid
    request considering the amount of AML work that remains to be done in
    this country.
        The trend over the past few years has been to give the AML Programs
    less and less funding. Since fiscal year 2001, which was funded at
    $161,863,000, until fiscal year 2003 which was funded at $141,991,721,
    we have seen around a $20 million decrease in the amount of funding
    used for non-Clean Streams/non-Emergency AML projects. It is
    unreasonable to believe that the States and Tribes can do more with the
    same or even less funding. The States and Tribes are running very
    efficient and effective AML Programs, but by decreasing funding or even
    leaving funding at the status quo, we are jeopardizing the mission of
    the AML Programs and the mandate of Congress to abate these hazards as
    provided through SMCRA. Unless Congress acts quickly to remediate these
    hazards it will cost even more in the future. Environmental conditions
    at these AML sites continue to deteriorate over time, which means
    increased costs to complete AML construction projects. Highwalls
    continually erode closer to streets and homes, roofs on underground
    mines deteriorate further causing more roof collapses, and as mine
    fires burn, they cover larger and larger areas. These are just a few
    examples of how time and weather related environmental degradation
    create AML hazards that are more costly to abate. Also, inflation
    affects the cost of reclamation making it more costly to abate AML
    hazards as we postpone work on these AML sites. The Association would
    urge the committee to act now, before these hazardous AML sites become
    more expensive to remediate and the problem areas enlarge. The longer
    the committee waits to allocate these appropriations, the bigger the
    bite inflation and the weather will take out of the funds.
        The Association asks the committee to continue funding the OSM
    training program, which is one of the greatest benefits that OSM
    provides to the States and Tribes. This program provides very
    specialized training to AML staff which helps the States and Tribes
    immensely in dealing with handling many aspects of the AML programs,
    from NEPA requirements all the way through design and construction
    management. It also provides a forum for the staff from states, tribes,
    and OSM to stay up on all the new advances in reclamation technology.
    Another benefit of this training program is that the States/Tribes and
    OSM share the responsibility of developing and teaching the classes.
    Through the effort of both team members these classes have become very
    informational and help disseminate information useful in the field of
    reclamation. Another OSM program that needs to have adequate funding is
    the Technical Information Processing System (TIPS) program which
    provides software and hardware of a very technical nature to the States
    and Tribes. Through the TIPS program, software is shared among the
    States and Tribes for the design of reclamation projects. For these
    reasons, the Association would encourage adequate funding for the OSM
    training program and the TIPS portion of the budget.
        Finally, as the AML Trust Fund's 2004 expiration date approaches,
    we need to ask the question, ``Is there a need for Title IV, a need for
    AML programs across the country?'' I, along with the members of the
    Association, believe the answer to this question is yes. Unless SMCRA
    is extended with all funds generated being distributed to the states
    and tribes, there is no way we can abate a majority of the hazards
    associated with the AMLIS inventory. Even with all the work that has
    been accomplished to date, there is still a national inventory of over
    $6 billion for priority 1 and 2 AML hazards needing remediation. There
    are many health and safety problems as well as environmental problems,
    that need to be addressed by the Abandoned Mine Land Programs.
    Therefore, the Association members believe the funds generated by SMCRA
    are essential for protecting the people of this country from the
    hazards and environmental problems associated with past coal mining and
    SMCRA's ability to collect fees should be extended past 2004.
        If I can be of any further help, or if you have any questions or
    comments please feel free to contact me at (620) 231-8540.

                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the American Indian Graduate Center

        The American Indian Graduate Center (``AIGC'') of Albuquerque, New
    Mexico, is pleased to present testimony on the needs of American Indian
    and Alaska Native graduate students who are served by the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs' (``BIA'') Special Higher Education Program for Graduate
    Students. Our request for the 2003 academic year is for $2,000,000 from
    the Continuing Education portion of the BIA budget.
        The ATGC, a 501(c)(3) private non-profit organization, was
    established in 1969 and incorporated in the state of New Mexico in
    1971. AIGC has served the community for over 33 years, and has assisted
    more than 9,500 American Indian and Alaska Native graduate students in
    numerous fields of professional study. American Indians continue to be
    the least represented of all minority groups in the country in fields
    requiring advanced degrees. AIGC was founded to open the doors to
    graduate education for American Indians, and to help tribes obtain the
    educated Indian professionals they need to become more self-sufficient
    and able to exercise their self-determination rights, and to meet the
    duties and responsibilities that self-sufficiency and self-
    determination entail. Since 1972, AIGC has administered the BIA's
    Special Higher Education Program for Graduate Students and has
    consistently maintained low overhead (less than 10 percent for several
    years). AIGC recently received an ``A+'' and ``Open Book Credit'' from
    the American Institute of Philanthropy (``AIP'' a.k.a.
    CharityWatch.org), a nonprofit charity watchdog and information
    service, for ``putting 75 percent or more towards program costs while
    generally spending $25 or less to raise $100, and for willingly sending
    the financial documents AIP requests.'' AIGC is proud of its record of
    achievement, and has alumni professionals employed in a plethora of
    fields at numerous tribal, public, and private sector entities, many of
    which directly serve the American Indian community. This year, our 362
    fellowship recipients, representing 112 tribes in 23 states, are
    attending 170 colleges and universities in 44 states and the District
    of Columbia.

                              STATISTICS AND NEED

        For the 2003 academic year, AIGC received 1,800 requests for
    applications and 426 completed applications for funding. AIGC awarded
    fellowships to 362 (85 percent) applicants. The 2003 average award is
    $2,700, a 7 percent decline from the 2002 average award of $2,916, and
    a precipitous 42 percent decline from the 2001 average of $4,667. This
    decline trend is extremely troubling, given that the cost of higher
    education is forecast to rise 6 percent per year.
        For the academic year ended 2002 (the most recent year for which
    comprehensive statistics are compiled), 180 (50 percent) awardees were
    enrolled in Master's programs, 175 (48 percent) in Doctorate, and 7 (2
    percent) were pursuing dual degrees. 124 (34 percent) were enrolled in
    Health and Counseling fields of study; 81 (22 percent) in Law; 34 (9
    percent) in Education, 31 (9 percent) in Business; and 18 (5 percent)
    in Psychology. The remaining 20 percent were enrolled in a variety of
    fields of study, ranging from architecture to theology.
        For the seven-year 1996-2003 period, total unmet need has averaged
    $786,000 per year, with the average unmet need per applicant at
    $17,000, a potentially insurmountable gap for a graduate student, given
    that just one year of graduate school at a public school can cost in
    excess of $18,000.
        Our request of $2,000,000 was arrived at using the following
    formula:
    362 Awardees * $4,667 Award Goal * (110 percent Program Costs) * (106
            percent Inflation)
        Our goal is to reverse the slide in the average award per student
    to ensure that every qualified applicant receives an increasingly
    significant fellowship award.

                                    SUMMARY

        In summary, the American Indian Graduate Center requests $2,000,000
    from the Continuing Education line item of the BIA budget for the
    Special Higher Education Program for Graduate Students. AIGC has
    successfully administered the program for 30 years, and has awarded
    fellowships to over 9,500 students. Of the appropriated amount, AIGC
    will award $1,800,000 in graduate fellowships, or $4,972 per student.
    AIGC will use the remaining $200,000 for program costs.
        The American Indian Graduate Center, and the communities it
    dutifully serves, greatly appreciate your continued support and
    consideration.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium

                                REQUEST SUMMARY

        On behalf of this nation's 34 Tribal Colleges and Universities
    (TCUs), which comprise the American Indian Higher Education Consortium
    (AIHEC), thank you for this opportunity to present our fiscal year 2004
    Appropriations requests for the 25 colleges currently funded under the
    Tribally Controlled College or University Assistance Act (Tribal
    College Act), and for our tribally controlled postsecondary vocational
    institutions. The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian
    Affairs, administers these programs. While AIHEC ultimately seeks full
    funding for all of the Tribal College Act's authorized programs, we
    recognize that a focused approach with incremental increases is a way
    to best meet that goal over time. In fiscal year 2004, we seek a total
    of $52.2 million for Tribal College Act programs. Our first priority
    within this request is to increase funding for our institutions' basic
    operations under Titles I & II of the Act, we specifically request
    $49,666,000; of which, $39,528,000 would be for Title I grants and
    $10,138,000 would be allocated for Title II. This request is an
    increase of $7,650,000 over the fiscal year 2003 appropriated level,
    and $11,637,000 over the President's fiscal year 2004 budget request.
    Additionally, we seek: $500,000 for technical assistance, an increase
    of $386,000 over fiscal year 2003 and the President's request, to help
    address ever emerging technical assistance needs and to gather and
    analyze data necessary to comply with the Congressional request to
    provide additional information on TCUs; and $2 million for endowments
    under Title III of the Act. Additionally we support $4 million for
    United Tribes Technical College; and a minimum of $1.2 million for
    Crownpoint Institute of Technology; the fiscal year 2004 budget
    recommendation eliminates funding for these two vocational
    institutions.
        AIHEC's membership also includes three other TCUs funded under
    separate authorities within the Interior Appropriations Act, namely:
    Haskell Indian Nations University; Southwestern Indian Polytechnic
    Institute; and The Institute for American Indian Arts. AIHEC supports
    the independently submitted funding requests of these institutions.

                       BACKGROUND AND FUNDING DISPARITIES

        In 1972, six tribally controlled colleges established AIHEC to
    provide a support network for member institutions. Today, AIHEC
    represents 34 Tribal Colleges and Universities in 12 states created
    specifically to serve the higher education needs of American Indians.
    Collectively, they serve 30,000 full- and part-time students from over
    250 federally recognized tribes.
        The vast majority of TCUs are accredited by independent, regional
    accreditation agencies and like all institutions of higher education,
    must undergo stringent performance reviews on a periodic basis. 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 childcare 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.
        Title I of the Tribal College Act authorizes funding for the basic
    institutional 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 of almost $2
    million in fiscal year 2003, these tribal colleges are currently
    operating at $3,908 per full-time Indian student count (ISC). This is a
    decrease of $8 per ISC from the fiscal year 2002 level and still less
    than two-thirds of the 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 institutions.

                                 JUSTIFICATIONS

        (a) Tribal colleges provide access to critical postsecondary
    education opportunities that would otherwise be out of reach.--TCU
    reservations are located in remote areas, and their populations are
    among the poorest in the nation. On average, median household income
    levels are only about half of the level for the U.S. population as a
    whole. As a result, the cost of attending a mainstream institution,
    which for many reservation communities is several hours away, is
    prohibitively high, especially when tuition, travel, housing,
    textbooks, and all other expenses are considered.
        (b) Tribal colleges are producing a new generation of highly
    trained American Indians as teachers, tribal government leaders,
    engineers, nurses, computer programmers, and other much-needed
    professionals.--By teaching the job skills most in demand on their
    reservations, TCUs are laying a solid foundation for tribal economic
    growth, with benefits for surrounding communities. In contrast to the
    high rates of unemployment, 74 percent of recent tribal college
    graduates are 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 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
    TCUs have attained a ten-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: 91 percent of TCU graduates surveyed
    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 four-year
    postsecondary institutions.--While most TCUs are two-year institutions
    offering associate's degrees and certificates, their transfer function
    is significant. A survey of TCU graduates indicated that almost 50
    percent continued their education during the year after graduation,
    with more than 80 percent of those seeking a bachelor's degree. This
    compared nationally to about 33 percent of other community college
    graduates who enroll in further higher education the year after
    receiving an associate's degree. The overwhelming majority of the
    continuing TCU graduates felt that the programs at TCUs had prepared
    them well for further education and greatly enhanced their success
    rates.

                             SOME ADDITIONAL FACTS

        (a) Enrollment Gains & New TCUs.--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 298 percent increase in enrollments from 1981 to 2002. In
    fiscal year 2004, two new tribal colleges, Saginaw Chippewa Tribal
    College, in Mt. Pleasant, Michigan and Tohono O'odham Community College
    in Sells, Arizona will be eligible to receive funds under the Tribal
    College Act. TCUs are in many ways victims of their own successes. The
    dramatic enrollment increases, coupled with a growing number of
    tribally chartered colleges, have forced Title I colleges to slice an
    already inadequate pie into even smaller pieces. Our fiscal year 2004
    funding request would increase Title I operating funds to $4,500 per
    full-time equivalent Indian student, still just 75 percent of the
    $6,000 authorized.
        (b) The Absence of State Funds for Institutional Operations.--While
    mainstream institutions have a foundation of stable state support, TCUs
    must rely on the Federal government for their operating funds. Because
    TCUs are located on Federal trust lands, states have no obligation to
    fund them even for the non-Indian state-resident students who account
    for approximately 20 percent of TCU 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.--TCUs 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. In Indian Country, according to the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs, 50 percent of the eligible workforce is unemployed. In
    comparison, the current national unemployment rate is 5.8 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. TCUs are founded and chartered by
    their respective American Indian tribes, 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 TCUs
    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. Despite the fact that
    only Indian students are counted for the purpose of determining the
    level of an institution's operating funds, TCUs 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.

              THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

        The President's fiscal year 2004 budget recommends a $4 million cut
    in already inadequate funding to operate our tribally chartered
    reservation based colleges, and eliminates funding for our two
    vocational colleges. Despite an almost $2 million increase in the
    fiscal year 2003 Appropriation, the 24 colleges funded under Title I of
    the Act will receive just $3,908 per full time equivalent Indian
    student (ISC), a decrease of $8 per ISC, and still under two-thirds the
    authorized level of $6,000 per ISC. The $4 million cut proposed in the
    President's fiscal year 2004 budget, if enacted, would result in a loss
    of $733 per ISC for Title I colleges, if Title II funding remained
    level. This slashing of basic operating funds would cause some TCUs to
    no longer be able to meet minimum requirements for stable funding
    needed to pay overhead and faculty/staff salaries. This would not only
    jeopardize their accreditation status but would most likely force some
    of the colleges close their doors.

              AIHEC'S APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

        We respectfully request a total appropriation of $52.2 million for
    our Tribal College Act programs. Of that amount our first priority is
    $49,666,000 for Titles I and II of the Tribal College Act; of which,
    $39,528,000 would be for Title I grants and $10,138,000 would be
    allocated for Title II. This request is an increase of $7,650,000 over
    the fiscal year 2003 appropriated level, and $11,637,000 over the
    President's fiscal year 2004 budget request. This increase would bring
    funding for the basic operations of our Title I colleges, including our
    two new colleges, Saginaw Chippewa Tribal College (Michigan) and Tohono
    O'odham Community College (Arizona), to $4,500 per ISC, which still
    represents just 75 percent of the $6,000 authorized. Additionally, we
    seek $500,000 for technical assistance, an increase of $386,000 over
    fiscal year 2003 and the President's request, to help address ever
    emerging technical assistance needs and to fund data collection and
    analysis necessary to comply with the Congressional requests for
    additional information on TCU operations, and $2 million for endowments
    under Title III of the Act.
        For our two tribally controlled vocational institutions, we support
    $4 million for United Tribes Technical College; and a minimum of $1.2
    million for Crownpoint Institute of Technology, to restore and expand
    the funding for these programs that the fiscal year 2004 budget
    recommends eliminating.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Tribal colleges are bringing education to thousands of American
    Indians. The modest Federal investment in the TCUs has paid great
    dividends in terms of employment, education, and economic development,
    and continuation of this investment makes sound moral and fiscal sense.
    We very much need your help to sustain and grow our programs and
    achieve our missions.
        Thank you for your past and continued support of the nation's
    Tribal Colleges and Universities and your consideration of our fiscal
    year 2004 appropriations requests.
                                     ______

    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 2004 BIA and IHS Budget.

                          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. However, the Administration
    has requested only a small increase of $2.1 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
    failure to restore last year's $4 million cut in General Assistance
    funding. 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 three
    years.

    Tribal Colleges
        We oppose the Administration's proposal to cut tribal colleges
    funding by $4 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.
        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 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 $3.6 billion for IHS
    services and construction (including the $50 million funded through the
    mandatory special diabetes program.) 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 one
    billion dollars in 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 2004 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 2004 budget
    request. This is unacceptable.

    Special Diabetes Study-$316,000 Request
        Diabetes is an epidemic on the Fort Peck Reservation. The rate of
    heart disease, amputations, blindness, kidney failure and other
    diabetic related complications are growing at an accelerated rate,
    while the age of onset becomes younger every year. The death rate for
    Indian people from diabetes is nearly three times higher than non-
    native people.
        To begin to combat this problem that is threatening the future of
    our community, the Fort Peck Tribes request an earmark of $316,000 to
    implement the first year of a five year epidemiological study of the
    impact of a more traditional diet on the diabetics. Preliminary studies
    show that bison meat is a natural inducer of insulin production in the
    body. In addition, bison meat is high in protein and low in fat, which
    is the ideal diet choice for diabetics
        The Tribes propose to establish a study population of 250 people--
    125 would be diagnosed diabetics and 125 would be individuals with an
    established diagnosis of Insulin Resistance Syndrome. All study
    participants will be evaluated by a physician at a baseline and
    thereafter quarterly. The Tribes propose to provide buffalo meat to
    these individuals on a weekly basis. As a part of the study,
    participants will receive an orientation other healthy benefits of
    Bison meat, including how to prepare healthy bison dishes and how to
    incorporate other healthy lifestyle changes to improve their condition
    such as increased exercise, weight control and overall change of diet.
    The study groups will be evaluated quarterly by a physician and receive
    education by the nurse educator and dietitian for weight, waist to hip
    ratio, comprehensive chemistry, magnesium levels, lipid profiles,
    HgbAIC, fasting insulin levels, urinalysis, A/C ratios and aliquots.
        The Tribes estimate that it will require 35 buffalo per year to
    provide sufficient meat to the study participants. The initial term of
    the study would be for five years.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    First year costs........................................        $316,000
        Purchase of Bison Meat..............................          95,000
        Labs for controlled/Non-controlled Group............          52,000
        Data analysis.......................................          45,000
        Office equipment....................................          15,000
        Equipment for processing meat.......................          20,000
        Physician, Nurse Educator, Dietitian................          35,000
        Laboratory technician...............................          24,000
        Administrative Coordinator..........................          30,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Association of Navajo Community Controlled
                                 School Boards

                 SUMMARY OF ANCCSB'S REQUESTS, IN PRIORITY ORDER
                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Administrative Cost Grants--continuing tribally-operated            61.5
     schools...................................................
    Administrative Cost Grants--first-year conversion schools..          3.0
    Student Transportation.....................................           55
    Indian School Equalization Formula.........................      ( \1\ )
    Facilities Operations......................................           70
    Facilities Improvement and Repair..........................         158
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ $4,000/WSU for basic program--(net after special education costs).

        This preliminary statement of the Association of Navajo
    Community Controlled School Boards (ANCCSB) is submitted on
    behalf of its 16 member school boards who operate BIA-funded
    schools on the Navajo Reservation in Arizona and New Mexico
    under contracts or grants from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. We
    will supplement our comments after the fiscal year 2004 BIA
    detailed budget justification is released. The issues we
    discuss below and on which we provide our recommendations are
    presented in priority order.
        Administrative Cost Grants.--We strongly supported the
    NCLBA provision that requires the Bureau to create a separate
    Administrative Cost (AC) Grants fund to cover the first-year AC
    Grant needs of schools that newly convert to tribal operation.
    The BIA budget recommends $3 million for this separate fund.
        The amount requested for AC Grants for continuing tribally-
    operated schools is, however, alarmingly inadequate to meet the
    needs of these schools. The amount requested for these schools
    is only $46,181,000. At this level, it will be impossible for
    BIA to supply even 75 percent of the AC Grant needs of these
    ongoing tribally-operated schools. This budget request is not
    responsive to the increasing costs of annual financial audits,
    liability insurance, and salaries for certified administrators
    and business managers.
        Recommendation.--We recommend that $61.5 million be
    supplied to meet 100 percent of need for on-going tribally-
    operated schools, and concur with the BIA's request for an
    additional $3 million to cover the first-year costs of schools
    who convert to tribal operation in SY 2004-2005. We also
    recommend that Congress direct that any funds remaining from $3
    million, will be transferred to and distributed to meet the AC
    Grant needs of on-going contracts and grants.
        Student Transportation.--We are extremely disappointed that
    the Administration once again requests only a minimal increase
    of $1.1 million for our school transportation system. According
    to the most recent national report, the average expenditure for
    public schools was $2.97/mile six years ago but, during SY
    2002-2003, BIA schools received only $2.17/mile. The budget
    request of $38.6 million, which will be used in SY 2004-2005,
    will barely enable the BIA to pay at the $2.17/mile range when
    increased fuel costs and vehicle maintenance costs are taken
    into account.
        There are a host of transportation costs our schools must
    budget for that do not impact other school systems, such as (1)
    approximately 90 percent of the roads on the Navajo reservation
    are unimproved and unpaved--resulting in increased maintenance
    and repair costs, and (2) oftentimes the authorized maintenance
    and repair facilities are not located nearby, and in some
    instances result in roundtrips of over 250 miles. We are also
    experiencing rising fuel costs, which have recently averaged
    $1.90-2.00/gallon. Furthermore, retaining CDL certified bus
    drivers is always difficult due to our inability to offer
    competitive, full-time positions.
        Congress should be aware that the transportation formula
    does not take into consideration mileage associated with extra-
    curricular activities (athletics, educational field trips,
    etc.), after-school activities, or trips for repairs and
    maintenance. We must cover these expenses from our
    instructional funds. The ``student transportation'' funds are
    only used for the daily bus runs associated with getting
    students to/from school, and, in fact, the amount we receive
    for this purpose is so inadequate that we must subsidize bus
    costs from instructional funds.
        Recommendation.--We urge that Congress provide student
    transportation funding at $3.00/mile which we believe will
    require a $55 million appropriation. We also request that
    Congress direct the BIA to amend the transportation formula to
    include factors for isolation and mileage related to extra-
    curricular activities.
        Indian School Equalization Formula (ISEF).--The ANCCSB
    schools were alarmed to learn that only a small increase in
    ISEF program funds is requested for fiscal year 2004. Coupled
    with the Administration's rescission of more than $700,000 from
    the ISEF in the fiscal year 2003 budget, the new budget request
    will not even be sufficient for us to cover the inflation rate
    or the additional costs such as School Board training mandated
    by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA).
        ISEF is the primary source of funds for the instructional
    and residential programs at the 185 schools and dormitories in
    the BIA system. We face significant costs connected with
    increasing instructional program costs, teacher recruitment,
    and curriculum development just to maintain our current
    programs, let alone cover the costs associated with the many
    additional requirements of the NCLBA.
        Under the NCLBA, we are required to hire only highly
    qualified teachers and paraprofessionals, provide increased
    professional development and parent involvement activities, and
    ensure adequate yearly student progress--which is dependent
    upon curriculum alignment, utilization of ``research-based''
    materials and methods, and a host of other factors. Due to the
    remoteness of many of our schools, staff recruitment and
    retention remains a tremendous challenge. We cannot assure the
    availability of professional staff with the required
    certification, or paraprofessionals with AA degrees, unless we
    have the financial resources to recruit/retain personnel with
    these credentials. Our Indian schools must compete with public
    school districts for highly qualified personnel, but we cannot
    survive this competition unless we can offer competitive
    salaries and benefits.
        Important technical change regarding the ISEF ``weighted
    student unit'' system!--It is essential that Congress be aware
    that BIA changed the way student ``weights'' are counted under
    the ISEF in SY 2002-2003. The fiscal year 2004 budget request
    will be the first one impacted by this change, but we do not
    know if BIA will fully describe what has taken place and the
    additional calculations that are needed to enable Congress to
    properly evaluate the fiscal year 2004 budget request for ISEF.
    The key changes are these: BIA has eliminated from the ISEF
    program any weights for special education students. Under the
    previous system, schools received extra ISEF ``weights'' for
    services they supply to special education students; these
    weights generated funds for the school specifically for special
    education services. In addition, BIA changed the weights
    assigned to each grade level for students in the basic
    instructional program and in the Gifted & Talented program.
        In the past, we and Congress have been able to evaluate an
    ISEF budget request by comparing the prior year's amount of
    funding for each ``weighted student unit'' (WSU) with the WSU
    amount that would be produced by the new proposed budget. Such
    a comparison is no longer meaningful, however, since the
    weighting factors have been altered.
        Under the new system, BIA now requires that a school use 15
    percent of its ISEF dollars to pay for special education
    services. If its special education needs exceed this amount,
    the school can apply for supplemental dollars under the
    Individuals with Disabilities Education (IDEA) Program. In the
    past, the school applied for IDEA funds after using the ISEF
    funds it attracted through the add-on weights under the ISEF.
        This change will produce a different number of overall
    ``weighted student units'' in the BIA school system, and a
    different relative value of each WSU. It is important to know
    this so that Congress can determine whether the WSU base amount
    is actually increasing at a rate needed to keep pace with
    instructional costs in the BIA system. The BIA estimates that
    the fiscal year 2004 amount requested will result in a $4,035
    WSU for SY 2004-2005. However, if the BIA has not allowed for
    the 15 percent reduction for special education services, the
    actual amount would be $3,429/WSU. This amount would be $525
    less than the SY 2003-2004 WSU amount.
        Recommendation.--If our schools are to enhance the
    educational programs to ensure our students make adequate
    yearly progress and meet the requirements established in the No
    Child Left Behind Act, we urge that Congress provide an amount
    that would result in at least $4,000 per WSU for the basic
    instructional program--that is, the amount of ISEF funds
    devoted to basic instructional programs after the 15 percent
    that must be devoted to special education services is taken off
    the top.
        Facilities Operations.--This account must cover the cost of
    utilities, heating fuel, janitorial, communications, refuse
    collection, water/sewer, fire protection, pest control, and
    technology maintenance. Funding for this program is based on
    the total square feet of education space.
        The ANCCSB schools have several concerns regarding the
    proposed $57.8 million requested for fiscal year 2004, which
    represents only a $2 million increase over fiscal year 2003. It
    is evident that fuel and other utility costs are steadily
    increasing, yet funds for basic school operating costs have
    only covered 60 percent to 70 percent of the actual costs the
    schools incur. The BIA-requested $2 million increase will
    barely enable schools to continue at their current level of
    shortfall. Nearly half of all BIA schools are more than 30
    years old, and nearly 15 percent are more than 50 years old,
    which means it costs substantially more to operate and maintain
    these outdated facilities. A recent GAO study \1\ confirmed
    that BIA schools are generally in poorer physical condition,
    have more unsatisfactory environmental factors, more often lack
    key facilities requirements for education reform, and are less
    able to support computer and communications technology.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ General Accounting Office, BIA and DOD Schools: Student
    Achievement and Other Characteristics Often Differ from Public
    Schools', GAO-01-934 (September 2001).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The safety of our students and our desire to provide an
    adequate learning environment are not the only reasons the
    ANCCSB schools believe additional Facilities Operations funds
    are necessary. One of our primary concerns is that in order to
    meet the academic requirements of the NCLBA, ANCCSB schools
    plan to implement year-round schooling or provide a summer
    school session. The extended year will result in additional
    maintenance, utilities, and staff costs. Other concerns include
    the following: costs for utilities, propane, electricity,
    sewage, and water purchased from the Navajo Tribal Utility
    Authority has increased 3 percent in the past year; many of our
    schools lack adequate fire protection but must rely on fire
    trucks located 50-70 miles away; security costs have increased
    due to the national security threat (requiring school security
    to be on alert 24 hours/day) and the planned extended school
    year. Also, under the NCLBA, the BIA is required to pass on to
    the schools all funds appropriated for facilities operation and
    maintenance, but we believe the agency is not generating the
    information we need to assure that this directive is carried
    out. In the past, despite Congressional orders to the contrary,
    BIA has ``skimmed'' funds from the appropriation to support
    federal bureaucrat salaries. Now that the NCLBA has expressly
    prohibited this practice, schools and the Appropriations
    Committees need a mechanism to assure that the law is being
    followed. We ask the Appropriations Committees to obtain an
    assurance from BIA that it has ceased to retain any facilities
    operation and maintenance funds at the agency level.
        Recommendation.--Please demand that the BIA supply
    information on the amount that would be needed to fully fund
    the formula used to calculate the amount of facilities
    operation and maintenance funds needed by each school in the
    system. Armed with this data, the Congress should then
    appropriate that sum in order that these schools can be
    properly operated and maintained.
        Replacement Schools Construction.--The ANCCSB schools are
    pleased that the BIA wants to start six replacement school
    construction projects in fiscal year 2004. If this
    recommendation is followed, nearly all schools on the existing
    Priority List will have been funded.
        Construction of new schools remains a critical need for the
    BIA system, and particularly schools on the Navajo Reservation.
    For example, the Lukachukai Community on the Navajo Reservation
    continues to educate its children in dilapidated, unsafe
    buildings that are 10+ years beyond their useful life, are not
    in compliance with handicapped accessibility codes, are
    overcrowded and lack the space needed to conform to the
    dictates of the No Child Left Behind Act's instructional
    minimums, and contain a variety of health/safety code
    violations. We were therefore extremely disappointed that
    Lukachukai was not included on the long-awaited Priority List
    compiled from the applications filed some 18 months ago but
    only recently finalized by the BIA.
        Facilities Improvement & Repair Program.--We are deeply
    concerned that the fiscal year 2004 budget request would reduce
    the education Facilities Improvement & Repair (FI&R) Program by
    over $16 million in light of the tremendous backlog of needed
    school repairs--reported to be over $960 million in a recent
    General Accounting Office report.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Id. at page 23.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        BIA attempts to justify the cut in FI&R funding by
    asserting that funding was transferred to the replacement
    school construction account. Although additional funds for
    replacement of unsafe schools is most welcome, it means that
    $16 million worth of repair work needed at many schools will be
    devoted to possibly constructing one additional school! While
    the repair backlog remains high, it is equally important that
    the students who attend schools throughout the system are
    provided much-needed health, safety and environmental
    improvements, utility upgrades, and additional classrooms.
        Recommendation.--At a minimum, Congress should restore the
    $16.2 million BIA proposes to cut from the FI&R program. To
    properly fulfill its responsibility to Indian students, this
    account should be increased by some $10 million in fiscal year
    2004.
        Negotiated Rulemaking.--Our final comment is related to the
    recently enacted fiscal year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Act.
    The ANCCSB schools are disheartened by the inclusion of bill
    language that would allow BIA to use the ISEP Contingency Funds
    to pay the costs of the negotiated rulemaking to prepare
    regulations required by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA).
    This authority to re-direct much-needed funds for school
    programs was not what was provided in the NCLBA. Instead, the
    NCLBA requires the Secretary of the Interior to cover the costs
    of the negotiated rulemaking process through the Department's
    general administration funds. The ISEP Contingency Funds are
    meant to be used only for school-related emergencies, and any
    unused funds remaining at the end of the school year are to be
    apportioned to the schools for use in instructional programs.
    Allowing the Secretary to use the Contingency Funds in any
    other manner not only violates the NCLBA but would also mean
    less funds to purchase essential materials for our schools such
    as textbooks and other school supplies.
        Recommendation.--We request that Congress strongly urge the
    Secretary to follow the mandate of the NCLBA and use funds from
    the Department's general administration funds to pay the
    expenses for negotiated rulemaking instead of the ISEP
    Contingency Funds.
        This statement of the Association of Navajo Community
    Controlled School Board is sponsored by the following tribally-
    operated member schools of the Navajo Nation:

        1. Stanley Herrera, President Alamo Navajo School Board
        2. Wilson Gilmore, President Black Mesa Community School,
    Inc.
        3. George Tolth, President Borrego Pass Community School,
    Inc.
        4. Beverly Becenti-Pigman, President Kayenta Community
    School, Inc.
        5. Marge Begay, President Lukachukai Community School, Inc.
        6. Ross Smallcanyon, President Naa Tsis' Aan Community
    School, Inc.
        7. Edison Wauneka, President Navajo Preparatory School,
    Inc.
        8. Joseph Dedman, President Nazlini Community School, Inc.
        9. Lorenzo Yazzie, President Pinon Community School, Inc.
        10. Jamie Henio, President Ramah Navajo School Board, Inc.
        11. Johnny Decheeny, President Rock Point Community School,
    Inc.
        12. Betty Dailey, President Rough Rock Community School,
    Inc.
        13. Eva Stokely, President Shiprock Alternative Schools,
    Inc.
        14. William Lynch, President Wide Ruins Community School,
    Inc.
        15. Marie Brady, President Winslow Residential Hall, Inc.
        16. Sarah J. Attakai, President Jeehdeez'a Academy, Inc.
                                    ------

        Prepared Statement of the Chugach Regional Resources Commission

        We appreciate the opportunity to provide this written testimony to
    the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related
    Agencies. The Chugach Regional Resources Commission (CRRC), a non-
    profit Alaska Native coalition for managing tribal natural resources,
    with its seven member Tribes located in the Prince William Sound and
    Lower Cook Inlet, respectfully requests as our first priority
    restoration of its base funding of $350,000 from the fiscal year 2004
    Bureau of Indian Affairs budget, Fish, Wildlife and Parks Program.
        The Tribes of the Chugach Region, who make up the Chugach Regional
    Resources Commission, appreciate the support of the Subcommittee in
    reinstating our fiscal year 2003 funding which was zeroed out by the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs. Unfortunately, the Administration has once
    again zeroed out our funding of the President's proposed BIA fiscal
    year 2004 budget. Therefore, we are respectfully requesting the support
    of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related
    Agencies to restore the $350,000 to the Bureau of Indian Affairs fiscal
    year 2004 Fish, Wildlife and Parks budget earmarked for CRRC and add it
    to the base budget as permanent funding. In addition, we are requesting
    a $250,000 increase for the region-wide mariculture program and an
    additional $250,000 increase for the education and training program
    described below.
        Until fiscal year 2003, this funding had been included in the BIA's
    Fish, Wildlife and Parks budget for the past 13 years. The mission of
    CRRC is to work with our seven member 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 13 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 it, 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. CRRC has
    funded the hatchery operations for many years and employed the hatchery
    staff consisting of 5-7 full time and seasonal employees.
        The original hatchery was located in the net loft of the salmon
    cannery building. This building was completely 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. The new
    hatchery was completed in 2000 and is now in the process of bringing
    salmon production to full capacity, which is 110 million pink salmon
    eggs, 5 million sockeye salmon eggs and 2 million coho salmon eggs. The
    hatchery currently produces local stock pink and coho salmon and
    incubates sockeye salmon eggs for the nearby Native Village of
    Nanwalek. The hatchery is expecting about 300,000 adult pink salmon to
    return this year, which will be enough to fill it to capacity. Annual
    adult returns are expected to increase to about 3 million pink salmon
    beginning in 2004 and 100,000 to 200,000 sockeye salmon beginning in
    2006. Reinstatement of the fiscal year 2004 funding will allow to
    continue with its needed investment in the hatchery program and to help
    develop a a value added processing component to the local processing
    plant which is owned and operated by the Port Graham Corporation.
        The Nanwalek Sockeye Enhancement Program (NSEP) was also initiated
    in 1990. CRRC provided funding and technical and administrative
    assistance to develop a sockeye smolt stocking program that would
    supplement wild production and help rebuild the depleted English Bay
    sockeye run. The Nanwalek IRA Council operates the project with
    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. The heart of the project consists
    of rearing Port Graham hatchery produced fry to smolt size in English
    Bay Lakes and releasing them in the lakes to migrate out to sea and
    return as adults. Rearing operations commenced in 1991 and have
    occurred annually since that time. Over two and a half million sockeye
    smolts have been released into the English Bay Lakes since project
    inception. This has produced over 220,000 adult sockeye salmon that
    have returned to the English Bay River and associated fisheries. Fish
    from this project allowed for the reopening of the subsistence fishery
    in 1996 and a limited commercial fishery in 1997.
        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 that 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, Pacific
    oysters and geoducks for sale to shellfish farms in Alaska and
    elsewhere. This hatchery is now operated by the Tribe under a contract
    with the City of Seward, 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 and Cockles. CRRC has helped fund hatchery
    research and development, which would be sharply curtailed without this
    support. This would devastate not only the Tribal hatchery, but the
    shellfish farmers in Alaska as well who depend upon seed for their own
    operations. 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 anywhere in the state prior
    to its inception. 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. We request an increase of $250,000 per year for
    the next four years, to develop a model technical education and
    training in natural resource management to allow for increased and
    meaningful tribal involvement in the management of subsistence
    resources in cooperation with federal and state management agencies.
        Active participation by the Tribes in such current initiatives as
    the Exxon Valdez Trustee Council's Gulf Ecosystem Monitoring Program
    and the federal subsistence fisheries management projects occurring in
    traditional use areas is vital to the overall success of each of these
    programs. 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 and make it part
    of the recurring base budget. 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. We believe that
    making our funding a part of the permanent base will alleviate the need
    for us to spend what little funding we have on getting our BIA funding
    restored rather than on meaningful projects that will benefit the
    communities. We also ask for the Committee's support for our requested
    increase of $500,000 to enhance our programs.
        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 $100,000 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.
        Once again, we ask the Committee to restore these funds in behalf
    of the Native people of the Chugach Region and thank you for your
    support of our programs, as well as this opportunity to provide our
    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.

                                     ______

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

        Mr. Chairman, I am Cheryle A. Kennedy, Tribal Council Chairwoman of
    the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon. I
    hereby submit this testimony regarding Bureau of Indian Affairs fiscal
    year 2004 appropriations to the House Appropriations Subcommittee for
    Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations with the following
    requests:
        (1) Restore BIA Endangered Species Act funding to $3.1 million and
    direct that $1.7 million of the funds be utilized among Northwest
    tribes, as they were in fiscal year 2002, to manage for ESA listed
    species, including the northern spotted owl, marbled murrelet, and
    steelhead.
        (2) Add $115,000 to BIA Other Recurring Programs, Natural
    Resources, Wildlife and Parks, for a Grand Ronde study of the decline
    of Roosevelt Elk and its habitat on and around our Reservation.
        The Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde were restored to federal
    recognition by Act of Congress in 1983. Today, we have close to 4,800
    members centered in the Oregon community of Grand Ronde is western Polk
    County, but also dispersed throughout the United States. In the
    adjacent hills of Oregon's Coast Range of Mountains is our 10,052 acres
    of Reservation timberland, established by a separate 1988 Act of
    Congress.
        (1) Restore BIA Endangered Species funding (in Non-Recurring
    Programs, Resources Management) to $3.1 million and direct that $1.7
    million of the funds be utilized among Northwest tribes, as they were
    in fiscal year 2002, to manage for ESA listed species, including the
    northern spotted owl, the marbled Murrelet, and steelhead.
        In fiscal year 1992, at the request of Grand Ronde and other
    Northwest tribes, Congress added $1.4 million to the BIA Forestry
    budget for management of the northern spotted owl, with had become
    listed under the Endangered Species Act. In subsequent years, BIA--over
    the objections of tribes--combined the northern spotted owl funding
    with other funds to reintroduce the Black Footed Ferret on the Northern
    Cheyenne Reservation and established a separate ESA line item. By
    fiscal year 2002, this ESA line item totaled $3 million, including $1.6
    million for Northwest tribes affected by the northern spotted owl and
    $1.3 million for the ferret. In fiscal year 2003, BIA proposed to
    eliminate all of these funds except for $197,000, which they proposed
    to keep for Central Office staff. Responding to tribal objections,
    Congress restored the ESA line item to about $2,697,000. At this point,
    we do not know what we will receive under this fiscal year 2003
    funding. For fiscal year 2004, the BIA reportedly is requesting
    $2,198,000 for the ESA line item. Again, at this point, we do not know
    how the BIA is proposing to spend the $2,198,000. However, we are
    concerned that for both fiscal year 2003 and for fiscal year 2004,
    funding for the Grand Ronde Tribe's ESA compliance program will fall,
    imperiling our ability to meet the ESA's management requirements.
        To maintain the Grand Ronde Tribe's goal of complying with the
    Endangered Species Act, our Tribe will need to continue surveys for 13
    listed species that can, or do, occur in the region of our Reservation.
    Our participation in the ESA program, in the fiscal year 2002 amount of
    $68,600, will be used to pay for 128 hours of staff time for the survey
    and monitoring of marbled murrelets, 120 hours for the survey and
    monitoring of the northern spotted owl, 966 hours of monitoring for
    steelhead trout, and 224 hours for the survey and monitoring of
    Nelson's checkermallow. It will also construct an adult steelhead
    monitoring station, conduct RADAR survey for marbled murrelets, and
    conduct filed inspections for other listed species.
        The loss or reduction of these funds will directly and immediately
    hinder our ability to comply with the Endangered Species Act, which in
    turn could threaten our ability to manage our forest, including the
    commercial harvest upon which we depend. We urge the Committee not to
    let this happen by maintaining these funds and their purpose. It was
    the affected Northwest tribes, including our Tribe, that initially
    secured these funds, not the BIA. Further, BIA has never sought any
    other funds for Endangered Species management, which makes BIA's
    unilateral efforts to either eliminate these funds or divert them to
    some other use particularly troubling. Accordingly, we ask that the
    Committee not allow this to happen, and that you fully restore the ESA
    item funding to $3.1 million, with $1.7 million dedicated to affected
    Northwest tribes.
        (2) Add $115,000 to BIA Other Recurring Programs, Natural
    Resources, Wildlife and Parks, for a Grand Ronde study of the decline
    of Roosevelt Elk and its habitat on and around our Reservation.
        The Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon
    requests your support of the addition of $115,000.00 to Wildlife and
    Parks in the BIA's Other Recurring Programs, Natural Resources budget
    to study the habitat use and distribution of Roosevelt Elk on and
    around our Reservation lands. Elk are an important cultural, natural,
    and subsistence resource for members of the Grand Ronde Tribes. Tribal
    members are authorized by the Tribal government, the State of Oregon,
    and the federal government to hunt elk on and around Reservation lands
    within the Trask Wildlife Management Unit.
        Elk populations in the Trask Unit are below state management
    objectives and tribal harvest rates have declined over the last 10
    years. Approximately 46 percent of the Trask Unit is public land and
    there is a perception among many hunters that these lands are not
    providing quality elk habitat due to changes in management policies.
    The Tribes would like to gather data on elk distribution and use of
    habitat to learn how the available habitat is affecting elk
    populations. Information learned from the study would allow the Tribes,
    the State of Oregon, and other land managers and owners to make
    informed decisions regarding management of elk habitats and
    populations, with the goal of improving elk habitat to allow for
    sustainable harvest of elk for current and future generations. While
    there is clear need for research and data, no other agencies, state or
    federal, are currently conducting elk research on or near the
    Reservation.
        The Tribe's Natural Resources Division would manage the project,
    track the collared elk for two years, and analyze the data. The funding
    requested would be used to obtain GPS (global positioning system)
    tracking collars, tracking equipment, and to capture (using a
    helicopter) and collar the elk. For this undertaking, we request
    $115,000.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes our fiscal year 2004 testimony. We
    hope the Committee will be able to accommodate our requests. If you
    have any questions, please let us know.
        Thank you.

                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs
                                  Reservation

        Mr. Chairman, I, Olney Patt, Jr., Chairman of the Confederated
    Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, hereby submit this
    fiscal year 2004 testimony regarding Bureau of Indian Affairs, the
    Office of the Special Trustee, and Indian Health Service funding for
    fiscal year 2004. In summary, the Warm Springs requests are:
        (1) Add $2 million to BIA TPA Forestry designated for Warm Springs
    (BIA Tribal Priority Allocations, Resources Management).
        (2) Restore BIA ESA funding to $3.1 million, with $1.8 million for
    Northwest tribal ESA compliance activities, including $300,000 for Warm
    Springs (BIA Non-Recurring Programs, Resources Management).
        (3) Provide $500,000 for a Warm Springs Water Settlement
    Implementation Plan (BIA Non-Recurring Programs, Resources Management,
    Water Management, Planning, and Pre-Development).
        (4) Within BIA Law Enforcement, add $500,000 for Warm Springs (BIA
    Special Programs and Pooled Overhead, Public Safety and Justice).
        (5) In IHS Hospitals and Clinics, add $1.75 million for the Warm
    Springs Joint Venture Pilot Project (Indian Health Services Hospitals
    and Health Clinics).
        (6) Increase BIA and IHS contract support funding to 100 percent
    (BIA Tribal Priority Allocations, Tribal Government, Contract Support,
    Indian Health Services, Contract Support Costs).
        (7) On trust reform, Office of Special Trustee funding increases
    must not come out of existing tribal programs, and BIA's reorganization
    should be deferred until the Trust Officers idea can be examined and
    clarified and the ``As Is/To Be'' study is completed.
        Mr. Chairman, my Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs,
    has a 1,000 square mile Reservation in north Central Oregon that is
    home to most of our 4,200+ members. Over the past several years, the
    two long-time mainstays of our Reservation economy, timber and
    hydroelectric revenues, have been steadily declining. Our available
    timber harvest has fallen by half, and softwood lumber prices are low.
    Electricity prices, after years of strong fluctuation, have also gone
    substantially down. Unfortunately, these conditions are projected to
    continue for at least several years into the future. We are
    aggressively pursuing other economic development initiatives, but as I
    am sure you know, economic development does not come easily to most of
    Indian Country. We are trying, but at present, not making much headway.
    In the past, when our tribal revenues were comparatively strong, we
    were able to significantly contribute to the federal government's
    provision of services for Warm Springs. But that is not the case today,
    and we now find we must ask the federal government to more fully abide
    by its obligations to our Tribe. Accordingly, we hereby present our
    list of particulars to the U.S. Congress, and ask that you do all you
    can to honor them and uphold the unique and solemn obligations the
    United States has pledged to the Warm Springs Tribes.

    (1) Add $2 million to BIA TPA Forestry designated for Warm Springs (BIA
            Tribal Priority Allocations, Resources Management)
        The $2 million increase for Warm Springs is necessary for the BIA
    to fulfill, as a trustee, its legal duties and obligations to properly
    manage the Tribe's forest resources. BIA funding for management of our
    350,000 acre forest is $1,843,000, or $5.26 an acre. With cost of
    living adjustments, this is in keeping with the 1993 findings of the
    Congressionally authorized independent Indian Forest Management
    Assessment Team (IFMAT) that BIA funding per acre was $4.14 at that
    time, compared to $11.69 per acre for National Forests (roughly one-
    third the annual funding for National Forests on a per acre basis).
    This gross inequity continues to hamper the proper management of our
    forest, and has reaped consequences accordingly: the Tribe has recently
    prevailed in a forest mismanagement suit against BIA. Yet the BIA has
    failed to provide any increased resources to correct its deficiencies
    at Warm Springs. To begin to rectify these inadequacies, we request
    that a $2 million increase be specified for Warm Springs Forestry the
    BIA's Tribal Priority Allocation budget, which we estimate will still
    only bring Warm Springs to approximately two-thirds of parity with
    National Forests.
        We note, and support, the $1.5 million national increase
    recommended by the Administration for Tribal Priority Allocation
    Forestry in its fiscal year 2004 request. The Administration
    recommended a like increase for 2003 that was the first outright
    increase in Forestry funding since it was slashed by nearly 20 percent
    in fiscal year 1996.

    (2) Restore BIA ESA funding to $3.1 million, with $1.8 million for
            Northwest tribal ESA compliance activities, including $300,000
            for Warm Springs (BIA Non-Recurring Programs, Resources
            Management)
        In fiscal year 1991, Northwest tribes, including Warm Springs,
    asked Congress to initiate northern spotted owl compliance funding. In
    fiscal year 1995, $1.7 million for NW tribes was combined with $1.3
    million for a Northern Cheyenne prairie project. In fiscal year 2003,
    BIA proposed to defund almost all the program, but Congress restored
    $2,697,000 of the $3,000,000. For fiscal year 2004, BIA now proposes
    $2,198,000, all of which will reportedly go to set-up Regional ESA
    offices for BIA--none will go to tribes for on-the-ground activities.
    We request that, for fiscal year 2004, the funding and purpose of the
    program be restored with $3.1 million, of which $1.8 million is for
    Northwest tribes, including $300,000 designated for Warm Springs.

    (3) Provide $500,000 for a Warm Springs Water Settlement Implementation
            Plan (BIA Non-Recurring Programs, Resources Management, Water
            Management, Planning, and Pre-Development)
        In 1997, the Warm Springs Tribes reached a water settlement with
    the United States and the State of Oregon which left most of the water
    in the Metolius and Deschutes Rivers and does not now require the
    expensive water development legislation that normally accompanies
    tribal water settlements. However, $500,000 in BIA financial support is
    still needed to develop a Comprehensive Warm Springs Water Development
    Plan, to conduct water quality modeling for the Deschutes River Basin,
    and to examine potential energy development options. The Warm Springs
    federal water settlement took years to negotiate, and at the time of
    its completion was the first settlement achieved by Interior in four or
    five years. The settlement is now bringing greater water certainty to
    the Deschutes Basin, but the Tribe now needs Interior's assistance in
    planning how we may best put our water rights to use.

    (4) Within BIA Law Enforcement, add $500,000 for Warm Springs (BIA
            Special Programs and Pooled Overhead, Public Safety and
            Justice)
        Law enforcement and public safety remain a very high priority at
    Warm Springs. In the past three years, Tribal leaders have worked to
    improve law enforcement capability on the Reservation by augmenting
    Tribally-funded police officers, corrections officers, investigators
    and fire medics with additional personnel and equipment supported in
    part by BIA law enforcement funds. For fiscal year 2004, we note that
    the President's request for BIA Law Enforcement Services (LES) includes
    a funding increase of $10,110,000 to $168,774,000. Most of the BIA's
    LES funding goes to support BIA staffed (direct operations) law
    enforcement activities on a limited number of reservations while other
    locations, including Warm Springs, have been left to largely fend for
    themselves. The Warm Springs Tribal Police Department is the only law
    enforcement agency responsible for our 1,000 square mile Reservation,
    as well as numerous off-Reservation trust parcels. With our own Tribal
    budget declining, and with the Department of Justice COPS program being
    discontinued at our Reservation, it is essential that BIA law
    enforcement share its steadily increased funding will all locations,
    including those such as Warm Springs where BIA has largely abandoned
    its public safety responsibilities. To restore a measure of balance and
    fairness to BIA law enforcement, we ask that $500,000 be added for Warm
    Springs. For fiscal year 2004, the Warm Springs Tribe will contribute
    $2,600,000 for public safety, and BIA will contribute an estimated
    $590,000. With the increase of $500,000, the fiscal year 2004 BIA total
    would still be less than one third of the public safety budget at Warm
    Springs.

    (5) In IHS Hospitals and Clinics, add $1.75 million for the Warm
            Springs Joint Venture Pilot Project (Indian Health Services
            Hospitals and Health Clinics).
        In 1991, the Congress, Indian Health Service (IHS), and the Warm
    Springs Tribe entered into an innovative ``Joint Venture Pilot
    Project'' to improve health care facilities and services at Warm
    Springs. The Tribe financed and constructed a new clinic to federal
    standards and the Congress and IHS agreed to fully fund and staff the
    enhanced health care program in the new facility. However, the federal
    funding actually provided has been far short of the promise. Moreover,
    for the last several years inadequately funded federal mandates have
    further diminished health services at Warm Springs. We request a $1.75
    million increase in funding IHS Hospitals and Clinics to provide full
    direct services for the Warm Springs Joint Venture.

    (6) Increase BIA and IHS contract support funding to 100 percent (BIA
            Tribal Priority Allocations, Tribal Government, Contract
            Support, Indian Health Services, Contract Support Costs)
        Since 1975, Tribal Self-Determination pursuant to Public Law 93-638
    has been the keystone of Federal Indian policy, in which tribes either
    contract or compact to take over the operation and management of
    programs otherwise run by the BIA and the IHS. In taking over these
    activities, tribes incur various unavoidable administrative costs over
    and above the federal program and program administration costs,
    including such things as audit and administrative costs for the
    contract itself (in contrast to the direct administrative costs for a
    particular program). Lest these unavoidable tribal contract support
    costs become a disincentive to the tribal assumption of BIA and IHS
    programs, Public Law 93-638 provides that tribes are to negotiate these
    costs with the respective Department's Inspector General. The contract
    support costs are expressed as a percentage of a tribe's amount under
    contract. Public Law 93-638 then authorizes payment of contract support
    costs to reimburse the tribe's contract support expenses.
        Unfortunately, BIA and IHS budgets have failed to completely
    reimburse tribes for these unavoidable expenses. In fiscal year 2003,
    for instance, BIA only reimbursed about 92 percent of tribal contract
    support costs, leaving tribes to shoulder the remaining 8 percent.
    Please bear in mind these are costs the tribe would not incur if it
    were not contracting a program. For fiscal year 2004, we project the
    BIA and IHS contract support amounts, once again, will only be enough
    to reimburse 92 percent or 93 percent of tribal contract support costs.
    Here at Warm Springs, where we have about $17 million under BIA and IHS
    Public Law 93-638 contracts, the unreimbursed amount we must shoulder
    is substantial, and with our tribal revenues declining, we are less
    able to contribute that amount toward the implementation of a federal
    policy. Accordingly, we request that BIA and IHS contract support be
    funded at 100 percent for fiscal year 2004, or about $145 million and
    $283 million respectively.

    (7) On trust reform, Office of Special Trustee funding increases must
            not come out of existing tribal programs, and BIA's
            reorganization should be deferred until the Trust Officers idea
            can be examined and clarified and the ``As Is/To Be'' study is
            completed
        The BIA budget request includes a significant increase for trust
    management within the BIA and the Office of Special Trustee (OST). A
    $123 million increase for OST--to $275 million--is partially offset by
    a $63 million cut to the BIA Construction and an $8 million cut to
    Indian Water and Claims Settlements. Education Construction will lose
    $32 million--despite a terrible backlog of new school construction.
    Tribal leaders have repeatedly emphasized that funding needed to
    correct deficiencies in DOI trust management must not come from
    existing BIA programs or administrative monies. Instead, it is
    essential that DOI's trust reform funding increases be provided by
    Congress rather than depleting already insufficient BIA programs.
        We are also concerned by Interior's unilateral approach to trust
    reorganization and their request for significant increased funding for
    that reorganization with no clear provision for accountability.
    Increased funding for the OST is potentially an empty promise without
    clear accountability in place or plans to work with the impacted tribes
    and individuals. Organizational charts show the establishment of newly
    created Trust officers, likely placed at every BIA Agency and Regional
    Office, which may cause significant conflict with the authority held by
    the BIA Agency Superintendents. Before we create a mini-bureaucracy we
    would like a detailed examination of the financial and operative impact
    by both the Congress and impacted the Tribal governments. Moreover,
    before implementation, the authority and role of the proposed Trust
    Officers need to be much more clearly defined.
        Finally, trust reform should not be carried out until the
    corrective ``To Be'' portion of the ``As Is/To Be'' study of BIA is
    completed. A rush to trust reform before ``To Be'' completion will
    squander millions of dollars and significant tribal contributions, and
    only help perpetuate BIA's past mistakes in trust management.
        This concludes my testimony. Thank you.

                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Crownpoint Institute of Technology (CIT)

        This testimony CIT requests $1.5 Million for fiscal year 2004 and
    continuation of Contract Support language under U.S. Department of
    Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Activity: Special Programs and
    Pooled Overhead. It is CIT understanding that tribal postsecondary
    vocational institutions under this program are being internally
    transferred in the Bureau of Indian Affairs to the Office of
    Postsecondary Education.
        On behalf of the Crownpoint Institute of Technology (CIT), I thank
    this Subcommittee for appropriating critically needed operational
    funds, the use of which is described below in quantitative detail. In
    addition, CIT expresses its deepest gratitude to the Subcommittee for
    its guidance to the Department on the issue of contract support.
    Funding for CIT is authorized under Public Law 84-959, ``Vocational
    Training for Adult Indians.''
        CIT is the only postsecondary vocational educational institution on
    the Navajo Nation reservation. For academic year 2002-03, CIT's
    enrollment is 517 Full Time Equivalency or Indian Student Count (FTE/
    ISC).
        The population of the Navajo Nation is 225,298 (U.S. Census 2000).
    The Navajo Nation is one of the very few tribes with an extant native
    language. Nearly all Navajo citizens raised on the reservation not only
    speak the Navajo language but also use it in their daily lives. On
    trust land alone, 106,432 Navajo citizens are age 18 and over. The
    median Native American population age is 27.4 years, eight years
    younger than the median age for mainstream America. Approximately
    10,000 Navajo students graduate from area high schools each year. The
    average CIT student age is 26, with the actual age range being 18 to
    64.
        The Navajo reservation is an immense and remote 26,897 square miles
    extending into three States: Arizona, New Mexico and Utah. This
    reservation is 2,810 square miles larger than the State of West
    Virginia. The driving distance across the reservation is approximately
    nine hours. Although distant from major towns, Crownpoint is a major
    reservation activity center. CIT students come from throughout the
    reservation, as well as from the towns of Gallup, Cruet, Continental
    Divide, Fruitland, Kirtland, Mentmore, Rehoboth (all in New Mexico),
    Durango, Colorado, White Mesa, Utah and the Tohono O'odham and Hopi
    Reservations in Arizona. Approximately 30 percent of CIT students are
    from the Arizona side of the Reservation.
        It is important that appropriators understand the immense
    population difference that exists among Indian tribes. One typical
    comparison is the fifteen tribes in the States of Montana, North Dakota
    and South Dakota which have a combined population of 72,835 (U.S.
    Census 2000). The Navajo Nation population is more than three-fold this
    population. These fifteen tribes have sixteen tribal colleges, each on
    significantly smaller land bases. These distances are more commutable,
    and most do not require boarding facilities as CIT does. The Navajo
    Nation has only one other college, Dine', based in Tsaile, Arizona with
    eight small branch campuses throughout the reservation. Of the entire
    Navajo population, only 4.66 percent of high school graduates go on to
    achieve a bachelor's degree. Only 2 percent achieve Masters degrees,
    and less than one-half percent earn doctorates. CIT has proven to offer
    a realistic educational alternative that equips young adults with
    meaningful employment skills as well as placing graduates in career
    track employment.
        In order to achieve these goals, CIT has broader infrastructure
    responsibilities. CIT is campus-based with 153,468 square feet of
    facilities. The CIT campus includes state of the art classrooms and
    Veterinary Clinic, modular administrative buildings, library,
    dormitory, efficiency apartments, married student housing and
    cafeteria. CIT has no recreation facility. CIT students has a higher
    proportion with development educational needs, and longer distances
    travel to school daily. Despite many challenges, CIT earns
    achievements. In 2003, CIT received a Center for National Excellence
    award from the U.S. Department of Agriculture for the second time for
    sincere commitment to student outcomes, one of only eight such awards
    nationally. Also in 2003, the CIT Culinary Arts Program students won
    the Hilton Hotels-sponsored creative culinary art award.
        CIT continues to increase its student housing capacity with
    assistance from the Navajo Nation HUD. CIT does not use BIA funding for
    construction. In 2003, another sixteen married and family student units
    were completed under Navajo Nation HUD funding. Students with dependant
    families are among those most in need of acquiring employment skills.
    CIT opened a new 75 unit efficiency housing for 150 students, but at
    the same time had to temporarily close its 110 unit dormitory for
    safety-related repairs to be completed in a year. Each year, CIT has
    averaged a waiting list of approximately 200 otherwise qualified
    students due to residential hosing limitations. Rental housing is
    scarce in the town of Crownpoint. Daily commuting from most parts of
    the reservation is hindered by poor roads, harsh weather and vast
    distance, although some students do commute daily up to 70 miles each
    way. CIT has an eight-year average student retention rate of 95
    percent. Due to increased enrollments and funding shortages in
    Placement personnel, the average job placement has dropped from 86
    percent to 75 percent.
        CIT is fully-accredited by North Central Association of Colleges
    and Schools as a vocational educational institution. CIT offers two-
    year Associate of Applied Science degrees in seven disciplines:
    Accounting, Administrative Assistant, Applied Computer Technology,
    Environmental Technology and Natural Resources, Law Advocate, Legal
    Assistant and Veterinary Technician. CIT offers sixteen vocational
    certificate programs: Accounting, Administrative Assistant, Applied
    Computer Technology, Automotive Technology, Building Maintenance,
    Carpentry, Culinary Arts, Electrical Trades, Environmental Technology
    and Natural Resources, Law Advocate, Legal Assistant, Nursing
    Assistant, Veterinary Assistant, Small Business Development (new),
    Commercial Drivers License and Computer Aided Drafting. In the upcoming
    year, CIT is ready to offer Alternative Energy to assist the many
    reservation areas that still do not have access to electricity and
    possibly never will.
        In May 2002, CIT graduated 208 students. This reflects an increase
    of 25 percent in the number of graduates over the previous year, which
    was 167 graduates. Approximately 80 percent of CIT completions not
    continuing their educations had secured employment placement by the
    time they graduated. Of this number, 86 percent secured full-time
    employment with the remaining 14 percent accepting seasonal jobs. 54
    percent secured employment on-reservation and 46 percent off-
    reservation. In addition, the region's economy is comprised
    significantly of self-employed ranchers who by definition are not
    placed in employment. Several CIT Veterinary students are self-employed
    ranchers who improve their livelihoods through knowledge and skills
    learned in the CIT Veterinary Program. Students continuing their
    educations are considered positive terminations.
        Of the above graduating classes (375 students), the CIT Placement
    Office successfully tracked and job placed 82 percent (308). 92 CIT
    graduates (30 percent) continued their educations. Funding limitations
    inhibit the capability of the CIT Placement Office to track and place
    100 percent, but indicators over time are that some graduates who do
    not maintain contact with the Placement Office after graduation may do
    so because they have no need for job placement services. In other
    words, they find employment on their own. Of those graduates utilizing
    CIT placement services the following were placed in jobs or continued
    their education: Accounting 10 of 10 (100 percent): Administrative
    Assistant 30 of 43 (70 percent): Applied Computer technology 24 of 44
    (55 percent): Automotive Technology 19 of 20 (95 percent): Building
    Maintenance 15 of 18 (83 percent): Carpentry 17 of 20 (85 percent):
    Culinary Arts 9 of 12 (75 percent): Electrical Trades 20 of 22 (91
    percent): Environmental Technology and Natural Resources 17 of 23 (74
    percent): Legal Assistant 5 of 5 (100 percent): Law Advocate 5 of 8 (63
    percent): Nursing Assistant 34 of 52 (65 percent): Veterinary Assistant
    10 of 13 (77 percent): Commercial Drivers License 16 of 18 (89
    percent). Other variables affect employment success rates. For example,
    Nursing Assistants are in high demand. However, due to housing scarcity
    and transportation obstacles, several CIT Nursing Assistant graduates
    were unable to accept jobs offered.
        Of all CIT graduates, the average entry level wage is $17,160 per
    annum. CIT's Commercial Drivers License (CDL) program graduates earn
    the highest wage at $16 to $18 an hour, or $33,280 to $37,440 annually
    if employment remains stable. The next highest paid entry-level wages
    average by vocational program are: Veterinary Technician/Assistant
    $23,920: Legal Advocate/Assistant $21,320: Electrical Trades $20,280:
    Automotive and Environmental Technology, both at $19,760. Even the
    modest entry-level wages can be deceiving as to the wage once
    established in that profession. For example, an electrical apprentice
    will start at $9/$11 hourly. This wage will more than double to $22/$28
    hourly in 3\1/2\ to 4 years.
        For Associate degree students continuing their educations, CIT has
    articulation agreements with University of New Mexico Albuquerque and
    Gallup, New Mexico State, Ft. Lewis College, University of Arizona and
    Northern Arizona University. The University of Pennsylvania and Iowa
    State University interns participate in CIT's Elk Management Program.
    In addition, CIT partners this program with the Tohono O'odham Tribe of
    Arizona where livestock is critical to subsistence. In the Tohono
    O'odham partnership, CIT addresses the very real problem of migratory
    livestock disease transmission from across the Mexico border.
    Partnering with Iowa State and Colorado State Universities, CIT offers
    an elk and cattle artificial insemination program for the region's
    ranchers. In response to overgrazing, the Elk Management Program has
    proven to be a viable alternative livestock offering a three-fold
    return over traditional livestock.
        In an average lifetime of employment, CIT graduates will return to
    the Federal Government the cost of its investment many times over. Each
    employed graduate pays an average of $2,576 of their earnings to
    federal taxes in the first year of employment alone. Actual taxes paid
    differ according to a number of variables, but wage earnings and
    resultant tax contributions will generally continue over at least
    thirty years. 62 percent of tracked graduates are employed in private
    industry and do not rely directly or indirectly on federal
    appropriations for jobs.
        As is prevalent throughout the economically disadvantaged in Native
    America, many high school graduates are not equipped with skills
    necessary to enter postsecondary education. To rectify this deficiency
    among some CIT applicants, CIT will hold its first summer session of
    Developmental Studies in 2003 for 150 entering students.
        CIT continually strives to strengthen its programs. In 2003 CIT
    will enhance articulation agreements with San Juan and Dine Colleges
    through standardization of course offerings, particularly in the math
    and sciences. Through such measures CIT can more effectively ascertain
    student achievement and modify course offerings as necessary. CIT will
    require additional resources to retain adjunct faculty in order to
    achieve this goal.
        On behalf of all the CIT students whose quality of life has been
    immensely improved by Interior appropriations, I thank this
    Subcommittee for all of its assistance. CIT still faces the challenges
    described above, and will deeply appreciate and maximally benefit from
    the modest increase requested from this Subcommittee.

                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes

        The Wind River Reservation in central Wyoming is home to the
    Eastern Shoshone Tribe and the Northern Band of the Arapaho, as well as
    approximately 25,000 non-Indians. The majority of these residents are
    cattle ranchers, working small ranches to support a modest lifestyle.
    The Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho respectfully request $3.35
    million for the fiscal year 2004, fiscal year 2005, and fiscal year
    2006 appropriations cycles to begin the repair and rehabilitation of
    the Wind River Irrigation Project, which provides vital water to these
    ranchers.

                           NEED FOR AN APPROPRIATION

        Irrigation on the Wind River Indian Reservation dates back to the
    early 1860's, prior to the Reservation's establishment in 1868. In
    1905, Congress enacted legislation providing, in part, for the
    construction of an irrigation system to serve Indian lands on the Wind
    River Reservation. This system, the Wind River Irrigation Project, was
    never completed, and unfortunately, is in exceptionally poor condition.
        During the 1960's, a report completed on the status of the project
    indicated that 74 percent of the 3,820 structures along the 420 miles
    of the canal were in dire need of repair. Regardless, restorative
    efforts were not taken and instead, these structures have continued to
    deteriorate.
        Currently the project encompasses 77,000 acres, of which only
    40,000 acres are irrigable. Three major structures are in imminent
    danger of failure, with only enough emergency funds on hand to repair
    one such failure. Canals and diversion structures are of inadequate
    size, canals and laterals have eroded, and extensive seepage is evident
    along delivery canals and laterals. (Full reports of the deficiencies
    are available for congressional review.)
        Various evaluations by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the
    Tribes, and other entities, have shown that the system is in critical
    condition and in need of immediate attention to maintain the current
    economic conditions of the Wind River Reservation. The Project Engineer
    estimates that major head gate structures will begin failing soon,
    rendering much of the project unserviceable. One engineering firm
    suggests that, without action, the Wind River Irrigation Project has a
    maximum life of seven (7) years. Because 25 percent of the irrigable
    acreage is idle and lacks an adequate water delivery system, these
    Indian and non-Indian landowners are denied the ability to make their
    lands productive.
        Further exacerbating the situation, Wyoming is in the midst of its
    worst drought in more than a century. Failure of the Irrigation Project
    will devastate these Indian and non-Indian ranchers, and a local
    economy where agriculture income is key.

                                ISSUE OF EQUITY

        The Wind River Reservation is also home to similar projects, such
    as the Midvale Irrigation Project. Aimed at providing water to non-
    Indians residing on the reservation, the Midvale Project has received
    federal assistance of approximately $1,000/acre for water delivery
    enhancements and improvements. By comparison, the Wind River Irrigation
    project has received approximately $100/acre.
        It is inequitable for the United States to have funded the non-
    Indian federal project on the reservation at a level of 90 percent more
    than the Indian project. The Tribes are simply asking to be provided
    equitable treatment with other irrigators. The inequities of the past
    have contributed to 53 percent of our population living below the
    poverty level, a 49 percent unemployment rate, and the inability to put
    our land to productive use.

                             USE OF APPROPRIATIONS

        The requested appropriations will be used to begin the
    rehabilitation process. Specifically, steps will be taken to replace or
    repair, and correctly size, approximately 11 major headgates; install 2
    sand traps; reconfigure, repair, and install pipe on 9.5 miles of
    lateral; install or repair 14 check and headgate structures; and repair
    and clean 5 laterals. This work is the initial part of the overall
    rehabilitation of the project.
        In summary the irrigation project is in dire need of federal
    funding to stabilize and reverse the continuing deterioration of the
    system. The Eastern Shoshone and the Northern Arapaho Tribes are
    seeking Congressional appropriations to begin the repair and
    rehabilitation of the Wind River Irrigation Project. We respectfully
    request that the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and
    related agencies support the Tribe's request of $3.35 million for each
    of the fiscal years 2004, 2005, and 2006.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony to the Committee
    on this urgent matter.

                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa

        I, Robert B. Peacock, Chairman of the Fond du Lac Band of Lake
    Superior Chippewa would like to thank you for this opportunity to
    present written testimony on fiscal year 2004 appropriations for the
    Department of Interior. The Fond du Lac Reservation was established by
    Treaty with the United States on September 30, 1854 and encompasses
    100,000 acres of land in northeastern Minnesota. There is a population
    of 6,500 Indian people that live within the service area of the
    Reservation with the Band providing employment or services to most of
    them. On behalf of the Fond du Lac Band, I am asking that you increase
    the bands funding from the Bureau of Indian Affairs by $9 million for
    fiscal year 2004 to develop the infrastructure necessary to continue to
    serve and protect the resources of the band. I also request that
    $915,000 be provided for the Circle of Flight program under the BIA's
    Other Recurring Programs--Resource Management line item. The Dept. of
    Interior's Tribal Wildlife Grant Program was funded at $5 million, and
    I request that this Grant Program be funded at this level for fiscal
    year 2004.
        We strongly support the Administration's request of additional
    funding under the Indian Country Law Enforcement Initiative. In 1997
    the Minnesota Supreme Court held that certain traffic regulations
    including, speeding, driving without a license, and driving with no
    insurance were ``civil-regulatory'' in nature and under Public Law 280
    are unenforceable by state police officers on the Reservation. The
    ruling known as the Stone decision, left a jurisdictional void with
    regard to law enforcement on the roads within Indian Reservations in
    the State. In order to fill this void, the Band has undertaken the
    establishment of it's own Tribal police force through the Community
    Oriented Policing Services, Bureau of Indian Affairs and Tribal funds.
    In addition, the Band has worked with all local law enforcement
    agencies to establish a cross deputization agreement that ensures
    maximum law enforcement protection for the Reservation and it's
    citizens by allowing all law enforcement agencies within the
    Reservation boundaries to enforce each other's laws. However, because
    of the short-term, limited financial resources available, there are
    significant unmet needs in this area. At Fond du Lac, we need long term
    funding to pay for staff and equipment to adequately ensure the safety
    of the Reservation population. In light of the Stone decision, we ask
    this committee to support the Administration's request for investment
    in strengthening Indian Country's Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice
    System and ask that this committee consider placing these initiatives
    into the BIA's permanent base budget. The Band currently employs seven
    police officers, six conservation officers, one records clerk, one
    prosecuting attorney, one clerk of court, one part time court recorder,
    and one part time judge. All of these staff positions are located
    within the Resource Management division. Along with this staff, are
    thirty other permanent full time staff and fifteen full time seasonal
    staff housed in a building that was designed to house twenty. With the
    increased responsibility assumed by the Band there is an ever
    increasing need to expand the staff and it's capabilities. With this in
    mind, we request a one time allocation of $6 million to the Band for
    expansion of the office space for the Resource Management Division. We
    are also requesting that $1.5 million be added to our base budget to
    continue to implement and staff the court and enforcement systems for
    the Band.
        Under Treaties with the United States made in 1837 and 1854 the
    Fond du Lac Band reserved the right to hunt, fish and gather on the
    lands ceded, a large portion of central and northeastern Minnesota, to
    the United States. The Band's rights under these treaties have been
    recognized and upheld by the federal courts--most recently the United
    States Supreme Court. On March 24, 1999 the Supreme Court issued a
    decision expressly re-affirming the Band's hunting and fishing rights
    in the 1837 Ceded Territory. Under established Band conservation law,
    the exercise of these off-reservation treaty rights require that the
    Band take the steps necessary to ensure proper use and management of
    the natural resources. This means the Band is responsible for member's
    hunting, fishing and gathering activities over approximately 8,000,000
    acres of land. The Band has adopted, along with the federal courts, a
    code and a resource management plan that protects the exercise of
    treaty reserved rights and the resources. It is very essential that the
    Band continues to manage it's on-reservation resources in order to meet
    the demands of an increasing population. Established by the Treaty of
    1854 with the United States, the home of the Band is 100,000 acres in
    northeastern Minnesota. The waters, wildlife, wild rice and the forest
    resources of the reservation are vitally important to it's members as
    these resources provide the foundation for our culture, subsistence,
    employment and recreation. The Fond du Lac Reservation includes some
    3,200 acres of lakes, 1,900 acres of wild rice lakes and associated
    wetlands, 66 miles of cool water streams, and 17,500 acres of forest
    with the remaining acres being used by individual land owner for
    housing and development. The increasing resident population and
    development are placing all resources under great stress. The loss of
    wild rice acres, wildlife habitat, and the decline of our forest are of
    great concern to the Band. Therefore, we are seeking an additional $1.5
    million be added to the Band's base budget for the Fond du Lac Resource
    Management Division, for it's natural resource programs, that will
    enable us to protect these resources for the future generations on Fond
    du Lac.
        In the $1.5 million request, we seek an additional $100,000
    increase to the base budget of the Fond du Lac Natural Resources
    Program. The Fond du Lac Natural Resources program carries out the
    essential fisheries, wildlife and wild rice programs on the Fond du Lac
    Reservation. This Program is restoring over 1,000 acres of wild rice on
    our Reservation's wild rice lakes, and is also conducting a long term
    project to restore the lake sturgeon to the upper St. Louis River. The
    funds for this program have not been increased since 1991 and the cost
    of conducting these resource management programs has increased
    substantially.
        Another important resource management need is to obtain funds to
    address the threat of Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD), which has recently
    infected white tailed deer in our region. CWD poses a very serious
    threat to the health of the white tailed deer herds and potentially to
    the moose population in northern Minnesota. Where it has been found,
    the only known treatment is eradication of captive herds and great
    reduction in the wild deer herds. The impacts of CWD on human health
    are currently unknown, but warrant further investigation. The potential
    harm to the deer population in this region has serious implications for
    Native Americans, because for a majority of Fond du Lac Band Members,
    deer comprise 25-30 percent of their diet. Therefore, we urgently
    request $75,000 in base program funds for our Conservation Enforcement
    Program. The long term funding of this project is necessary for our
    Conservation Enforcement and Wildlife staff to collect the samples from
    hunters for analysis, in order to identify the frequency and range of
    infected deer in Northeastern Minnesota. This is the area in which our
    Band Members frequently hunt for deer and moose. If infected animals
    are found, a program of deer harvesting to thin the local herd is
    essential in order to prevent or limit the expansion of this disease.
        We ask that the House Appropriations Committee support the Fond du
    Lac Band in behalf of the Fond du Lac Ojibwe Schools to support all
    Bureau of Indian Affairs requests for education programs.
        The Circle of Flight.--Tribal Wetland & Waterfowl Enhancement
    Initiative program, under the BIA's Other Recurring Programs category,
    was again eliminated in President Bush's fiscal year 2004 budget
    request. The Circle of Flight program has been one of Interior's top
    trust resource protection programs for 10 years. Since fiscal year
    1991, Great Lakes tribes and other partners have restored or enhanced
    more than 66,000 wetland, wild rice, grassland and native prairie
    acres, and installed thousands of waterfowl nest structures. Wild rice
    lakes provide high quality forage for migratory waterfowl as well as
    waterfowl nesting habitat. The Circle of Flight program enabled the
    Great Lakes tribes to become key partners with federal, state, and
    local government units, as well as private organizations such as Ducks
    Unlimited, the Nature Conservancy. The Circle of Flight program has
    invested more than $6 million in habitat projects, and has leveraged
    these dollars for an additional $18 million in federal, state, private,
    and tribal funding, yielding and impressive match ratio of 3 to 1. The
    elimination of the Circle of Flight program would cripple the Great
    Lakes tribe's ability to continue these successful partnerships, which
    have benefited a diverse array of wildlife species and their associated
    habitats. I ask that you restore the Circle of Flight program to the
    BIA's fiscal year 2004 budget to at least the fiscal year 2003 level of
    $594,000, and to consider providing the fiscal year 2004 requested
    amount of $915,000.
        I thank the Committee for the new $5 million Tribal Wildlife Grants
    program in the Interior Conservation Spending category in fiscal year
    2002 and 2003. Even though this amount represents only .28 percent of
    this Title, whereas tribes are directly responsible for protecting at
    least 2.35 percent of the land area of the United States, it represents
    a good start at helping to address the massive unmet need tribes have
    in meeting their conservation responsibilities. I ask that you consider
    increasing the Tribal Wildlife Grant program to $10 million in fiscal
    year 2004.
        In conclusion, the needs at Fond du Lac and throughout Indian
    Country remain massive. Your support to preserve the current BIA
    funding request is critical to maintain current program levels. Your
    consideration for our additional funding requests will enable us to
    improve the delivery of services to Band members and help ensure that
    we enter the 21st Century with a renewed sense of hope.
        Miigwech. Thank you.
                                     ______

     Letter From the Fremont County, WY Legislative Delegation and Members
                  of the Select Committee on Tribal Relations
                                                        April 11, 2003.

    Re Support for Funding to Rehabilitate the Wind River Irrigation
            Project.

    Hon. Conrad Burns,
    Chairman, Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, U.S. Senate,
            Washington, DC.
        Dear Senator Burns: We, the Fremont County, Wyoming legislative
    delegation and members of the Select Committee on Tribal Relations, are
    writing this letter to express our support for the Eastern Shoshone
    Tribe and the Northern Arapaho Tribe's fiscal year 2004 appropriations
    request to begin rehabilitation of the Wind River Irrigation Project.
    The Tribes are in significant need of water development funding.
        The Bureau of Indian Affairs-administered Wind River Irrigation
    Project is in a condition of severe disrepair, with over $50 million in
    deferred maintenance. The recent drought has highlighted the
    inefficiency of water delivery on the Wind River Irrigation Project. In
    addition, many of the essential delivery structures arc in danger of
    failing. If rehabilitation does not occur soon, the system will become
    inoperable.
        During Wyoming's last legislative session we worked closely with
    the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes to develop and pass
    legislation which will enable the Tribes to act as sponsors of water
    development projects through the Wyoming Water Development Program. Due
    to the poor condition of water delivery infrastructure on the WRIR, a
    combination of federal and state funds will likely be needed to meet
    all the water development needs of the Tribes. A federal appropriation
    for irrigation rehabilitation on the WRIR for fiscal year 2004 will
    encourage favorable consideration by the Wyoming legislature for the
    Tribal request for Wyoming Water Development funding during the next
    legislative session.
        If we can be of further assistance, please contact us at our
    respective addresses and phone numbers. We respectfully ask that you
    support this much needed appropriation.
                Sincerely,

                                             Senator Cale Case,
                                                            Lander, WY.
                                              Senator Bob Peck,
                                                          Riverton, WY.
                                   Representative Harry Tipton,
                                                            Lander, WY.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
                                   Commission

        BIA Treaty Rights Protection/Implementation: $3,966,000 (enacted
    fiscal year 2003).--Operation of Indian Programs, Other Recurring
    Programs, Resources Management, Rights Protection/Implementation, Great
    Lakes Area Resource Management.
        GLIFWC seeks to maintain the base budget that Congress has provided
    for the past two years. The ``Green Book'' is not yet available for
    fiscal year 2004, but GLIFWC presumes that, as with previous budget
    proposals, the Administration will propose funding at $300,000 below
    the enacted fiscal year 2003 amount. Since GLIFWC's inception in 1984,
    Congress consistently has recognized the need to maintain GLIFWC's core
    natural resource conservation and law enforcement programs. For
    example, Congress provided funds in fiscal year 2002 to restore GLIFWC
    program cuts caused by chronic underfunding. And, in fiscal year 2003,
    Congress restored the Administration's proposed cut of nearly $300,000
    from GLIFWC's enacted fiscal year 2002 funding.
        The requested fiscal year 2004 funds would allow GLIFWC to maintain
    its programs that fulfill important federal obligations to its 11
    member Ojibwe Tribes and that provide a wide range of associated public
    benefits. With full base funding, GLIFWC's will be able to meet its
    duties under a number of federal court decisions. And, it can remain a
    viable conservation and public safety partner in Wisconsin, Michigan
    and Minnesota at a time when many surrounding agencies have been hit
    hard by the call to active military duty.
        BIA Contract Support Costs.--GLIFWC also seeks full funding of its
    contract support costs, as it has experienced a $250,000 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 14.2 percent in fiscal year 2002. 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 funding to
    Operation of Indian Programs, Other Recurring Programs, Resources
    Management, Tribal Management Development Programs, Wetlands/Waterfowl
    Management. In fiscal year 2003, the Administration proposed to
    eliminate this long-standing tribal contribution to the North American
    Waterfowl Management Plan. Congress disagreed, and restored the
    necessary funding. Over the past 11 years, the roughly $7 million
    provided to Tribes, including to GLIFWC and its member Tribes, has
    leveraged over $18 million--a 2.5 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 (Public 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 17 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 Maintained.--A $300,000 cut
    in GLIFWC's base funding will threaten a number of its core programs.
    This is best illustrated by how the restored funding in fiscal year
    2003 was used: to reinstitute fall juvenile walleye recruitment surveys
    at previous levels; to restore tribal court and registration station
    funding cuts; to restore Lake Superior lamprey control and whitefish
    assessment programs; to restore GLIFWC's share in cooperative wildlife
    and wild rice enhancement projects; to replace ageing equipment; to
    meet expanding harvest monitoring needs; and to meet uncontrollable
    increases in employee benefit costs (particularly health and other
    insurance).
        In addition, a continued base funding level will ensure GLIFWC's
    participation in regional emergency services networks at a time when
    many personnel of surrounding agencies have been called to active
    military duty. GLIFWC's officers are integral partners with surrounding
    emergency responders. 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.
        GLIFWC has worked hard to streamline its programs and institute
    other cost-saving options. Specifically, it has: (i) cut staff; (ii)
    teamed up with its partners to maximize the cost efficiency of
    cooperative projects; (iii) obtained separate contract support funding
    from the BIA; and (iv) diversified its funding from non-BIA sources to
    build upon its Self-Determination Act funding and to undertake special
    projects.
        How the Restored Base Funding Would be Used.--The $300,000 would be
    used the same in fiscal year 2004 as it was in fiscal year 2003--(1)
    Restore Cut or Reduced Programs ($160,000) \1\; (2) Replace Ageing
    Vehicles and Field Equipment ($100,000) \2\; and (3) Meet Increased
    Personnel and Fringe Costs ($40,000).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \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; $15,000 to meet harvest monitoring
    obligations; 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\ With fiscal year 2003 funds, GLIFWC replenished a $100,000
    vehicle/equipment replacement capital fund and replaced a number of its
    oldest vehicles and equipment that had become obsolete or economically
    inefficient to operate and maintain. This fund would be replenished
    again with fiscal year 2004 funds to cover some of the over $200,000 in
    other vehicle/equipment replacement needs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        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, US
            Coast Guard, EPA, ATSDR, HHS-ANA, 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 Hoopa Tribe of California

        The Hoopa Tribe respectfully submits this written testimony
    regarding the fiscal year 2004 budget for the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
    A summary of my requests are as follows:
      --Request support for the California Trust Reform Pilot Project
      --$319,000 for Forest Development Add-On.
      --$546,000 for Timber Sale Preparation and Administration.
      --$228,000 for Forest Program Management.
      --$194,000 for Forest Inventories and Plans.
      --$435,000 for Road Maintenance and Improvements.

                              NARRATIVE OF REQUEST

        California Trust Reform Pilot Project.--In 1997, the Hoopa, Karuk,
    Redding Rancheria, Yurok, Big Lagoon, Cabazon Tribes formed the
    California Trust Reform Consortium. The Guidiville Indian Rancheria
    joined in 2002. The purpose of the Consortium is to work with the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs Pacific Regional Office (PRO) to improve
    management of trust activities being performed by the Federal
    Government and member Tribes. A part of the Consortium's efforts has
    been to work with the PRO to identify problem areas related to
    management and protection of trust assets, identify and resolve funding
    and staffing shortages and address policy and regulatory conflicts that
    arise during tribal and BIA management of trust resources. The ongoing
    working relationship between the member tribes and the PRO has provided
    a meaningful way for the tribes and the PRO to identify trust issues as
    they arise and effectively resolve them before a legal or breach of
    trust issue can develop between the parties.
        The California Trust Reform Pilot Project has been tremendously
    successful for both the BIA and Tribes. Further, the ongoing working
    relationship has created new opportunities to begin working on trust
    issues that were never before been addressed and has facilitated a
    positive environment to emerge to support economic development and
    enhance tribal management and infrastructure. Therefore, the California
    Trust Reform Consortium requests that the Subcommittee provide language
    in the Appropriations Report that continues the support for this
    important and successful effort.
        Forest Development--$319,000.--The current Forest Development
    budget for Hoopa is used for the salary of one person whose sole
    responsibility is to lay out pre-commercial thinning projects for the
    Hoopa Reservation. In addition, Tribal funds are used to pay for one-
    half of the salary of the certified silviculturist who oversees
    projects as they are carried out by local Indian contractors. To date,
    the Tribe has implemented over 5,000 acres of thin and release projects
    on the Reservation, which has generated more than 100 man years of work
    during the past ten years. Pre-commercial thin and release projects are
    designed to remove competition from non-commercial vegetation of forest
    lands and to remove brush that has historically contributed to wildland
    fires. This funding increase will allow the Tribe to carry out this
    important trust responsibility activity at a level to keep up with non-
    commercial vegetation growth by increasing the ``on- the -ground'' work
    that is needed for proper for management of Indian trust assets. These
    funds would allow the Tribe to thin and release an additional 1,000
    acres of newer second growth timber stands that have not thinned since
    1970 due to the lack of funding. In addition, this funding would allow
    the Tribe to hire another one full time employee that is critically
    needed to carry out these efforts.
        Timber Sale Layout and Administration--$546,000.--This program is
    responsible for overseeing the preparation, layout, documentation in
    FOR's and contracts, and for administering of timber sale contracts
    used to harvest approximately $8 million of annual tribal timber sales.
    The program provides timber sale layout, administration, scaling, and
    small sales for Indian allotments. The Tribe currently funds nearly all
    of the layout and small sales work with tribal funds, including timber
    sales for individual Indian allottees. These funds would allow the
    Tribe to hire a timber management officer, two sale administrators and
    two scaling technician, which compose the minimal trust oversight
    obligations for these responsibilities. In addition, the funding
    requested would allow the Tribe to establish the necessary staffing and
    resources needed to carry out timber sales activities in accordance
    with federal timber statutes and regulations.
        Forest Program Management--$228,000.--This program pays for the
    central administrative staff that is necessary to oversee all Tribal
    and individual Indian timber sales, management of timber trust assets
    and provide technical assistance where needed relating to forest and
    timber land activities to the Tribe and Indian allottees. The funding
    request would not only support the administrative functions of the
    Hoopa Forestry Department but would also provide funds for a personnel
    clerk for the 70 Forestry Department staff and for a grants and
    contracts personnel, neither of which are not presently funded by the
    BIA. These funds would also allow the Forestry Administration to
    properly manage contracts for Forest development projects and conduct
    proper oversight functions for timber sale site pre-preparation,
    prescribed burning activities, reforestation and grubbing, as well as
    other activities, such as NEPA, botany surveys and Endangered Species
    oversight.
        Forest Management Planning and Inventories--$194,000.--Forest
    Management Planning and Inventories is responsible for all initial
    project planning including the development and approval of
    Environmental Assessments (EA) for all projects. Approximately three to
    five EA's are produced annually, including timber sale project EA's and
    road development. Presently, this important component of the Tribal
    Forestry Department is not funded by the BIA.
        Roads Maintenance and Improvements--$435,000.--There are 450 miles
    of system roads on the Hoopa Reservation, of which only 130 miles are
    on the BIA road maintenance schedule. There are an additional 100 miles
    of roads that are in very poor condition that continuously contribute
    to fishery stream sedimentation due to winter landslides and blown out
    culverts, as well as create wildland fire hazards due to brush
    overgrowth and allow trespass and illegal wood cutting by outsiders.
    The present funding level of the BIA Road maintenance Program for only
    the 130 miles of roads that are on the BIA maintenance schedule for the
    Reservation is $132,000, which is 11.59 percent of need. In 1992, the
    Tribe hired an engineering firm to assess the road conditions and
    establish an adequate maintenance budget and schedule. The firm's
    analysis determined that an annual additional operating budget of
    $435,000 would be required to properly manage Reservation roads.

                                   CONCLUSION

        The California Trust Reform Pilot Project has been a proven success
    in improving the management of trust assets and improving the working
    relationship between the member tribes and the BIA. We request the
    Subcommittee's support for continuing this Pilot Project. With respect
    to Forest Management and Road Maintenance, the BIA's budget is
    significantly short of demonstrated need. The Tribe will have an
    extremely difficult time continuing to carry out these federal trust
    responsibility activities without the funding requested.
        Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me
    at (530) 625-4211 ext. 102 or via email at lyle_marshall@hotmail.com.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the International Association of Fish and
                               Wildlife Agencies

                         BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS (BIA)

        The management of multi-jurisdictional fish, wildlife and outdoor
    recreation resources on Indian reservations and in treaty-ceded areas
    is a complex process requiring the implementation of comprehensive
    programs comparable to those conducted by State and Federal fish and
    wildlife agencies. The shared status of many fish and wildlife
    resources and the roles and responsibilities of many Tribal governments
    as resource co-managers require close coordination with State, Federal
    and other resource management authorities. Effective Tribal
    participation promotes and facilitates fish and wildlife conservation
    for the benefit of Tribal and non-Tribal communities alike. For these
    reasons, the Association continues to be concerned by the woefully
    inadequate Wildlife and Parks budget of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
    The base request for fiscal year 2004 of $24.2 million is virtually
    identical to the fiscal year 2003 request and is more than a $7 million
    (23 percent) reduction from the fiscal year 2002 enacted budget for
    this program. This is an inappropriate and inadequate response to the
    needs on Tribal lands. The Association encourages Congress to restore
    these cuts and subsequently appropriate additional funds to begin to
    address long-standing resource needs on Tribal lands.
        The fiscal year 2004 budget request includes $434,000 for fish
    hatchery maintenance, an amount that mirrors the current year's budget,
    which barely recognizes the more than $25 million backlog in required
    hatchery maintenance. This amounts to approximately $3,600 per year for
    each of the 120 currently operating Tribal hatcheries and rearing
    facilities across the country, and falls far short of addressing even
    minor maintenance requirements. The Association strongly recommends a
    significantly increased funding level for fiscal year 2004 and out
    years with the objective of eliminating the fish hatchery maintenance
    backlog by fiscal year 2010.
        The Association has, in the past, strongly supported the agency's
    request for fish hatchery rehabilitation to rehabilitate Tribal fish
    hatcheries and replace capitalized equipment for the highest priority
    projects. Not since fiscal year 1995 has Congress appropriated money
    for such rehabilitation. The Association strongly recommends that
    Congress reestablish the fiscal year 1995 funding base of $1.5 million
    to replace failing systems and modernize Tribal fish hatcheries to
    enable them to optimize fish production. This funding would help
    satisfy vital Tribal fishery needs.
        The Association believes that Tribal lands are integral to the
    maintenance and recovery of threatened and endangered species.
    Presently, the majority of Tribes are unable to be parties to candidate
    species studies and conservation agreements due principally to lack of
    funding. The Association strongly recommends an increase of $900,000 to
    the fish hatchery operations line-item for the Tribes to participate in
    all phases of the endangered species recovery process. This would
    enable Tribes to begin to address listed species needs and recovery of
    species from which all Americans benefit.
        The Association is concerned about the funding being requested for
    endangered species activities within the non-recurring portion of the
    budget request. The $2.19 million being requested for this function is
    a considerable improvement over the President's 2003 budget request of
    $197,000, but still falls short of addressing nearly $70 million in
    identified needs for this program area. While important work related to
    monitoring spotted owls and marbled murrelets in the Pacific Northwest
    and the range management improvements related to black-tailed prairie
    dogs and black-footed ferrets in South Dakota will be allowed to
    continue, funding is below the level needed. The Association,
    therefore, recommends an increase of $.8 million to the fiscal year
    2004 Tribal endangered species budget category to fully fund the
    aforementioned projects and significantly increased funding in the out
    years with the objective of addressing the backlog of needed endangered
    species conservation efforts by fiscal year 2010.
        The fiscal year 2002 budget ceased listing the funds for Alaska
    Subsistence as a separate line-item and placed the funding for this
    purpose in the Tribal Management/Development Program, and that practice
    continues in the fiscal year 2004 budget. Given that provisions for
    subsistence in Alaska are not specific to Tribes, the Association
    recommends that this program be identified as a separate line-item in
    the same fashion as other Interior agencies.
        The Association opposes the elimination of $2.85 million from the
    base budget of Wildlife and Parks. The six programs being eliminated in
    Tribal Management/Development programs are:
        1. The Chugach Regional Resources Commission. The Commission, which
    encourages and oversees Native resource development programs for five
    Native Villages along the northern rim of the Gulf of Alaska, has been
    funded since fiscal year 1991. The Association supports the
    reinstatement of the full $347,000 to fund this important project in
    the coming fiscal year.
        2. The Alaska Sea Otter Commission. This Tribal consortium promotes
    Native participation in resource policy decisions pertaining to the sea
    otter and has been funded since fiscal year 1993. The Association
    supports the reinstatement of the full $69,000 to fund this important
    project in the coming fiscal year.
        3. The Bering Sea Fisherman's Association. This association has
    been funded since fiscal year 1994 and supports the involvement of
    Alaska Native tribes and organizations in salmon research and
    monitoring projects in the Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim region of Alaska. The
    Association supports the reinstatement of the full $803,000 to fund
    this important project in the coming fiscal year.
        4. The Lake Roosevelt Management Project in Washington State.
    Funding has been provided in the past through negotiated contracts with
    the Confederated Colville Tribes and the Spokane Tribe. Funds are used
    to implement a cooperative management agreement between the Tribes and
    the Department of the Interior for managing outdoor recreation in and
    around Lake Roosevelt. Funds support Tribal programs focusing on the
    management, planning and regulation of fishing, boating, camping and
    related public use activities occurring within the Reservation Zone of
    the Lake Roosevelt Recreation Area. Funding from this account also
    supports the Lake Roosevelt Water Quality Management Council. The
    Association supports the reinstatement of the full $630,000 to fund
    this important project in the coming fiscal year.
        5. Upper Columbia United Tribes. These funds have been provided
    since fiscal year 1988 to the Kalispell, Kootenai, Spokane, and Coeur
    d'Alene Tribes to protect tribal hunting, fishing, and gathering rights
    and conservation projects in the Upper Columbia River Basin. The
    Association supports the reinstatement of the full $418,000 to fund
    this important project in the coming fiscal year.
        6. Wetlands/Waterfowl Management. Tribes in Minnesota, Michigan,
    and Wisconsin have been provided vital funding, since fiscal year 1991,
    for wetland rehabilitation and enhancement in cooperation with the
    North American Waterfowl Management Plan, designed to add tens of
    thousands of ducks and geese to spring and fall migrations. The
    Association supports the reinstatement of the full $600,000 to fund
    this important project in the coming fiscal year.
        While the Association is opposed to diversion of Sport Fish and
    Wildlife Restoration Program funds for Tribal use, it is committed to
    adequate federal funding to provide for professional management of
    Tribal fish and wildlife resources. The Association believes that
    Native American Tribes have identified legitimate funding needs for
    fish and wildlife on millions of acres of Tribal lands. Adequate
    funding preserves and enhances the cultural heritage of Native American
    Tribes, while providing positive economic benefits, and ensuring the
    conservation of significant fish and wildlife resources.

                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the InterTribal Bison Cooperative

                           INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

        My name is Ervin Carlson, a Tribal Council member of the Blackfeet
    Tribe. I am President of the InterTribal Bison Cooperative (ITBC). On
    behalf of our 51 member Tribes, I would like to thank the honorable
    members of the committee for this opportunity to provide written
    testimony. On behalf of ITBC, I would like to address the following
    issues: (1) Request an appropriation of $3,000,000 for fiscal year
    2004, which is an increase of $1,250,000 over last year's
    appropriation, (2) Explain to the committee ITBC's unmet funding need
    of $19.4 million, and (3) Update the committee on ITBC's present
    initiatives.
        The InterTribal Bison Cooperative (ITBC), located in Rapid City,
    South Dakota, is a Native American non-profit organization composed of
    51 federally recognized Indian Tribes within a 17 state region. ITBC is
    dedicated to the development and restoration of buffalo on Indian lands
    for the economic, agricultural, environmental, spiritual and cultural
    purposes of Indian Nations. Additionally, ITBC acts as an informal
    guardian of the buffalo to promote, protect and preserve buffalo
    traditions within the United States.
        In 1992, ITBC was created as an initiative of the Bush
    Administration. The organization intended to promote development of
    Indian reservation lands that could not sustain other successful
    economic or agricultural projects. Often, Indian reservation lands were
    of a poor quality and not able to sustain any sort of farm, wildlife or
    livestock projects. Since buffalo had occupied these lands for
    centuries before they were hunted to near extinction in the 1800's,
    ITBC believed buffalo could once again thrive successfully on
    reservation land.
        Buffalo provided subsistence to the Native people. In the Plains
    Indian culture, the buffalo provided food, housing, materials and tools
    used in daily life, and a philosophic and cultural basis for everyday
    life. Originally, ITBC was organized to preserve the sacred
    relationship between Indian tribes and the buffalo. Tribal buffalo
    operations are a logical extension of an historic way of life and also
    serve as a source of economic opportunities on tribal lands. Restoring
    these animals is critical to the health of Indian nations. Indian
    Tribes approach buffalo herd development with a seriousness and respect
    that other economic development projects may not receive.
        Today, as a result of federal appropriations and ITBC's efforts,
    buffalo are once again thriving on tribal lands. ITBC has played a
    significant role in this restoration and is now making every effort to
    assure that the Tribal buffalo projects are economically sustainable.

                                FUNDING REQUEST

        The InterTribal Bison Cooperative respectfully requests an
    appropriation for fiscal year 2004 in the amount of $3,000,000. This
    amount is $1,250,000 above the fiscal year 2003 appropriation for ITBC
    and is greatly needed to maintain last years funding level and to help
    build economic sustainability to the Tribal projects.

                         FUNDING SHORTFALL & UNMET NEED

        In fiscal year 2003, the ITBC and its member tribes were funded
    through appropriations at $1,746,000. The President's budget for fiscal
    year 2004 recommends a funding amount of $1,146,000 which is a decrease
    of $600,000 at a time when the current market price for buffalo is only
    10 percent of the price three years ago.
        At the current level of funding, many of our member tribes cannot
    receive adequate technical assistance, product and resource
    development, nor do they receive funding for start-up or maintenance
    costs.
        ITBC is a cooperative with 100 percent of the appropriated funds
    going toward the support and development of Tribal buffalo herds and
    buffalo product business ventures. ITBC funding is distributed among
    all ITBC member Tribes. In fact, an important aspect of ITBC is the
    cooperative agreement that member Tribes have reached in regard to the
    sharing of ITBC funding.
        Each year, ITBC surveys all its member tribes to determine their
    unmet project needs. The current unmet need for ITBC tribal projects to
    fully develop is $19,378,367. I have attached the Tribal Bison Project
    Proposal summaries for your review, which details each of ITBC member
    tribe's projects and financial need.

                            ITBC GOALS & INITIATIVES

        The immediate goal of ITBC is the restoration of the buffalo on
    Indian lands through the development of Tribal buffalo herds and
    related economic development projects. The ultimate goal is for Tribal
    buffalo herds to reach a point of self-sufficiency and once again
    become an economic cornerstone throughout Indian country.
    Economic Development.
        In 1991, seven Indian tribes had small buffalo herds, with a
    combined total of 1,500 animals. Little or no economic development was
    taking place with the buffalo. ITBC has proven its success in
    restoration of tribal buffalo herds during its relatively short 10-year
    history. Today, with the support and technical assistance of ITBC, over
    35 Indian Tribes are engaged in raising buffalo. There are
    approximately 15,000 animals owned and managed by these Tribes. Many of
    these Tribal buffalo programs are on the verge of becoming fully self-
    sufficient and successful operations. Most important for the Tribal
    economies, a new industry has been born where previously none existed.
    Hundreds of direct and indirect jobs relating to the tribal buffalo
    industry have been created. The positive impact to Indian country has
    been unmistakable.
        However, in order to become fully self sufficient and sustainable
    the Tribes must be able to build a solid foundation for this new
    industry. ITBC provides critical assistance to member Tribes who must
    have sustainable management plans, infrastructure growth and
    development plans, training for the new jobs being created, and as the
    herds grow and develop, marketing plans as well. Therefore, in order to
    provide the necessary assistance ITBC is ready to begin a marketing
    initiative.

    Tribal Buffalo Marketing Initiative
        When the tribal buffalo are finally, ready for market, ITBC member
    tribes face yet another obstacle to economic success. Few meat
    processing plants exist that can process buffalo. The geographic
    isolation that is common to most of our Tribes, further compounds the
    problem by increasing operating costs and reduces the quality of the
    meat by introducing unnecessary and harmful stress to the animals.
    Because the Tribal buffalo are range fed many existing plants will not
    allow them to be processed. Therefore, ITBC supports the development of
    tribally owned processing facilities that will accept range fed buffalo
    and assure product identity and quality control.
        Currently, there is only one Indian-owned, USDA approved, meat-
    processing plant. This plant is located in Malta, Montana and was only
    recently acquired by the Ft. Belknap Tribe. The Tribe has requested the
    assistance of ITBC to build a sound infrastructure and to coordinate
    with other Tribes to process their buffalo, and help build a
    cooperative market for the Tribally produced range fed buffalo. ITBC is
    anxious to launch its marketing initiative by providing critical
    support to the Ft. Belknap Tribe in Montana. This project will begin
    the necessary infrastructure development that is so critical to
    sustainability. ITBC will assist with training for meat processing,
    cold storage facility development, help plan and upgrade the plant for
    buffalo, develop a distribution plan and system for Buffalo meat and
    by-products, and develop a cooperative brand name with standards and
    labeling guarantees, similar to the Kosher Beef brand. The development
    of the Ft. Belknap plant will serve as a model for other Tribal
    processing plants that are on the verge of achieving USDA approval. The
    primary benefits of tribally owned buffalo processing plants is to
    maintain the integrity of the Tribally owned buffalo meat as a health
    benefit, to develop a culturally appropriate processing schedule and to
    provide sustainability to the Tribal buffalo projects.

    Preventive Health Care Initiative
        Another important aspect of ITBC's economic development effort is
    to provide buffalo meat to reservation families and to re-educate
    tribal members to the health benefits of including buffalo meat in
    their diets. ITBC is working to provide better ways for reservation
    families to have easier access to purchase buffalo meat. In most cases,
    buffalo meat is not sold in small quantities at the grocery stores and
    convenience stores located on Indian reservations. When Native families
    purchase meat, often the only choice of meat available to them is the
    high fat, and high cholesterol, processed meats that most reservation
    stores stock.
        Current research indicates that the diet of most Indian families on
    the reservations, includes large amounts of high fat, processed meats,
    which contributes to diabetes and heart disease and other diet related
    health problems.
        ITBC is working on a health care initiative that will provide
    easier access to buffalo meat on the reservations, target those
    individuals with the greatest need, and to educate more Indian families
    of the health benefits of including range fed buffalo meat in their
    daily diets.

                         SUPPORT FOR TRIBAL INITIATIVE

        ITBC support for the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the
    Flathead Reservation in their effort to assume management of buffalo in
    the National Bison Range as a compactable federal function under the
    1994 Self-Governance Act.
        Tribal management of the National Bison Range would restore the
    relationship of buffalo with the Tribe on their ancestral land, allows
    the Tribe to assume management of their resources and save the
    government a significant amount of funding for the current management
    expenses.

                                   CONCLUSION

        ITBC has demonstrated success over the years by assisting its
    member tribes with the restoration of buffalo to their native lands for
    cultural purposes and economic development. ITBC will continue to
    provide technical assistance and funding to its member tribes in order
    that they can restore and maintain tribal buffalo herds.
        Through the efforts of ITBC and its member tribes, new jobs have
    been created in the tribal buffalo industry resulting in new money for
    tribal economies. In addition, ITBC continues to support methods to
    market buffalo meat by providing easy access on the reservation and
    education efforts to the health benefits of buffalo meat in the Native
    diet.
        ITBC and its member tribes are appreciative of past and current
    support from the Congress and the Administration. I urge the committee
    to consider an increase to ITBC fiscal year 2004 appropriation so that
    the important work of restoring buffalo herds can continue without
    interruption, and so ITBC can help it's member Tribes achieve
    sustainability. I would like to thank this Committee for the
    opportunity to present testimony regarding ITBC's buffalo restoration
    efforts and resulting economic development opportunities. We invite the
    members of the Committee and their staff to visit one or more of the
    Tribal buffalo projects and to witness first hand their success.
        Questions and/or comments regarding any of the issues presented
    within this testimony may be directed to Mr. Ervin Carlson, President
    or to Mr. Fred DuBray, Executive Director at (605) 394-9730.

                                     ______

              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
    fiscal year 2004 BIA and U.S. Forest Service appropriations:
        (1) Provide a total increase of $7.5 million in BIA T.P.A Forestry,
        (2) Restore Endangered Species in Resources Management, Non-
    Recurring Programs to $3,035,000, and add $3 million for unfunded ESA
    mandates,
        (3) In Forestry under Resources Management, Non-Recurring
    Programs--
      --Add $25 million for Forest Development backlog elimination,
      --Add $6 million for Inventories and Plans to provide current
            management plans for all trust forest land,
      --Add $500,000 for Woodlands management, and
      --Support the $1 million increase for Integrated Resource Management
            Plans,
        (4) Add $1 million to Environmental Management in Non-Recurring
    Trust Services for cultural resources surveys,
        (5) Add $8 million to Cadastral Surveys in Non-Recurring Programs
    Real Estate Services, and add $1.5 million to Regional Office
    Operations Land Titles and Records,
        (6) Within Wildland Fire funding in the Bureau of Land Management,
    direct BIA to develop a Native American fire crew leadership training
    program, and
        (7) In the U.S. Forest Service State and Private Forestry budget,
    create a line item for the expanded ``Office of Tribal Relations'' and
    add $1 million for its support.

                     INTERTRIBAL TIMBER COUNCIL BACKGROUND

        The Intertribal Timber Council (ITC) is a twenty-seven year old
    organization of seventy forest owning tribes and Alaska Native
    organizations that collectively possess more than 90 percent of the 7.6
    million timberland acres and a significant portion of the 9.5 million
    woodland acres that are under 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.

    (1) Provide a Total Increase of $7.5 million in BIA Tribal Priority
            Allocation Forestry
        The ITC appreciates the addition of $1,500,000 to the Tribal
    Priority Allocation Forestry budget approved by the Committee for
    fiscal year 2003. This was the first program increase since fiscal year
    1995. For fiscal year 2004, we urge the Committee to increase the
    Forestry appropriation by $7.5 million to reflect a cumulative 31.9
    percent cost of living adjustment since fiscal year 1992 and a 7.5
    percent increase in trust forest land acres. The resulting funding
    level of $37.3 million will only restore the BIA TPA Forestry program
    to the current equivalent of its fiscal year 1992 status, at which time
    the IFMAT report documented BIA Forestry funding as being grossly
    insufficient, with Indian forests receiving only 63 percent of the
    funding for timber production on National Forests, and only 35 percent
    of that for coordinated resources management. Adequate funding must be
    provided to enable the Department to fulfill its trust responsibilities
    for managing Indian forests.

    (2) Restore Endangered Species in Resources Management, Non-Recurring
            Programs, to $3,035,000 and add $3 million to Begin Fulfilling
            the Unfunded ESA Mandates
        We request that the Endangered Species item in the BIA's Non-
    Recurring Programs Natural Resources budget be provided $6,035,000.
    This amount restores the northern spotted owl/marbled murrelet (NSO/MM)
    and Cheyenne River ferret programs back to their fiscal year 2002 level
    of $3 million ($1.6 million for the owl, $1.4 million for the ferret),
    plus $35,000 for cost of living adjustments, and then adds another $3
    million to begin addressing unfunded tribal/BIA endangered species
    mandates. Congress started the NSO/MM program in 1991 to enable the BIA
    to fulfill its obligations after the owl and murrelet were listed under
    the ESA. BIA subsequently combined the NSO/MM with the ferret program.
    In fiscal year 2003, the Administration proposed eliminating both
    activities, but Congress partially restored the funding to $2,697,000.
    (As of this writing, we do not know how that amount will be distributed
    between the NSO/MM and ferret programs.) For fiscal year 2004, the
    Administration is requesting $2,198,000 for ESA activities, but we do
    not know how those funds are proposed to be spent. It is essential that
    funding to support ESA activities be restored. They are the only funds
    that have ever been specifically provided in the BIA's budget for
    addressing the NSO/MM listings. Elimination of these funds would
    threaten ESA compliance activities and could potentially restrict or
    shut-down the timber harvesting that is essential to the economies of
    tribal communities.
        We request that ESA funding be fully restored for the NSO/MM and
    ferret programs to inflation adjusted levels provided for fiscal year
    2002. We also request a further $3 million increase in the ESA budget
    item for management of other ESA-listed species throughout Indian
    Country.

    (3) In Forestry under Resources Management, Non-Recurring Programs--
                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. As in fiscal year 2003, the fiscal year
    2004 Forest Development request of approximately $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. The
    Administration's budget requests nothing for reducing the backlog of
    1.3 million acres. Some 22 percent of the trust commercial forest land
    base is now in need of thinning and planting. These acres are either
    underproductive or out of production altogether. To fulfill the federal
    government's fiduciary obligation to ensure that all trust commercial
    forest land is productively utilized, we request an fiscal year 2004
    increase of $25 million to treat 130,000 backlog acres as a start on
    eliminating the backlog.

                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 costs of preparing forest
    inventories and plans that are required for the management of trust
    forests. According to the most recent BIA information, only 43 percent
    of all Indian trust forest lands, including woodlands, have 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 resources that comprise the trust corpus or even
    foreclose harvest on those lands. The consequences of the failure of
    the trustee to meet its fiduciary obligations would fall on Indian
    beneficiaries in terms of lost tribal jobs and increased stress on
    already scarce resources necessary to meet the financial, health,
    economic, education, and subsistence needs of tribal communities. To
    prevent such occurrences and for the U.S. to fulfill its trust
    responsibilities, we request that $6 million be added to the
    approximately $2 million fiscal year 2004 FMI&P request to begin
    providing current management plans for all trust forest lands.

                Add $500,000 for Woodlands management
        We request the addition of $500,000 for Woodlands Management,
    another component of Non-Recurring Forestry. Funding for the 9.4
    million acres of Indian Woodlands has not changed since the program's
    start in 1988. The current funding level only provides three woodlands
    managers in the Southwest and a very few on-the-ground projects. Just
    one quarter of these lands, often vital for subsistence purposes, are
    covered by management plans, and less than one half have resource
    inventories. An addition of $500,000 would increase staff for improved
    management and oversight, and enable badly needed management projects
    to be undertaken.

                Support the $1 million increase for Integrated Resources
                        Management Plans
        The ITC supports the Administration's proposed fiscal year 2004 $1
    million increase for Integrated Resource Management Plans (IRMPs) for
    reservations. IRMPs are an essential element in modern natural resource
    management planning for BIA's 56 million total acres in trust,
    including the 17.1 million forest land acres. We support the
    Administration's request for a $1 million increase as an initial step
    towards supporting the development of IRMPs, although we believe the
    true needs for funding far exceed this amount.

    (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,
    and various federal laws, such as the Historic Preservation Act,
    NAGPRA, and NEPA, impose exacting requirements on land and resource
    managers. Cultural surveys generate the data that is essential for
    forest and other resource management plans, but BIA has never requested
    any funding to help meet those federal mandates. Accordingly, like last
    year, we request that $1 million be added to Environmental Management
    in Non-Recurring Trust Resources for cultural resource surveys.

    (5) Add $8 million to Cadastral Surveys in Non-Recurring Programs Real
            Estate Services, and add $1.5 million to Regional Office
            Operations Land Titles and Records
        Reliable and accurate boundaries and clear, current title are
    essential for the management of Indian trust lands and resources.
    Without these two elements, the land's use and management are clouded,
    its income subject to question, and its protection jeopardized. But
    Interior funding for these two critical elements has not been
    sufficient. A new BIA cadastral survey ranking system identified $30
    million just in ``priority'' projects. To begin to address this
    problem, we suggest doubling the BIA's fiscal year 2004 request to $16
    million. We also ask that BLM, which for years has shirked its
    statutory responsibility to provide cadastral surveys for trust land,
    be directed to institute such a program as part of its baseline
    responsibilities.
        For Land Titles and Records, we ask an increase of $1.5 million, to
    renew the commitment started several years ago to improve the BIA's
    ability to produce timely and accurate titles. Currently, BIA has
    150,000 title documents that need to be recorded, and this case load is
    growing as demand continues to outstrip the BIA's capacity.
    Accordingly, we ask that funding be increased by $1.5 million.

    (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 endanger the safety and hinder the deployment
    of otherwise fully trained and able tribal fire crews. Native American
    crews constitute about 25 percent of the line fire fighter work force
    and a crew leadership training program in the BIA is essential to
    improve their safety and effectiveness. To help address this need, we
    ask that the BIA be directed to develop a Native American fire crew
    leadership training program.

    (7) In the U.S. Forest Service State and Private Forestry budget,
            create a line item for the ``Office of Tribal Relations'' and
            add $1 million for its support
        Last mid-December, after several years of work by a USFS National
    Tribal Relations Program Task Force and its Implementation Team, the
    U.S. Forest Service decided to enhance its Office of Tribal Relations.
    The job announcement for the Office's Director was issued March 18 and
    the Office will ultimately be staffed by six positions. We ask that $1
    million be added to State and Private Forestry to fund the Tribal
    Relations Office. Tribes and the Forest Service share thousands of
    miles of common border. Tribes also have rights and interests on
    hundreds of thousands of Forest Service acres, and must confront
    numerous trans-boundary resource issues, including forest management
    and health, watershed, and wildlife. Yet, in the past, tribes and the
    Forest Service have failed to adequately coordinate their management
    approaches. Today, with new pressures on America's resource base, and
    with emphasis on cohesive resource management strategies that transcend
    man-made boundaries, we are pleased that the Forest Service is actively
    reaching out to its tribal neighbors with an enhanced Office of Tribal
    Relations. We fully support the Tribal Relations Office, and ask
    Congress to support it as well.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony.

                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe
        This testimony is submitted by the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe
    regarding our funding priorities and requests on the fiscal year 2004
    Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Indian Health Service (IHS) budgets.

                     TRIBAL-SPECIFIC APPROPRIATION PRIORITY

        $150,000 adjustment for the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe for Fisheries
    Management in the Point No Point Treaty Council (PNPTC) for the BIA
    fiscal year 2004 Budget.

                  LOCAL/REGIONAL REQUESTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

        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. Provide a minimum of $25,000,000 in BIA Tribal Priority
    Allocation (TPA) General Increase for inflationary adjustment;
        2. Provide $5 million increase for BIA and $98 million for IHS to
    fully fund Contract Support Cost (CSC);
        3. Provide $4.5 million increase to the Indian Health Service (IHS)
    Office of Tribal Self-Governance;
        4. Provide $360 million for IHS mandatory, inflation and population
    growth increase to maintain existing health care services; and,
        5. Support all requests and recommendations of the National
    Congress of American Indians and National Indian Health Board.

                  TRIBAL-SPECIFIC APPROPRIATION JUSTIFICATION

        For the last 25 years Western Washington tribes have struggled to
    meet our responsibilities for proper fisheries management which we
    incurred following the affirmation of our treaty fishing rights in the
    U.S. v. Washington Supreme Court decision. Following the Boldt Decision
    in the late 1970's, PNPTC was formed by the Port Gamble S'Klallam,
    Lower Elwha Klallam and Skokomish tribes to conduct a professional
    biological and enforcement program, thereby insuring that the tribes
    could manage their fisheries activities responsibly and more
    efficiently through a consortium.
        Following our Tribal recognition in 1981, we joined the PNPTC
    consortium and requested funding from the BIA. PNPTC was then operating
    on behalf of the other three tribes at a funding level of $692,500 for
    fisheries services. Due to funding limitations, the BIA made the
    decision that adding Jamestown to the consortium could be accomplished
    without adding an equivalent share to PNPTC's funding. The addition to
    services for Jamestown should have been a level of one-third of PNPTC's
    budget, or $230,833. The BIA only added $133,000, a grossly deficient
    amount to meet our Treaty obligations.
        Currently, PNPTC is struggling to keep basic operations funded.
    Staff and other overall reductions in work hours have been necessary.
    These cuts greatly inhibit the tribes' ability to meet our fisheries
    management obligations. A total of $150,000 increase is needed in order
    to bring Jamestown's pass-thru funding up to the level equivalent to
    the other Tribes and to address the additional new responsibilities due
    to shellfish management and ESA obligations in the last 9 years. We are
    requesting a recurring base funding adjustment to our Self-Governance
    Funding Agreement to alleviate the funding pass-through inequity now
    experienced by the PNPTC member tribes. This will help to address the
    significant inter-tribal friction, as well as support hiring essential
    staff to operate our Iribal programs.

                  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

        Provide a minimum of $25,000,000 in BIA Tribal Priority Allocation
    (TPA) General Increase for inflationary adjustments.--This is the fifth
    year in a row that the Administration's request contains no general
    increase for TPA. This activity includes the majority of the funds used
    to support on-going services at the local Tribal level including such
    programs as housing, education, natural resources management and Tribal
    government services. A Congressional Research Service Report on Indian-
    related federal spending trends for fiscal year 1975-fiscal year 2000
    finds 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.
        Increase BIA and IHS Contract Support Cost (CSC) Funds to address
    documented need.--CSC funds are required for Tribes to successfully
    manage their own programs. While the Administration's budget request
    for fiscal year 2004 includes a modest increase for CSC, an additional
    $98 million is needed in IHS and an additional $5 million increase is
    needed in BIA to fully fund CSC. This shortfall continues to penalize
    Tribes which elect to operate BIA and IHS programs under the self-
    determination policy. Further, this shortfall threatens to pit tribe
    against tribe as mature contractors are asked to absorb all
    inflationary increases in order to fund new contractors. Additional CSC
    appropriations are needed to implement the self-determination and self-
    governance policy as supported by Congress. We urge the Subcommittee to
    fully fund CSC for Tribes similar to how other contractors are funded
    within the federal government.
        Provide $4.5 million increase to the IHS Office of Tribal Self-
    Governance.--In fiscal year 2003, a total of $4.2 million was
    eliminated from the Office of Tribal Self-Governance within the IHS
    budget. We believe that this decrease will severely impact IHS's
    ability to fully implement the provisions of Title V of the Indian
    Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, as amended. The IHS
    Office of Tribal Self-Governance was established in 1996 to advocate
    and implement the Self-Governance initiative within IHS. There are
    currently 285 Tribes (51.1 percent of all federally-recognized Tribes)
    implementing Self-Governance agreements. While the number of Self-
    Governance Tribes has and continues to increase, the staff and
    organizational capacity of OTSG has not. Additional funding is needed
    to increase the OTSG's organizational capacity to meet the legal
    requirements of Title V and to protect and advance the Self-Governance
    initiative.
        Provide $360 million for IHS mandatory, inflation and population
    growth increase needed to maintain existing health care services.--The
    Administration's request of $40 million in fiscal year 2004 is far
    short of the $360 million needed just to maintain current health care
    services. These costs are unavoidable and include medical and general
    inflation, pay costs and staff for recently constructed facilities. IHS
    and Tribal programs simply cannot afford to continue to lose real
    resources. Mandatories should be the first consideration in budget
    formulation. If unfunded, these cost increases will result in further
    health service reductions in our Tribal communities.
        In conclusion, we recognize that the Administration and Congress
    has placed a major priority on fighting the war against terrorism and
    protecting our homeland. However, the treaties and legislation, that
    tribal governments have fought so hard to achieve with the United
    States government, remain the basic foundation of our unique
    governmental relationship. We strongly urge this Subcommittee to honor
    these commitments and that tribal government operations be afforded the
    highest priority in your appropriation decisions.
        Thank you.

                                     ______

        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 2004 Bureau of
    Indian Affairs and National Park Service Budget request.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Bureau of Indian Affairs Scholarships...................        $250,000
    Bureau of Indian Affairs Johnson O'Malley...............          93,000
    Bureau of Indian Affairs Wetlands Waterfowl/Circle of            593,000
     Flight.................................................
    Bureau of Indian Affairs Wildlife and Parks.............         200,000
    Bureau of Indian Affairs Forestry.......................         188,000
    National Park Service Historic Preservation.............         275,000
    Bureau of Indian Affairs Law Enforcement................         800,000
    BIA-TPA Tribal Courts...................................         762,122
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                INDIAN EDUCATION

        Education of our tribal youth still continues to be the Band's
    number one priority and we look to Congress to support us on this
    issue. In the past we have supported the President's BIA budget on
    Indian Education, but this year most of the increases are associated
    with school construction ($292.7 million) and operation ($567 million).
    The Band is and has been requesting increased funding through the
    Administration's Tribal Priority Allocation planning process in higher
    education and Johnson O'Malley, but has not been successful. So again,
    we are asking Congress to address this funding short-fall through the
    legislative process.
        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 seven (7) years. In the last three (3)
    years, the Band had 130 tribal members, who were not able to receive
    funding for college due to shortfalls. To fully support our eligible
    students, an additional $250,000.00 of funding for Lac du Flambeau is
    required. It should be noted to the members of this Committee, that
    like many other states, Wisconsin is having financial problems.
    Wisconsin's financial woes are driving the cost of college tuition even
    higher, making our request of additional funding even more important.
        The Johnson O'Malley program has been under funded through the
    Tribal Priority allocation process and the Band has identified a
    funding shortfall. Our Education Program receives $55,967.00 to operate
    the JOM program in which we concentrate all our efforts and funding to
    high school students. We have 520 students in grade school that cannot
    be served by Johnson O'Malley because of the shortfall. To fully fund
    this program at Lac du Flambeau, an additional $93,000.00 would be
    required.

                               NATURAL RESOURCES

        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 of the Band. Our wildlife and plant
    resources support a subsistence way of life, which is an integral part
    of our culture as well as our economy. The comprehensive Department
    includes the following programs: Fish Culture, Fisheries Management,
    Wildlife, Water Resources, Environmental Protection, Forestry,
    Conservation Law Enforcement, 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 $593,000.00 for the Great
    Lakes Wetland/Water Fowl Management Program (Circle of Flight) that the
    Administration proposes eliminating entirely again this year. The 107th
    Congress restored this important funding last year and the Lac du
    Flambeau Band would like to thank the Committee for understanding how
    important this program is in restoring and preserving our Nation's
    wetlands and waterfowl populations. This program also gives Congress,
    the Great Lakes Region Tribes, States, USFWS, USDA, Ducks Unlimited and
    other private sector groups an opportunity to work cooperatively in
    projects that provide wetland protection, flood control, clean water
    and recreation in the Great Lakes Region. Your strong support of this
    program is required again.

    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, data collection 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 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 Program, consisting of two
    (2) foresters and two (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 the Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA)
    within the Bureau of Indian Affairs budget, which has been historically
    under funded. The Band supports the Administration request of $1.5
    million but wants Congress to understand that at the Tribal level, the
    $1.8 million increase last year only equaled $4,000.00 for our Forestry
    Department. Through the TPA planning process, the Band identified an
    unmet need of $107,000.00 just to support the current program. In order
    to increase forest development, timber sale management and wildfire
    control activities we urge the Committee to not only support the
    President's budget but to earmark $188,000.00 for the Lac du Flambeau
    Forestry Department. This program has not received any substantial
    funding increases since 1991.

                          TRIBAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION

        The Lac du Flambeau Band is asking Congress to provide $9.9 million
    to be allocated within the Tribal Historic Preservation Fund. This
    would provide $275,000.00 per Tribal Historic Preservation Office, a
    dollar amount almost, but less than, a state's share.

                           LAW ENFORCEMENT AND COURTS

        At Lac du Flambeau we are fortunate to have a police department
    that is able to ensure a safe community for our members. For instance
    in 2002, the Lac du Flambeau Tribal Police Department logged 26,687
    man-hours answering 4,018 complaints. The 12, member Police Department
    consists of 11 full time officers and one (1) 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 respond 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, a 50-year-old converted hardware store is housing 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 cramped 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. The Lac du Flambeau
    Band needs a new Police Department building. It is estimated that the
    new building will cost $800,000.00 and 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, two
    (2) Associated Judges, Tribal Attorney/Prosecutor, Clerk of Courts,
    Deputy Clerk and Truancy Officer. In fiscal year 2002, our Court System
    had 1,148 cases filed and conducted 2,355 hearings. Cases ranged from
    Children and Family cases to on and off reservation conservation/
    natural resource violations. Throughout Indian country, tribal courts
    are severely 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 $77,000.00 from the BIA to support our court system. This
    only represents 9 percent of the total Tribal Court operating budget.
    Thus, the Band respectfully requests Congress to support the
    President's proposed fiscal year 2004 Budget of $17 million for Tribal
    Courts. Any additional Congressional funding support would be greatly
    appreciated as well. It should be noted that Lac du Flambeau did not
    receive an increase in fiscal year 2003 even though there was $17
    million allocated.

                           TRIBAL PRIORITY ALLOCATION

        The Band supports the $2.1 million increase, but urges the
    Committee to consider additional increases for these vital programs,
    since at the tribal level we are not realizing any significant funding
    increases.

                GREAT LAKES INDIAN FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION

        The Band supports the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
    Commission request of $3.966 million, to meet the needs in the
    Commission's testimony submitted to the Committee.

                       INDIAN LAND CONSOLIDATION PROGRAM

        We would urge the Committee to support the $21 million increase the
    Administration proposes. We suggest that in order to improve upon the
    implementation of this Project, Congress allow tribes to administer the
    project through a Public Law 93-638 contract or some other cooperative
    agreement. We believe the Tribes can more efficiently implement this
    vital program.

          STATE TRIBAL WILDLIFE GRANT AND LANDOWNER INCENTIVE PROGRAM

        We strongly support the continuation of State and Tribal Wildlife
    Grant and program ($5 million tribal set-aside) and the Landowner
    Incentive Program (overall $50 million).

                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe

        The Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe submits this written statement to
    request funding from the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health
    Service in the fiscal year 2004 Appropriations bill.
        First and foremost, we would like to express our sensitivity to the
    tasks that you are currently under taking. While addressing the matters
    associated with the United States being at war, you must continue to
    conduct the business of the domestic agenda as well. You have our
    blessings and are in our prayers during these most turbulent times.

                                TRIBAL REQUESTS

        Request $19.5 Million for Elwha River Restoration to the National
    Park Service Account; and,
        Request $4 Million for Land Acquisition authorized in Public Law
    102-495 to the Office of Trust Responsibility's Realty Office Account.

                               REGIONAL REQUESTS

        Restore $320,000 to the Unresolved Hunting and Fishing Rights
    account;
        Restore $550,000 for Western Washington tribal shellfish management
    and enforcement;
        $6.3 million to implement tribal treaty rights in tribal shellfish
    programs;
        $22 million for federal contribution of Tribal/Growers shellfish
    settlement;
        Restore $3.0 million Forest Development, Woodland Management,
    Northwest Forest Plan, Jobs in the Woods and Wild Stock Restoration
    Initiative;
        Restore $3.1 million for the Timber-Fish-Wildlife Forest and Fish
    Report; $1.0 million Increase for Timber-Fish-Wildlife ESA Obligations
    under new state and private forest practices rules and regulations;
        Increase Hatchery Cyclical Maintenance/Rehabilitation funding to
    $2.5 million with language; and,
        Support the requests of the Point-No-Point Treaty Council,
    Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, and the Northwest Portland Area
    Indian Health Board.

                               NATIONAL REQUESTS

        The BIA and IHS are preparing to re-organize. We are concerned that
    this will come at the expense of diminishing tribal programs and the
    delivery of tribal services. Therefore, we ask that the Subcommittee
    include language directing both the BIA and IHS not to reduce funds
    appropriated by this Subcommittee to offset Departmental or agency
    shortfalls, to support reorganization plans, or trust reform
    initiatives without consulting with Tribal Leadership. This language
    should be included in future appropriations bills for these agencies;
        Provide a minimum of $25,000,000 in BIA Tribal Priority Allocation
    (TPA) General Increase for inflationary adjustment;
        Provide $5 million increase for BIA and $98 million for IHS to
    support 100 percent funding of Contract Support Cost (CSC);
        Restore $4.5 million increase to the Indian Health Service (IHS)
    Office of Tribal Self-Governance;
        Provide $360 million for IHS mandatory, inflation and population
    growth increase to maintain existing health care services; and,
        Support all requests and recommendations of the National Congress
    of American Indians and National Indian Health Board.

                      SPECIFIC TRIBAL REQUESTS JUSTICATION

    $19.95 million (+$7 million more than President's Budget)
        In the fiscal year 2004 President's Budget package, there was a
    request of $12.95 million for the Lower Elwha Tribe River Restoration
    Project. We are requesting an additional $7 million to support the
    timelines identified in the project design.
        The Administration's requested funding level will not allow the
    Project to proceed on schedule and this will require additional cost.
    The current project has been budgeted for $19.95 million and delays
    will subject this amount to inflation and other cost increases
    associated with construction projects. The Tribe and the National Park
    Service have reviewed the Restoration Project budget throughout the
    preliminary stages. In order to alleviate the likelihood that
    additional requests for funds to support the conduct of tasks
    identified for this phase of the project, we encourage the Subcommittee
    to fund the project at the increased level of $19.95 million in fiscal
    year 2004.
        There are many functions included in the Project such as the
    required modifications to the Army Corp of Engineer's flood control
    levy, designing our water supply system and the design and construction
    of our hatchery, flood protection assessments, identifying and
    designing a septic system & wastewater alternatives for homes on the
    reservation, resources for habitat restoration, performing a coast line
    assessment and designing a plan to restore aquatic life. These are but
    a few of the many tasks to be performed within a timeframe that
    supports the overall conduct of this Project.
    $4 million for Land Acquisition as Authorized in Public Law 102-495
        In Public Law 102-495, to restore Olympic National Park and the
    Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries in the State of Washington, there
    was an authorized amount of $4 million for land acquisition for the
    Tribe. It has been more than a decade since this law was enacted and
    the Tribe is consistently requested these funds.
        This acquisition is yet another component of this major River
    Restoration Project. We request that the Subcommittee appropriates the
    $4 million for land acquisition to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office
    of Trust Responsibility, Division of Reality Services.
        Thank you.

                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Lower Lake Rancheria Koi Nation

        The Lower Lake Rancheria Koi Nation (``Tribe'') in California, is a
    federally-recognized Indian Tribe, located in Northern California.
    Through administrative error and neglect by the Federal Government, for
    many years, our Tribe was wrongly omitted from the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs' (BIA) listing of federally-recognized Indian tribes.
        After years of intensive efforts, the error was acknowledged and
    our Tribe's federally-recognized status was reaffirmed. On December 29,
    2000, the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs ordered that our Tribe
    be returned to the official list of federally-recognized Indian Tribes.
    Even so, it was not until a year and a half later--July 12, 2002--that
    our Tribe was once again included on the official list.
        During the time our Tribe was erroneously omitted from the listing,
    we were ineligible for federal funding, such as basic health care
    services from the Indian Health Services, and deprived of our
    Government-to-Government relationship with the Federal government. Once
    the error was acknowledged and our Tribe was added to the list, the
    Department of the Interior informed us that we would be included in the
    funding for ``New Tribes.'' Because the fiscal year 2002 budget had
    already been prepared, however, we were told we would have to wait
    until fiscal year 2003. Nonetheless, for unknown reasons, the
    Department zeroed-out funding for ``New Tribes'' in both the fiscal
    year 2003 and fiscal year 2004 budgets.
        Historically, the Department of the Interior has funded newly
    recognized and restored Indian Tribes under the ``New Tribes'' line
    item of their budget. ``New Tribes'' have been provided a baseline of
    $160,000 a year to support basic governmental operations. While an
    almost insignificant amount in relation to the Department's overall
    budget, this funding is vitally important to the newly restored Tribes
    and will be vital to our Tribe's goal of providing basic governmental
    services, such as health care, housing, and educational assistance, to
    our members.
        Funding is needed for basic governmental purposes as the Tribe
    transitions to the BIA's annual Tribal Priority Allocation funding. As
    a federally-recognized Indian tribe, the Lower Lake Rancheria Koi
    Nation enjoys a government-to-government relationship with the United
    States. The Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs' reaffirmation of the
    Tribe's federally-recognized status, and our addition to the official
    listing of federally-recognized Tribes, makes the Tribe eligible for
    federal funding, such as ``New Tribes'' money. Provision of such
    funding is in furtherance of the federal government's trust
    responsibility to Indian tribes.

                            REQUESTED APPROPRIATION

        In accordance with the commitments made by the Department of the
    Interior, the Lower Lake Rancheria respectfully requests $320,000 (to
    cover $160,000 in baseline funding for fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year
    2004) to support its governmental operations under the ``New Tribes''
    funding in the Interior Appropriations Bill.
        In addition to the Lower Lake Rancheria, five other Tribes: the
    Graton Rancheria of California, the Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, the King
    Salmon Tribe and the Shoonaq' Tribe of Kodiak, both from Alaska, and
    the Cowlitz Tribe of Washington, were added to the 2002 listing of
    federally recognized Indian Tribes. The Lower Lake Rancheria also urges
    restoration of funding for these similarly situated Tribes.
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony to the Committee
    on this important matter.

                                     ______

                     Prepared Statement of the Lummi Nation

        My name is Darrell Hillaire, Chairman of the Lummi Nation and I
    would like to thank the Subcommittee for this opportunity to present
    written testimony. 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 their kind attention and assistance provided to
    the Lummi Nation in the past and the opportunity to express our
    concerns and requests regarding the fiscal year 2004 BIA, IHS
    appropriation allocations and special earmarks. The following written
    testimony presents the Lummi Nation funding priorities, as well as
    regional and national concerns and recommendations for your
    consideration.
        The Lummi Nation desires to strengthen our long-standing
    government-to-government relationship with federal officials to work
    through the consultation process and/or formal hearings for policy
    decisions impacting the Lummi people. Further, the Lummi Nation
    strongly opposes any bill, language or legislative riders that
    undermine tribal sovereignty or restrict tribal governments from
    protecting or exercising treaty rights.

                    TRIBAL-SPECIFIC APPROPRIATION PRIORITIES

        1. +$750,000 Water & Sewer Infrastructure Planning & Engineering.--
    Provide the Lummi Nation with an earmarked allocation of funds from the
    IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction program or USDA Rural
    Development program to support the planning and engineering of water
    and sewage system infrastructure improvements. The tribe's current
    water and sewer system is nearing threshold operational capacity and
    utilizes dated industrial technology' that is over 25 years old. Future
    tribal community development and economic growth is jeopardized without
    this financing.
        2. +$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.
        3. +$140,000 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.
        4. +$1,500,000 Semiahmah 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.
        5. +$700,000 Increase to Lummi Nation Shellfish Hatchery
    Operation.--Provide support to the development of the tribal shellfish
    hatchery to address identified weather related market access problems
    that have effectively stopped the development of the shellfish
    hatchery. The Hatchery is critical the ability of Tribal fishers to
    generate family income from the harvest of shellfish, as provided in
    the Pt. Elliot Treaty, the right to harvest and manage shellfish
    resources.
        6. +$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.
        7. +500,000 Lummi Youth Safe House.--Provide Lummi Nation with
    funds 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 youth living in the Lummi community.
        8. +$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.
        9. +$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. This aids the tribe and fisherman to recover from
    the cumulative impact (1999-2001) of unrealized revenue from the local
    commercial fishing industry.

             TRIBAL-SPECIFIC APPROPRIATION SUMMARIES, JUSTIFICATION

    1. Water & Sewer Infrastructure Planning & Engineering--+$750,000
        The Lummi Reservation supports a population of nearly 5,200
    persons, which has pushed water and sewer system capacities to their
    limit. Additional capacity must be obtained now to support the existing
    population. In the short-term, water and sewer systems redesign and
    upgrades will handle the problem. However, the long-term solution must
    include additional treatment capacity and water source location and
    development. Public Works infrastructure development and investments
    like these require substantial planning. The Lummi Nation is not able
    to undertake this level of planning without the assistance requested
    herein. Lummi Nation recommends the IHS Sanitation Facilities
    Construction Program to receive earmarked funds to support tribal
    planning of water delivery and sewage treatment system infrastructure
    for the existing and projected population of the Lummi Indian
    Reservation.

    2. 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 maximize profits horizontally within the
    fish marketing industry and/or create new small businesses 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.

    3. BIA-Office of Indian Education Programs, Facility Management and
            Construction Contracts (FMCC) for provision of ``Quarters''--
            +$140,000
        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. Lummi Nation new
    school facility exists 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.

    4. 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 possesses
    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 social, economic and educational events and
    meetings.

    5. 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 2004.
    The new school is projected to house 750 students that is over three
    times the current Lummi Tribal School student population. 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 requires additional revenue to provide quality educational
    services.

    6. Lummi Nation Shellfish Hatchery Operation--+$700,000
        The thirty-year old hatchery supplies oyster and clam seeds to a
    majority Northwest Washington Indian tribes and growers. The need to
    provide both the treaty and non-treaty growers for oyster seed, clam
    seed, enhancement projects. These projects benefit both the tribal
    government and Washington State. The Lummi Nation recommends that
    $350,000 increase be earmarked to Lummi Nation through the BIA Hatchery
    Operational program and an additional $350,000 be provided through the
    BIA Economic Development Program to support planning, development and
    constructing covered all weather loading, unloading and staging areas
    and access road improvements from the Hatchery to the State Highway.

    7. Support Realty--+$740,000
        The Lummi Nation has a multi-year plan to address the realty
    tribulations. The 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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
    BIA provide the tribe with special earmark to support the increase in
    the Water Rights Negotiation/Litigation, Attorney fees and technical
    studies.

    10. BIA-Financial and Social Service ``Disaster 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. These
    funds enable the tribe to fulfill a critical need of tribal fisherman
    to receive disaster assistance in response to unrealized revenue. The
    Lummi Nation has historically relied upon the salmon resource that
    possesses a cultural and economic value to the tribal membership, which
    is irreplaceable. The Lummi tribe and U.S. Department of Commerce
    declared the sockeye commercial fishery as a fishery resource disaster
    under the Magnuson Stevens Act.

                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the Mescalero Apache Tribe

                             APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST

        The Mescalero Apache Tribe (``Tribe'') is seeking $250,000 for
    operational funding in fiscal year 2004 for the Mescalero Fish
    Hatchery. The Hatchery will provide fish to more than a dozen Indian
    Tribes in the Southwest for stocking Tribal lakes and restoring native
    fish, and serves as an important economic development engine for our
    Tribe as well as for those served by the facility.

                                   BACKGROUND

        On March 24, 1964, the Tribe entered into a lease with the United
    States Fish & Wildlife Service (``FWS'') for the operation of the
    Mescalero National Fish Hatchery (NFH) on the Mescalero Apache
    Reservation in the south central part of the State of New Mexico. On
    October 1, 1965, the Service commenced operations at the Mescalero NFH.
    For over thirty-five (35) years, the hatchery served as a primary
    economic engine for many tribal recreational and tourism programs
    providing stockable fish to fourteen (14) Indian Tribes and Pueblos in
    New Mexico, Arizona, and Southern Colorado.
        For the past fifty (50) years, the primary policy goal of the
    Department of the Interior has been to ensure maximum participation of
    the Indian Tribes including the eventual transfer of the fishery
    facilities to Tribes. Yet, the Department has struggled with how to
    implement its policy supporting the stocking of fish in Tribal waters
    and providing the associated technical assistance to the Tribal
    Governments. FWS has budgeted for the stocking of fish in Tribal waters
    and related technical assistance since the 1950's. In the mid-1970's,
    FWS began phasing out these programs, and during the late 1970's and
    early 1980's, it adopted a policy of requiring full reimbursement for
    services delivered to Indian Tribes, terminated many of its tribal
    assistance operations, and submitted budgets proposing to close
    numerous fish hatcheries and fisheries assistance office that had long
    served Tribal needs. Evidently, the evolution of FWS policy emphasizing
    the recovery of species listed under the Endangered Species Act and the
    restoration of native species have become FWS priorities that have
    outweighed the need to adequately support Tribal fisheries programs.
        In the midst of FWS downsizing and funding shortfalls for the
    national fish hatchery system, the BIA created the Division of Fish,
    Wildlife and Recreation in 1982, which focused on contracting fish and
    wildlife resource operations directly with Indian Tribes, rather than
    trying to duplicate the assistance program that FWS had been providing.
    To prevent the closure of key FWS fish hatchery serving Tribes,
    including the Mescalero NFH, BIA's Division of Fish, Wildlife and
    Recreation entered into annual memorandums of agreement (MOA) with the
    FWS for the continued operation of these hatcheries. Through the MOA,
    BIA provided in fiscal year 1987 $1.3 million and 29 FTEs to the FWS
    for ten facilities, including $211,000 and 5 FTEs for the Mescalero
    NFH. In 1988, Congress transferred to FWS funds from BIA for 6 of the
    10 facilities covered by the MOA, and directed FWS to contract with the
    affected Tribes served by each facility, when so requested, and to work
    with the Tribes in moving toward tribal control of the program as
    quickly as possible. Similar report language was included in the fiscal
    year 1989 and fiscal year 1990 appropriations.
        In the fiscal year 1996 budget, FWS again proposed the closure of
    the Mescalero NFH or to transfer operations to the State of New Mexico
    as part of a broader effort to redirect funding to meet otherwise
    ``higher priority'' federal responsibilities of the NFH system. In
    response BIA proposed that FWS transfer funding for the Mescalero NFH
    to BIA for the purpose of the BIA sustaining operations of the facility
    until a contract transferring the facility to the Mescalero Apache
    Tribe could be finalized. However, at Congressional direction, the FWS
    continued to operate the facility.
        In 1999, a fire burned the watershed above the Mescalero NFH
    resulting in flooding and mudslides causing damage to the hatchery
    grounds, and killing many trout. In addition, FWS lack of adequate
    operational and maintenance funding over the years caused certain
    physical problems such as high radon levels in the hatchery buildings,
    high nitrogen levels in the water, hard water that resulted in
    formation of kidney stones in older fish, and cracking raceways and
    buildings caused by unstable soil.
        At the request of FWS, the Mescalero Apache Tribal Council agreed
    to FWS's proposal ``to temporarily suspend operations'' of the facility
    so that the FWS could address these deteriorating conditions. In
    November 2000, FWS suspended operations at the Mescalero NFH, but
    rather the repairing the facility as it had pledged to do, FWS decided
    to permanently close the hatchery. FWS stripped the facility of all
    equipment and most of the fixtures, reassigned personnel and
    reprogrammed $392,400 appropriated specifically for the Mescalero NFH
    to address other Service program priorities.
        The Tribe has since terminated the lease with the FWS and has been
    working to resume operations of the facility under Tribal control and
    management, in a concerted effort with the affected Southwest Indian
    Tribes that had received fish from the Mescalero NFH. Specifically, our
    Tribe along with the other affected Tribes in the Southwest have
    organized the Southwest Tribal Fisheries Commission (SWTFC) as a long-
    term approach and strategy for assuming primary authority and
    responsibility for stocking and managing Tribal waters in the
    Southwest. Our Tribe entered into a Public Law 93-638 self-
    determination contract with the BIA to organize the SWTFC., This
    approach fulfills the congressional goal of Tribal contracting of
    related resource management functions, operations and programs without
    diminishing the Department's responsibility to protect the resources
    and sovereignty of the affected Tribes.
        The combined efforts of the Southwest Tribes through the SWTFC with
    the goal of economic self-sufficiency supports the diversification of
    tribal economies, an endeavor that will not only benefit the
    reservations but also the surrounding regions and the entire state. A
    key component to the Tribes efforts through the SWTFC is the successful
    operation of the Mescalero fish hatchery, and the Williams Creek/
    Alchesay program on the White Mountain Apache Reservation.

                                 CURRENT STATUS

        The Tribe secured a grant from the Economic Development
    Administration (EDA) in the Department of Commerce to develop a
    business plan for the operation and construction of the hatchery. New
    Mexico State University (NMSU) College of Business Administration is
    assisting the Tribe with this business plan. The Tribe's fisheries
    consultant, FishPro, Inc., based in Santa Fe, New Mexico is providing
    the technical and scientific expertise in this process. The business
    plan will include the goals and objectives of the project and the study
    will provide an in-depth analysis of the facility, the water supply,
    permitting requirements, schematic design work and estimated
    construction costs. The study will also provide an examination and
    analysis of the marketing conditions as well as financial, accounting
    and management plans. In this process, the Tribe is working with the
    SWTFC to ensure that the needs of the affected Southwest Tribes are
    included in the planning and development process.
        The business plan is scheduled to be completed by the end of August
    2003 and will be the justification to obtain construction funding from
    the EDA. The Tribe will complete the final design work and may proceed
    with a design/build-out approach. The Tribe is aiming for early Spring
    2004 to beginning raising fish and resuming operations at the facility.

                             USE OF APPROPRIATIONS

        Based on our current course, the Tribe estimates that we will need
    $250,000 to cover operational costs for the remaining part of fiscal
    year 2004 after the construction is completed. The Tribe will use the
    funds for hiring and training of staff prior to commencement of
    operations, as well as purchasing of supplies, equipment, and
    conducting ``dry runs'' in preparation for operations. The Tribe will
    also be working with NMSU, SWTFC, FWS, and BIA to increase our capacity
    and ensure the success of this project.

                                   CONCLUSION

        In the past, Congress vested funding for these endeavors with the
    BIA, and then with the FWS. Due to competing policies and funding
    priorities, the Mescalero NFH fell into disrepair and eventually closed
    causing hardship to the Mescalero Apache Tribe and the many other
    Tribes that relied on the facility. By contrast, our Tribe has a long
    record of economic success and management capability, and we are
    prepared to assume the primary role in the management and control of
    the facility, as intended by Congress. In accordance with the
    Government-to-Government relationship the Tribes have with the Federal
    Government, we will also be working with the federal agencies on
    building our capacity to conduct these activities. To assist us in
    achieving our goals of Tribal economic development and self-
    sufficiency, we need the funding to resume operations of this important
    facility.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present this written testimony.
    For additional information contact: Sara Misquez, President, Mescalero
    Apache Tribe at (505) 464-9969 or the Tribe's Washington D.C. counsel
    Shenan Atcitty at (202) 457-7128.

                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Narragansett Indian Tribe

        As Chief Sachem, Matthew Thomas, of the Narragansett Indian Tribe,
    located near Charlestown, Rhode Island, I would like to submit these
    written remarks concerning the fiscal year 2004 BIA and IHS
    Appropriations. Our tribe operates more than a dozen BIA-funded
    programs serving our more than 2,600 members as well as a comprehensive
    health program funded by the IHS including a 5,000 square foot
    outpatient health clinic. We are proud of the accomplishments we have
    made over the years and look forward to a day when we are less
    dependent on Federal appropriations to finance the basic governmental
    services we provide. Despite many efforts, we lack reliable alternate
    resources to finance the growing needs of our Tribe. Federal
    appropriations remain critical to the health and well being of our
    members. We seek increases to the IHS appropriation, the BIA's Indian
    Country Law Enforcement Initiative, and the BIA Tribal Priority
    Allocation (TPA), which funds our tribally operated programs which we
    perform under a Public Law 93-638 self-determination contract.
        We seek increased appropriations for law enforcement, education, a
    daycare center, and social services.

                  LAW ENFORCEMENT--($559,000 INCREASE SOUGHT)

        The Narragansett Indian Tribe seeks to hire four more patrol
    officers and one dispatcher to provide quality law enforcement services
    to the tribe and funds to cover a 10  40 trailer which presently
    houses our police department. At the present time our goal is to
    provide 24-hour law enforcement services to the reservation. Due to
    lack of manpower, vacations and sick leave, it is not being
    accomplished. Through a Justice Department COPS grant and reprogramming
    of our TPA funds we have a law enforcement department of 1 Police
    Chief, 1 Lieutenant, 1 Sergeant, 1 dispatcher and 5 tribal police
    officers. All Tribal Officers are also commissioned Deputy Special
    Officers of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
        The Narragansett Indian Tribal Police patrol approximately 1,944
    acres of Trust and Reservation land and another 399 acres of fee land
    all of which has buildings plus living quarters and other facilities on
    the same. Presently, there are five tribal occupied houses on the
    reservation. Within the next few months there will be another five
    units. HUD has also approved the renovation of another 12 units, plus
    the addition of 38 more units within the next three years. These units
    will house approximately 180-200 tribal elders and members. This
    project is all on Narragansett Indian land, which will require
    additional Tribal Police coverage during renovation and construction.
    Furthermore, the location of the Tribe's land in the midst of a densely
    populated area creates unique enforcement and safety issues that are
    not common elsewhere. History has shown all too clearly that the Tribe
    cannot rely on the local communities to place a priority on
    safeguarding the interest of Tribal members or Tribal lands.
        At the present time, the Narragansett Tribal Police has one
    dispatcher to cover the busy daytime hours. In 1999, the Narragansett
    Tribal Police handled 91 incidents; in 2002 the Department handled 376
    incidents. This number represents a 300 percent increase. Therefore,
    another dispatcher is needed for the evening hours.
        Despite a concerted effort by the Tribe, the State Police and the
    Town of Charlestown have not agreed to enter into a MOU (Memorandum of
    Understanding) concerning public safety issues, which place a greater
    burden on our existing Tribal Police Department.
        Congress has long recognized that if Indian Tribes are to improve
    reservation conditions they must first have in place the necessary
    infrastructures which include adequate law enforcement services, basic
    human services, roads, safe water and waste disposal systems. Congress
    has long recognized that only when these are in place are tribes ``in
    the best position to implement economic development plans, taking into
    account the available natural resources, labor force, financial
    resources and markets''. S. Rep. 274, 100th Cong, 4 (1987) we encourage
    congress to put teeth behind these words by supporting increases in BIA
    Indian Country Law Enforcement Initiative in a manner that will assist
    us to increase our ranks to a more appropriate level. The three-year
    costs of the 4 officers with uniform and equipment will be $480,000 and
    the dispatcher for a three year period with uniform will be $79,000 for
    a total of $559,000.

                              EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

        The education department is comprised of the following bureau
    programs; Adult Education, Higher Education and Johnson O'Malley
    Program.

                 ADULT EDUCATION--($78,971.00 INCREASE SOUGHT)

        The objective of the adult education program is to provide the
    adult Tribal members with the opportunity to become employable,
    productive and self-sufficient by attaining a higher level of
    education. This objective can be obtained by collaborating with other
    Tribal programs such as Adult Vocational Training, Social Services, and
    Higher Education. To date, the funds provided assist with
    administrative costs, ABE/GED assistance, educational enhancement and
    cultural preservation, which include language, dance and history
    classes. Ideally, the cultural component of this program would thrive
    with its own budget. Due to the level of funding received we are only
    meeting 25 percent of the Tribal community needs at best. We would like
    to double our existing budget to better meet the needs of our ever-
    growing Tribal community and to enhance the services provided and
    enrich lives.

                 HIGHER EDUCATION--($81,150.00 INCREASE SOUGHT)

        The objective of the higher education program is to provide
    assistance to the Narragansett Indian students in the attainment of a
    college degree at the bachelors and graduate level (based on the unmet
    financial need of each student). The department received 46 requests
    for financial assistance during the Fall 2002 and Spring 2003
    semesters. The unmet financial need for these terms was $196,00.00. To
    date, bachelor students have received minimal assistance and graduate
    students cannot be assisted because we lack the necessary funds. We
    estimate that this program is meeting roughly 25 percent of our
    students' need. We would like to double the budget for this program to
    address the unmet need and to provide greater opportunities for our
    members to fulfill their higher education goals.

                 JOHNSON O'MALLEY--($58,094.00 INCREASE SOUGHT)

        The Johnson O'Malley program provides services to meet the unique
    and special needs of the Narragansett Indian Children, which are not
    met by schools and or other departments/agencies. The department
    presently operates a reservation based homework center and will be
    employing two (2) part-time tutors and one (1) cultural coordinator.
    These positions are being advertised based on responses from the 2002
    JOM Needs Assessment. To date, the funding received makes it impossible
    to meet the needs of our 768 eligible students and the goals and
    objectives of the contract. Our overall goal is to afford the children
    of the Tribe with opportunity to receive a quality education. We would
    like to double the budget for this program.

    DAYCARE CENTER--($48,868.00-DISCRETIONARY; $52,307-MANDATORY, TOTALING
                                  $101,175.00)

        The Narragansett Indian Tribe is anticipating a Summer 2003 opening
    for its Hand in Hand Day Care Center. The Center will be able to serve
    31 Tribal Children and the activities and projects will be child
    directed and culturally based to enhance their learning environment.
    The Tribe continues to receive a Child Care Development Fund grant
    annually. To date, the funding received will barely support the
    operational costs. We will need more funding to qualify for State
    licensure. We plan to meet or exceed State requirements in order to be
    certain that our children are in a quality childcare center. We would
    like to double our budget for this important program.

        NARRAGANSETT INDIAN HEALTH CENTER--($403,603.00 INCREASE SOUGHT)

        The Narragansett Indian Health Center (NIHC) has been in operation
    for six years. NIHC provides both direct onsite clinical services and
    Contract Health Services through local area providers. Our patient
    demographics remain the same as last year. Many members are unemployed,
    underemployed, or seasonally employed. As a result, most do not have
    the means for private insurance or are not eligible for state and
    federal insurance programs. This limits third-party billing revenue
    that could be used to supplement the budget.
        The center employs one full-time Physician, an internist placed
    here through an MOA with IHS. The full-time Nurse Practitioner position
    is still vacant, despite numerous attempts to hire a qualified
    candidate and we are still advertising to fill vacated nursing
    positions. Lack of funding has made it difficult to recruit for and
    staff many of these vacancies. The result is significant unmet need,
    particularly, in the areas of pediatric care, OB/GYN services. Further,
    insufficient staff and limited services add to tribal program expenses,
    since we must contract out for services that we could otherwise provide
    on-site with additional space.
        To address some of our unmet needs, the center needs a full-time
    Medical Social Worker, a part-time Clinical Psychologist, two
    additional full-time Outreach Workers, a part-time Podiatrist, Lab
    Technician, X-ray Technician, and a part-time Dental Hygienist.
    Further, we need funds to provide minimum optometry services, dental
    services, and other specialty clinic care on an in-house subcontracted
    basis.
        In fiscal year 2001, NIHC applied for the Small Ambulatory Program
    (SAP) Grant but we were not awarded the funding. Our application for
    the fiscal year 2002 SAP, also, was not awarded. It was our
    understanding that Congress intended the grant to fund small tribes;
    however, only large tribes have received funding, to date. Please note
    that while no eastern area tribes have been funded, we just received a
    letter from IHS officials asking if we intend to resubmit our
    application for the fiscal year 2003 SAP. We are responding
    affirmatively.
        The Narragansett Indian Tribe applied for the grant as a means to
    offer our community a ``one stop shopping'' concept for its health care
    needs-providing all services under one umbrella of a centralized health
    and human services facility. The existing building is too small to
    house the health programs currently offered and leaves no room for the
    future expansion of services that are necessary to meet tribal needs.
    An example of this occurred during a recent emergency when it became
    clear that stretchers could not fit around hallway corners. Further,
    there is no place for doing emergency Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation
    (CPR) other than a conference room table or the floor. Exam rooms are
    too small to accommodate three people comfortably and staff office
    space is crammed. The current space limitations also do not allow for
    the incorporation of the Indian Child Welfare and Social Services
    Departments into our concept of a centralized health and human service
    facility. This results in unnecessary transportation hardships on many
    of our tribal members, as they have to travel to another town to access
    these services. Since there are currently no funds appropriated for the
    SAP grant in fiscal year 2004, we urgently request your support of our
    application for the fiscal year 2003 grant.
        In addition to the funding necessary to replace or expand our
    existing facility, we are requesting an increase in our IHS program
    funds of $403,603.00. Among other obstacles, Contract Support Costs
    shortfalls and insufficient funding continue to impact program
    operations. The Tribe will use additional funds to hire the necessary
    staff to provide a range of services that are severely lacking in our
    community.

             SOCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT--($385,000 INCREASE SOUGHT)

        The Social Service Department operates a number of programs to
    provide services for eligible tribal members who reside in Washington
    County, Rhode Island, the designated service delivery area for the
    Narragansett Indian Tribe. Services provided include General
    Assistance, Child Welfare Assistance, Adult Care, Miscellaneous
    Assistance, Family/Community Services, Emergency Assistance-food,
    clothing, housing/shelter-Heating Assistance, and referrals to and
    assistance with alternate resource agencies, when necessary. The
    objective of the Social Services Department is to assist in the
    enhancement of everyday living for eligible tribal members and to help
    build and strengthen the dignity and self worth of the tribal members
    so they can obtain self-sufficiency.
        To date, the Social Services Department remains understaffed. Two
    full-time caseworkers and an administrative assistant staff the
    department. Under the oversight of the Director of Heath and Human
    Services, the staff is responsible to deliver all aspects of social
    welfare programs for more than 1300 tribal members residing in
    Washington County. Insufficient staff and funding result in much unmet
    need among our tribal members, since those factors restrict outreach
    efforts and make proactive activities essentially nonexistent. With out
    additional full-time caseworkers, the tribe can better address the
    tribal community's unmet needs. The tribe seeks $150,000 additional
    recurring program dollars to hire staff and to expand program services.
        The Tribe needs an additional $235,000 to incorporate the Indian
    Child Welfare and Social Services Departments into the Narragansett
    Indian Health Center. This is in our efforts to provide ``one-stop
    shopping'', centralized health and human services facility for our
    tribal community. That will decrease the transportation burdens placed
    on both tribal members and tribal programs' transportation services.
        Our efforts to increase funding for the Social Services Department,
    through grant writing and other means have been unsuccessful. It has
    come to our attention that funding for that BIA program is based on the
    number in the tribal population and the poverty index. Our current
    funding is based on population figures taken from the 1990 census. The
    Tribe needs Congress to authorize the use of the 2000 census figures as
    a means to determine funding levels, which will reflect more closely
    the appropriations needed to fulfill our social services obligations to
    our tribal community.

                                     ______

        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 2004
    budget for the Interior Department's funding for the Indian Tribal
    Justice Act and Tribal Courts (under the Tribal Priority Allocations).
    We request $73.4 million for Tribal Courts.
        The National American Indian Court Judges Association (NAICJA),
    www.naicja.com, was incorporated in 1969. NAICJA is the largest
    organization representing Tribal Judges and Tribal Courts in the United
    States. The mission of NAICJA is to strengthen and enhance all Tribal
    justice systems through improvement and development of Tribal Courts
    and Tribal Court Judges.

    INTERIOR DEPARTMENT FUNDING INDIAN TRIBAL JUSTICE ACT AND TRIBAL COURT
                                    FUNDING

        Full Funding for the Indian Tribal Justice Act; $58.4 million.--
    NAICJA respectfully requests that, for the first time, Congress
    appropriate full funding for Indian Tribal Justice Act: NAICJA
    recommends a funding level of $58.4 million. On December 21, 2000, the
    106th Congress re-affirmed the Congressional commitment to provide this
    increased funding for tribal justice systems when it re-authorized the
    Indian Tribal Justice Act for seven more years of funding at a level of
    $58.4 million per year (see Public Law 106-559, section 202). NAICJA
    strongly supports FULL FUNDING of the Indian Tribal Justice Act as
    promised in 1993. NAICJA requests funding at a much higher rate since
    the number of tribal courts and their needs have substantially
    increased since the Act was entered into law in 1993--nearly ten years
    ago.
        Tribal Courts--an additional $15 million (under the Tribal Priority
    Allocations Account).--NAICJA strongly supports increased funding for
    Tribal Courts to a level of $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 (170
    to approximately 300), the increase of caseloads, 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 grossly
            less 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 300 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
      --have inadequate staffing for law enforcement
      --tend to be a great distance from the few existing resources outside
            of the Tribe
      --face a lack of detention facilities
      --have a limitation of sentencing or disposition alternatives
      --lack of access to advanced technology
      --lack substance abuse testing and treatment options
        In most Tribal justice systems, 80-90 percent of the cases are
    criminal in nature 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 ten years ago, the Commission ``strongly
    support[ed] the pending and proposed congressional initiatives to
    authorize funding of tribal courts in an amount equal to that of an
    equivalent State court'' and was ``hopeful that this increased funding
    [would] allow for much needed increases in salaries for judges, the
    retention of law clerks for tribal judges, the funding of public
    defenders/defense counsel, and increased access to legal authorities.''
        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 of base funding support for tribal justice
    systems in the amount of $50 million 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 welcome the opportunity to comment on the Interior Department's
    fiscal year 2004 Budget Request for the Indian Tribal Justice Act and
    Tribal Courts (under the Tribal Priority Allocations).
        Please contact Judge Eugene White-Fish, President, NAICJA at (715)
    478-7255, or NAICJA Executive Director Chuck Robertson, at (605) 342-
    4804 or naicja@rushmore.com with questions or comments. Thank you.

                                     ______

                    Prepared Statement of the Navajo Nation

        The Navajo Nation welcomes this opportunity to provide
    recommendations on the proposed federal fiscal year 2004 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 2004 appropriations in the
    amount of:
        Navajo Indian Irrigation Project (NIIP).--$30,000,000. The Navajo
    Nation requests full funding for NIIP. 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).--$1,500,000. 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. 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
    $4,000,000 for Fort Defiance Hospital Staff Quarters; $21,573,000 for
    the Pinon Health Center; and $30,000,000 for the Red Mesa Health
    Center.

                            BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

        BIA Roads Maintenance.--$32,100,000. Tribes are in need of solid
    infrastructure and the funds to maintain existing roads and new road
    construction.
        Law Enforcement.--$172,663,760. 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.--$2,545,530. 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.--$18,292,720. 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).--$1,000,000. Congress
    authorized appropriations for the development of TEDs in Public Law 95-
    561, but has never appropriated this initiative.
        School Construction.--$131,400,000. The Navajo Nation's request
    supports a serious commitment to building Indian schools, of which the
    Navajo Nation has a majority of BIA schools slated for replacement.
        Facilities Improvement and Repair (FI&R).--$165,000,000. The Navajo
    Nation supports funding that will eliminate this backlog of repairs at
    these schools.
        Education Facilities Operations.--$74,900,000. 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).--$17,747,491, of which the
    Navajo Nation requests $3,000,000 for the Navajo Area. The Navajo
    Nation has the majority of BIA education facilities to maintain.
        Indian School Equalization Program (ISEP).--$361,000,000. 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-Pro Ajustments.--$6,072,250. This amount would allow tribes to
    plan and assume greater control of their educational programs.
        Administrative Cost Grants (ACG).--$61,400,000. 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.--$55,000,000. 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)--$15,800,000. The
    Navajo Nation supports the FACE program as it has done much to
    facilitate learning on the Navajo Nation.
        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).--$18,310,910. The JOM Program
    provides funds to supplement the regular school program. JOM programs
    are used for tutoring, academic support, cultural activities, summer
    education programs and after school activities. Navajo Nation provides
    supplemental funding to provide special services to meet the unique and
    specialized needs of over 52,000 Native American students through 36
    subcontracts in public schools on or near the Navajo reservation in the
    states of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah.
        Scholarship Funding.--$30,000,000, of which, $1,223,397 should be
    directly allocated to the BIA Navajo Area. The Navajo Nation supports
    President Bush's committed to education, and asks for a strong
    commitment to assist Indian.students in Higher Education.
        Adult Education Scholarships.--$3,210,000. 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.--$1,605,000. 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).--$44,940,000 of
    which, $40,029,000 would be for Operating Grants. TCCCs encourage
    tribal members to attend school, obtain new skills and a better quality
    of life.
        Environmental Projects/Assessments/Inspections/Abatement.--
    $12,466,570. Many BIA schools have asbestos in their facilities and a
    reduction in this area does not show commitment to have healthy
    environments for children. Navajo has schools listed on the BIA
    priority list.
        Social Services under Tribal Priority Allocations.--$33,299,390.
        Indian Child Welfare Act.--$12,460,150. Protecting Navajo children
    is a duty for creating healthy families and strong communities.
    Reducing these funds does neither.
        Housing Improvement Program (HIP).--$35,310,000. 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).--$857,070. The
    Navajo Area 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.
        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.
        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.
        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.
        Water Management, Planning, and Pre-Development--$8,615,640. To
    assist the Navajo Nation in effectively managing its water, especially
    during these times of drought in order to stabilize water usage in the
    west.

         BUREAU OF RECLAMATION (BOR)--BUREAU OF RECLAMATION EFFICIENCY
                               INCENTIVES PROGRAM

        Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project.--$500,000. This amount would
    enable the BOR to complete the planning report and the environmental
    impact statement to continue this Project. The Project will create the
    infrastructure necessary to provide critically needed water to tribal
    and non-tribal communities in New Mexico.
        Ganado Water Conservation and Management Project.--$350,000. This
    amount will allow irrigators to have access to water from the Ganado
    Reservoir.
        Navajo Nation Drought Relief Within New Mexico--$1,340,000. This
    would allow BOR Emergency Drought Relief Act funds for Spencer Valley
    (Manuelito Chapter) for a conveyance line ($90,000); at Torreon Chapter
    for a new water source ($450,000); and at Baca/Haystack Chapter for
    water source and storage ($800,000).
        Navajo Nation Drought Relief Within Arizona.--$2,000,000. BOR
    Emergency Drought Relief Act funds for Teec Nos Pos Chapter for a new
    water source ($470,000); Fort Defiance Chapter for a replacement well
    and storage ($250,000); Tuba City Chapter for water source and storage
    ($380,000); and Cameron-Grey Mountain for water source and storage
    ($900,000).
        Navajo Mountain Public Water System.--$4,000,000. The Navajo
    Mountain Public Water System is inadequate to provide for the needs of
    the community and its schools as it depends on springs that are
    unreliable during dry periods. Last year the Navajo Nation had to
    resort to hauling water more than 40 miles to provide drinking water
    for the community and resulted in the closing of the schools during the
    summer months. The proposed project would cost approximately $6
    million. Programmatic funding committed through the U.S. EPA and BIA
    totals $2 million.

                        BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (BLM)

        Dine Power Authority (DPA).--$1,500,000. This would allow DPA to
    complete archaeological, biological and cultural studies, and related
    mitigation measures, within the right of way corridor on Navajo lands
    for the Navajo Transmission Project.

                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of the Nez Perce Tribe

        The Nez Perce Tribe requests the following funding amounts for
    fiscal year 2004, 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
            its fisheries efforts relating to consultation on hydrosystem
            operations, Endangered Species restoration, harvest monitoring,
            conservation enforcement, and program administration.
      --$600,000 (request includes $450,000 as appropriated in fiscal year
            2003, for continuing efforts plus $150,000 increase for
            expanded needs as part of an overall fiscal year 2004 program
            request of $1.16 million appropriation request) through the
            United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
            Service, Threatened and Endangered Species Program for
            continued operation of the Nez Perce Tribes gray wolf recovery,
            monitoring, research and outreach programs in Idaho. This
            $600,000 request is part of a larger appropriation package
            totaling $1.16 million, prepared by the Nez Perce Tribe after
            initial discussions with the State of Idaho Office of Species
            Conservation, in order to create a wolf recovery program in the
            state of Idaho, that anticipates probable delisting of wolves
            from the Endangered Species list, by adequately funding the
            coordinated and shared responsibilities of the Nez Perce Tribe,
            State of Idaho, and Fish and Wildlife Service.
        The Tribe urges support for the full and adequate funding of tribal
    programs through the Department of Interior fiscal year 2004 budget,
    with the specific requests 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 has one of the largest and most successful
    tribal fisheries management programs in the United States. We take our
    challenge of restoring the fisheries resources in Idaho, northeast
    Oregon, and southeast Washington very seriously. The Tribe has brought
    back coho salmon from extinction, is utilizing hatchery supplementation
    to return ESA listed spring, summer, and fall Chinook and restore these
    populations to harvestable levels, and is the single-most active
    habitat restoration entity in the Snake River Basin. We employ 150 to
    200 people, most of which are tribal members, and maintain four offices
    in Oregon and Idaho. Principle program areas include Administration,
    Research, Habitat, Conservation Enforcement, Resident Fish, Harvest,
    and Production. The Tribe's Fisheries Management program is focused on
    restoring and maintaining an abundance of fish populations within the
    Tribe's treaty lands in order to provide for environmental and cultural
    health and meet recreational, commercial and subsistence fishing needs.
        The Nez Perce Tribe's Fisheries Management Program is built upon
    the extremely strong treaty rights retained by the Tribe. Among other
    things, the treaties guarantee the right of the Tribe to harvest fish
    at virtually every single river and stream flowing through the lands
    ceded to the United States and at all usual and accustomed areas. The
    Tribe's ceded lands sit astride the largest and best salmon habitats
    remaining in the northwest--the Snake River Basin. This is the
    ``breadbasket'' of the Columbia, although now, most salmon runs
    returning here are listed as threatened or endangered under the
    Endangered Species Act (ESA). Rather than continuing with this status
    quo, and having the actualization of treaty rights depend upon what the
    federal and state fisheries managers could provide, the Tribe initiated
    its own program.
        The Fisheries Program relies on a host of funding sources,
    including the Lower Snake River Compensation Program, Bonneville Power
    Administration's Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Program, and the Pacific
    Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund initiative. In addition, the Tribe has
    sought opportunities to utilize its contracts as matching funds with
    various federal and private partners. However, these funding sources
    are very project specific and short-lived. The addition of appropriated
    dollars through the BIA is critical to funding overall management
    activities required for Program Administration, Harvest Monitoring and
    Conservation Enforcement. These programs are central to the Tribe's
    fisheries management responsibilities as established in the treaties
    and further delineated in litigation regarding implementation of
    hunting and fishing treaty rights.
        An increase in funding through the BIA is required to deal with
    these core management actions. For several years the salmon runs have
    returned in larger numbers and to many more streams than have occurred
    in the past. These larger returns are due to a number of factors, but
    importantly have responded to the Tribe's supplementation efforts using
    hatchery fish. As a result of the larger returns, tribal commercial and
    subsistence harvest activities and harvest opportunities for sportsmen
    are occurring over a much broader area of the ceded lands and the usual
    and accustomed fishing areas, and for longer periods of time.
    Consequently, costs associated with the central administration,
    enforcement, and harvest monitoring actions are similarly increasing.
    With increasing success come increasing responsibilities.
        Additionally, Tribes have never had access to federal aid in
    fisheries work through the Pittman-Robertson, Dingell-Johnson, and
    Wallop-Breaux Acts. These funds are derived from a federal tax paid on
    outdoor and sporting equipment. States are provided these funds to
    supplement their fish and wildlife programs for just such needs as
    identified in the Tribe's appropriation request. While tribal members
    pay taxes on the sale of certain sporting goods items, tribal
    governments do not receive any of the federal tax revenue.
        The requested fiscal year 2004 funding would support two staff
    positions in Administration, six in Harvest Monitoring and ten in
    Conservation Enforcement. Although the jobs are located in Idaho, work
    conducted by the positions occurs primarily in Idaho, but also in
    Washington and Oregon.
        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.

      NEZ PERCE TRIBE'S CENTRAL IDAHO GRAY WOLF RECOVERY PROGRAM FUNDING:
                                USFWS, $600,000

        The Nez Perce Tribe (Tribe) requests that Congress direct the U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to allocate $600,000 for wolf
    recovery efforts by the Tribe, for tasks identified in a cooperative
    agreement between the Tribe and Service. The Tribe's fiscal year 2003
    appropriation for wolf recovery was $450,000. The Tribe is requesting
    an additional $150,000 above the fiscal year 2003 appropriated level of
    $450,000 for a total fiscal year 2004 program budget of $600,000. The
    Tribe anticipates using the additional funds to expand efforts of
    previous years to retain more staff; increase on-the-ground presence
    especially in areas of new or recent wolf activity; update the
    monitoring program to enable the Tribe to develop a methodology to
    continue to produce accurate estimates of population size using less
    intensive monitoring techniques; expand field operations especially
    focusing on documenting and radio collaring new packs and maintaining
    radio-collars in existing packs; acquire equipment; increase continuing
    reporting and information dissemination activities; hold informational
    public meetings in affected communities; document new packs; establish
    a system of special effort to notify landowners, grazing permittees,
    agencies, and others who have particular needs for the information
    gathered; and develop and deliver all maps and reports due per the
    existing cooperative agreement with the Service.
        The Nez Perce Tribe and the USDA APHIS Wildlife Service staff have
    been the primary entities responsible for the day-to-day recovery and
    management of wolves in Idaho. The Tribe has provided such services as
    monitoring wolves; providing information to agencies, organizations and
    the public; working with affected and interested parties to address
    concerns supporting the implementation of directed wolf research;
    assisting with resolution of wolf-livestock conflicts; and assisting
    Service's Law Enforcement personnel when requested. Yet, more effort is
    needed. The Idaho wolf population is growing in numbers and expanding
    into new geographic areas. Additional funding is needed to continue
    providing Recovery Program services to newly affected communities with
    the geographic expansion of the wolf population.
        The Tribe and the State of Idaho as represented by the Idaho Office
    of Species Conservation (OSC) submitted a joint appropriation request
    for fiscal year 2003 including $600,000 for the Tribe, $460,000 for OSC
    and $100,000 for the Service. The Tribe anticipated filing a similar
    joint federal appropriation request with the OSC for fiscal year 2004,
    but opted not to do so when the OSC asked the Tribe to limit its fiscal
    year 2004 request to only $400,000 this year, which is $50,000 less
    than the Tribe received in fiscal year 2003 and $200,00 less than the
    Tribe and OSC requested for the Tribe in fiscal year 2003. The OSC is
    requesting an increase of nearly $200,000 over fiscal year 2003
    appropriated levels, which would equal the $460,000 amount previously
    requested by OSC in fiscal year 2003. The Tribe supports the State of
    Idaho in its fiscal year 2004 request for increased federal
    appropriations for planned wolf management efforts as long as it is not
    at the expense of the Tribe's request for $600,000. To that end the
    Tribe has included a request for $460,000 for the OSC in the Tribe's
    fiscal year 2004 appropriation request package of $1.16 million. As
    respective fiscal year 2004 workloads between the Tribe and OSC have
    not changed considerably from fiscal year 2003, as outlined in the
    fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004 appropriations requests, the
    Tribe feels strongly justified in requesting funding needs similar to
    those requested in fiscal year 2003, as does OSC.
        The Nez Perce Tribe continues to hold legal and contracted
    obligations to recover and manage wolves in Idaho pursuant to a
    cooperative agreement with the Service and a Service approved Tribal
    wolf management plan. Until such time as the tribal contractual
    obligations are changed through consensual efforts between the Tribe,
    OSC and Service, the Tribe needs full funding to carry out its
    contractual obligations. The OSC and the Tribe have agreed to continue
    with negotiations to develop and adopt an MOA outlining respective
    roles and responsibilities for coordinated wolf management after wolf
    management shifts from the Federal Government to the State and Tribe.
    We hope to conclude those discussions before the final appropriations
    are decided late this summer. The Tribe believes this MOA and
    subsequent additionally required MOA's coordinated between the OSC and
    the Tribe and the Service are the appropriate vehicles for
    reapportioning respective roles and responsibilities, legal contractual
    obligations and funding among the parties. Funding levels should be
    closely tied to and follow agreed to workloads identified in the MOA
    between the Tribe and Service and the MOA's between the Service and
    Tribe and OSC and Tribe. The Tribe feels strongly that reapportioning
    funding levels prior to reallocation of respective roles and
    responsibilities through the MOA's is premature, as the Tribe continues
    to hold full legal obligations for the entire Recovery Program as
    outlined in our current cooperative agreement with the Service.
        The Nez Perce Tribe requests that Congress support wolf recovery in
    Idaho by fully funding the Tribe's total wolf recovery appropriation
    request package which seeks appropriations for the Nez Perce Tribe, the
    Idaho State Office of Species Conservation, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service's Snake River Basin Office. At a minimum, however, the Nez
    Perce Tribe requests that Congress appropriate $600,000 specifically to
    the Nez Perce Tribe which is necessary for the Tribe to adequately
    monitor the expanding wolf population in Idaho and provide
    accountability to local affected rural communities and Idaho citizens.
        Thank you for your continued support of the Nez Perce Tribe's fish
    and wolf recovery efforts.

                                     ______

        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 2004 fisheries and habitat
    management needs. Funds for these programs should be directed to the
    Fish, Wildlife and Parks Account within the Bureau of Indian.
               summary of fiscal year 2004 appropriations request
        The NWIFC generally supports the enacted fiscal year 2003
    appropriation levels. We request funding and direction which will
    achieve the following for fiscal year 2004:
      --Restore $320,000 to the Unresolved Hunting and Fishing Rights
            account
      --Restore $550,000 for Western Washington tribal shellfish management
            and enforcement
      --$6.3 million to implement tribal treaty rights in tribal shellfish
            programs
      --$22 million for federal contribution of Tribal/Growers shellfish
            settlement
      --Restore $3.0 million Forest Development, Woodland Management,
            Northwest Forest Plan, Jobs in the Woods and Wild Stock
            Restoration Initiative
      --Restore $3.1 million for the Timber-Fish-Wildlife Forest and Fish
            Report
      --$1.0 million Increase for Timber-Fish-Wildlife ESA Obligations
            under new state and private forest practices rules and
            regulations
      --Increase Hatchery Cyclical Maintenance/Rehabilitation funding to
            $2.5 million with language
      --Support existing funding levels within the BIA for Trust
            Responsibility, TPA, and Self Governance for Fisheries
            Management/U.S.-Canada Pacific Salmon at fiscal year 2003
            levels
      --Include Committee Language directing the BIA to include Shellfish,
            Forest and Fish Report and Unresolved Hunting and Fishing in
            the fiscal year 2005 Budget
      --Fully fund CSC at levels necessary for existing and emerging
            programs

             TRIBAL AND NWIFC BASE PROGRAMS NEED CONTINUED SUPPORT

        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 further 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, and ask that it be
    restored. Tribes are using these monies to develop in-common and co-
    management databases, population assessments and other activities with
    the state of Washington.

                        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-1850s,
    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.
        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 $550,000, and add an additional $6.3
    million to tribal fishery management contracts as part of the permanent
    base.
        We are also asking the Committee for its help in funding a final
    settlement decree between treaty tribes and a number of private
    shellfish growers. This settlement will allow tribes to shift their
    treaty reserved rights from harvesting of grower owned land-to-land
    acquired under the terms of this settlement. The entire cost of this
    settlement will be $33 million, with the cost split two-thirds-one-
    third between the federal and state governments.

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

        In 1999, a number of species of Pacific Salmon were listed by the
    National Marine Fisheries Service as threatened under the terms of the
    Endangered Species Act (ESA). Last year, the Bull Trout was listed as
    threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This ESA listing
    process is triggering a cascading chain of events, and will culminate
    in significant changes to harvest, hatchery and habitat practices for
    the region and its inhabitants.
        Tribes are affected by this federal process. As 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
    being placed in severe jeopardy by these actions without additional
    funds to manage through the risks imposed by this federal mandate.
        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/FOREST AND FISH REPORT

        We are supporting the restoration of Funding to tribes for the
    Timber-Fish-Wildlife/Forest and Fish Report 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. The negotiations leading up
    to the development of the TFW Forest and Fish Report were exceedingly
    contentious. However, most agreed that 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 2004, we are again requesting $3.1 million be
    restored plus an additional $1.0 million to further develop tribal
    participation in the TFW Forest and Fish effort. For each of our
    requests to restore funding, we ask the Committee to include language
    directing the Bureau of Indian Affairs to include these funding amounts
    in their fiscal year 2005 budget request.

                  HATCHERY CYCLICAL MAINTENANCE/REHABILITATION

        Tribes operate extensive salmon and steelhead hatchery facilities
    that produce fish for tribal and non-tribal use. These facilities are
    located throughout the western Washington U.S. v. Washington Case Area.
    Many of these facilities were built with federal funding and were
    intended to partially fulfill federal trust responsibilities to off-set
    loss of fishing opportunities and fish habitat due to non-Indian action
    and developments.
        Hatchery operations are reviewed through the Hatchery Reform
    Project Initiative funded through the Fish and Wildlife Service. Not
    unexpectedly, one of the outcomes from this rigorous scientific review
    process is to make physical changes to facilities that bring them in
    line with the scientific review recommendations.
        Tribes will need about $2.5 million to do necessary work to ensure
    that their facilities are ESA certified. The Bureau of Indian Affairs
    has a small line item that could be amended to include this kind of
    work. Such funding would complement state of Washington funding through
    their capital construction budget, and ensure that tribal facilities
    are improved at the same pace as state owned and operated hatcheries.
    Direction would need to be given to the Bureau to ensure that tribal
    facilities in western Washington are recipients to these monies.

            CONTRACT SUPPORT FUNDING IS ESSENTIAL TO TRIBAL PROGRAMS

        We continue to have concerns that the Bureau of Indian Affairs has
    failed to fully request Contract Support Funds for tribal programs. We
    are also concerned that Congress has not fully appropriated the
    necessary funds. An artificial cap upon the funding pool for indirect
    cost reimbursements places a huge burden on tribal fisheries programs.
    We have been, and will be forced to continue to reduce our programs to
    cover these costs as mandated by law. Such a burden cannot be borne by
    tribal programs again this year or into the future without onerous
    results.

                                   CONCLUSION

        We appreciate the Subcommittee's continued support for the tribes
    and the NWIFC as we implement co-management responsibilities. It takes
    funding resources to make our management system work, but the returns
    to our efforts are many. The challenges are great, and we must continue
    our effort with renewed vigor. We thank you for your attention to our
    needs. We have provided the subcommittee staff with additional
    supporting documentation for our requests. We are available to meet
    with you and your staff at your leisure.

                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Puyallup Tribe of Indians

        Mr. Chairman, my name is Bill Sterud, Puyallup Tribal Chairman. We
    thank the Committee for past support of many tribal issues and in your
    interest today. We share our concerns and request assistance in
    reaching objectives of significance to the Congress, the Tribe, and to
    32,000+ Indians (constituents) in our Urban Service Area.
        U.S. Department of Interior--Bureau of Indian Affairs.--The
    Puyallup Tribe has analyzed the President's fiscal year 2004 budget and
    submit the following detailed written testimony to the House Interior
    Subcommittee on the proposed funding bill for the Dept. of Interior and
    Related Agencies. In the fiscal year 2003 budget process, the Puyallup
    Tribe supported actions of Congress to restore the base level funding
    for various programs including the Timber-Fish-Wildlife program in the
    amount of $3.1 million along with $550,000 for Shellfish management. We
    look forward to working with the 108th Congress to insure that funding
    levels for programs necessary for the Puyallup Tribe to carry-out our
    sovereign responsibility of self-determination and self-governance for
    the benefit of Puyallup tribal members and the members from
    approximately 435 federally recognized Tribes who utilize our services
    are included in the fiscal year 2004 budget.
        The following provides a brief review of the Puyallup Tribe's
    priorities and special appropriation requests for fiscal year 2004;
        Chief Leshci School--Auditorium Completion & Athletic Facilities
    Development.--The Puyallup Tribal education support began in 1972 as
    the ``Hawthorne School'', a teen drop-in prevention program established
    in cooperation with Tacoma Schools on the site of the present Tacoma
    Dome. An Elementary School was constructed on the main tribal campus in
    1978 through funding from the Economic Development Administration. The
    Elementary School was relocated to the Tribal Headquarters and the K-12
    offerings became the new Chief Leschi School, which was designated as a
    tribal school through a ``638 contract'' with the BIA. A combination of
    school population and weakness in the school buildings structural
    integrity caused the school to relocate educational services to various
    sites. This initiated a request to the BIA for a new school facility.
        This request was realized in 1996 with the completion of the new
    Chief Leshci School pre-K through 12. As of February 2003, enrollment
    of Native American children is 702. This enrollment figure represents
    native children from 65 federally recognized tribes through-out the
    country. As with many construction projects, limited funding and cost
    increases had a significant impact on the final design of Chief Leschi
    Schools. This is evident in the lack of an Auditorium and Athletic
    Facilities. Although construction on the Auditorium was started, it was
    not completed due to lack of funding. We feel that the completion of
    the Auditorium and Athletic Facilities will significantly enhance the
    activities and services that Chief Leschi Schools is able to offer to
    the school community and our Tribe. We will request your support for
    the fiscal year 2004 BIA budget for the following;
      --$1,554,989 for the completion of the Chief Leschi School
            Auditorium; and
      --$2,903,020 for design and construction of the Chief Leschi School
            Athletic Facilities Development.
        Puyallup Nation Law Enforcement.--The Puyallup Reservation is
    located in the urbanized Seattle-Tacoma area of the State of
    Washington. The 18,061 acre reservation and related urban service area
    contains 17,000+ Native Americans from over 200 Tribes and Alaskan
    Villages. The Puyallup Nation Law Enforcement Division currently has
    fifteen (15) commissioned officers to cover 40 square miles of
    reservation in addition to the usual and accustomed areas. The officers
    are charged with the service and protection of the Puyallup Reservation
    seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day. We currently operate with
    outdated equipment, patrol vehicles requiring constant repair and
    insufficient staff levels. With the continuing increase in population,
    increase in gang related activities on the Puyallup Reservation and the
    impact of the increase in manufacturing of meth amphetamines in the
    region, the services of the Puyallup Nation Law Enforcement Division
    are exceeding maximum levels.
        A major area of concern is the status of the Tribe's Regional
    Incarceration Facility. Due to damages from the February 2001 Nisqually
    earthquake, we have had to relocate to modular/temporary facilities. As
    a regional detention facility, the relocation to the modular facility
    not only impacts the Tribe's ability to house detainee's but also the
    approximately 173 native inmates that were incarcerated at the Puyallup
    Incarceration facility during the period of 2001-2002. Relocation to
    the modular facility has also impacted the Tribes ability to house
    juvenile detainees. With no juvenile facilities, Native American youth
    are sent to non-native facilities.
        We respectfully request congressional support to fund the BIA Law
    Enforcement program at levels adequate to operated law enforcement
    services at a safe and effective method and to fund the Department of
    Justice--Detention Facilities Construction program for fiscal year
    2004. The following list is a brief summary of law enforcement needs of
    the Puyallup Nation Law Enforcement programs:
      --Juvenile Incarceration Facility--$1,000,000 (est.);
      --Staffing for Juvenile Facility--8 employees @ $320,600;
      --Adult Incarceration Facility--$2,500,000 (est);
      --Additional staff for dispatching center--3 employees @ $120,800;
      --Additional Officers--4 @ $225,900;
      --Equipment; firearms, radios and equipment--$30,000;
      --Technologies, hardware and software--$80,000;
      --Patrol vehicles--2 @ $60,000;
      --Training--$30,000.
        Fisheries & Natural Resources Management.--The Puyallup Tribe as
    steward for land and marine waters in the Usual and Accustomed fish and
    shellfish areas has treaty and Governmental obligations and
    responsibilities to manage natural resources for uses beneficial to the
    regional community. Despite our diligent program efforts, the fisheries
    resource is degrading and economic losses are incurred by Indian and
    Non-Indian fisherman, and surrounding communities. Our Resource
    Management responsibilities cover thousands of square miles in the
    Puget Sound region of the State of Washington with an obligation to
    manage production of anadromous, non-anadromous fish and shellfish
    resources. Existing levels of support are inadequate to reverse the
    trend of resource/habitat degradation. Resource management is
    constrained due to funding shortfalls. We seek support and endorsement
    in the following areas:
      --Tribal Fisheries Resource Management, Hatchery Operation and
            Maintenance funding via Public Law 93-638 contracts have not
            increased substantially since establishment of base budgets in
            1984. The demand on Puyallup Tribal Fisheries Program has grown
            exponential since the eighties and is currently faced by
            Endangered Species Act listings on Bull Trout and Chinook
            Salmon which is in an highly urbanized setting more so than any
            other Pacific Northwest Tribe. We request Committee support to
            increase base contract funding in the amount of $150,000.00 for
            additional fisheries staff.
      --Western Washington Timber-Fish-Wildlife Program--The TFW Program
            has allowed for the expansion of tribal participation in the
            state forest practice rules and regulations that have an affect
            on listed salmon populations. In fiscal year 2003 Congress
            restored TFW base funding for the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
            However, this base funding increase is being proposed to be
            discontinued in the fiscal year 2004 budget. Continued funding
            in this area is essential to facilitate tribal participation in
            monitoring, research, data analysis and adaptive management
            processes that are a cornerstone to the TFW process. We request
            Committee support for base funding level of $3,555,000 to the
            TFW fiscal year 2004 budget.
        Tribal Priority Allocation & Contract Support Costs.--The
    President's fiscal year 2004 budget calls for $2.3 billion to be
    allocated to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which is an increase of
    $65,900,000 over the fiscal year 2003 enacted level. This request
    includes $777,000,000 for Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA), a
    $2,100,000 increase over the fiscal year 2003 enacted level. Although
    the increases are a positive commitment by the Administration, they
    still fall short of providing adequate funding for critically needed
    tribal programs supported by TPA funding. TPA budget activity includes
    the majority of funding used to support on-going services at the
    ``local tribal'' level, including; law enforcement, natural resources
    management (fisheries), child welfare, housing, tribal courts and other
    tribal governmental services. TPA has not received adequate funding to
    allow tribes the resources to fully exercise self-determination and
    self-governance. Further, the small increases TPA has received over the
    past few years has not been adequate to keep pace with inflation. At a
    minimum, we request your support and endorsement in the following;
      --Support by Congress of the President's fiscal year 2004 request for
            TPA increase of $2,100,000, for a total request of $777,000,000
            for fiscal year 2004 TPA funding
        Another concern the Puyallup Tribe has with the fiscal year 2004
    budget request is the on-going issue of contract support costs. The
    President's fiscal year 2004 budget request includes $135,300,000 to
    address the Bureau of Indian Affairs continuing contract support costs
    and $0 for the Indian Self-Determination Fund to address the needs of
    tribes taking on new Bureau of Indian Affairs programs. At a minimum,
    we request your support and endorsement in the following;
      --Support by Congress of the President's fiscal year 2004 request for
            an increase in contract support cost funding of $135,300,000,
            and include a $3,000,000 request for the Indian Self-
            Determination Fund for new Bureau of Indian Affairs programs
            contracted by tribes. Full funding of Contract Support is a
            mandate towards the full realization of Self-determination and
            Self-governance.
        DHHS Indian Health Service.--Funding for the Indian Health Service
    fails to meet the needs of health services for Native Americans. The
    Puyallup Tribe has been operating their health care programs since 1976
    through the Indian Self-determination Act, Public Law 93-638. The
    Puyallup Tribal Health Authority (PTHA) is a successful ambulatory
    program that provides comprehensive ambulatory medical dental, mental
    health, drug and alcohol treatment services to an expanding population
    in Tacoma and Pierce County, Washington. In fiscal year 2002 it was the
    most productive Indian health program in the tri-state areas of
    Washington, Oregon and Idaho.
        Adequate funding for the continued operations and delivery of
    quality care is essential. PTHA, like most IHS facilities, is being
    asked to do more with less. The cost of supplies and staff increases as
    does the eligible population increases, yet funding has not kept pace.
    IHS has lost $1.9 Billion in purchasing power since 1992. Unlike
    private practice counterparts, we can not raise fees, negotiate higher
    reimbursement from insurance companies or restrict the population we
    serve. Preserving purchasing power and ensuring that medical needs are
    met must be paramount to IHS and HHS.
        Highlights of the IHS Budget request include an increase of $73
    million or a 2.5 percent increase. The Budget Request also factors in
    approximately $31 million in cost savings from administrative
    reductions. The fiscal year 2004 Budget Request for the IHS continues
    to fall short of the $250 million to just maintain current services.
    The Puyallup Tribe will submit detailed written testimony to Congress
    on the fiscal year 2004 IHS Budget.
        We request congressional support for the fiscal year 2004 IHS
    budget in the following areas:
      --Fund medical and general inflation costs, which have again reached
            double digits;
      --Fund the increased expenses due to population growth. Although AI/
            NApopulation has a 2.1 percent growth rate, growth has not been
            funded for 11 years;
      --Index Contract Care to population growth and the medical inflation
            rate. Contract care is most vulnerable to inflation since
            services are provided by vendors constrained by IHS guidelines.
            There are no IHS hospitals in the Pacific Northwest which makes
            our clinic dependent on Contract Care for necessary specialty
            referrals and hospital care.

                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe

        The Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe (Tribe) of Washington State has 200
    members. We see ourselves as a small and disadvantaged tribe. The
    Tribes remote location at the foot of the Cascade Range coupled with
    its small size places it in a position where it is unable to compete
    with larger and more affluent tribes for scarce federal resources.
    Sauk-Suiattle does not operate a casino and because of its location
    will never have that opportunity. In the 1940's and 1950's, Senators
    Jackson and Magnuson worked unsuccessfully to ensure the Sauk-Suiattle
    Indian Tribe a reservation land base within its homeland. Following the
    Land Allotment era in the United States there were still millions of
    unclaimed acres within the Tribes' traditional areas in Washington
    State. These lands were eventually transferred to other federal
    agencies and to Washington State; Sauk-Suiattle was left out and
    remained landless until 1980. In 1980 the Tribe purchased 23 acres of
    land with grant funding to provide essential housing for Tribal
    members. As a small Tribe, our needs are magnified, and competition for
    resources is fierce. All Tribal operational costs are funded under
    grants and contracts, which provide less than 70 percent of need. The
    Tribe requests $10.276 Million from the Department of the Interior and
    Related Agencies' appropriations for fiscal year 2004 to support the
    following priorities:
        1. +$100,000 for Homeland Security to protect our Tribal
    communities.
        2. +$250,000 to Tribal Budget Base for Aid to Tribal Government
    operations, in the Bureau of Indian Affairs Tribal Priority Allocation
    line item including 100 percent Contract Support Costs.
        3. +$100,000 to Education in the BIA Education Program Account.
        4. +$450,000 to study the Mountain Goat herds depletion in the
    Northern Cascades including a 3 year study on the causes and action
    needed to correct the decline.
        5. +$200,000 to BIA Law Enforcement, for additional program
    operations, salary increases, equipment, training, and jail contract
    funds. To be added to the BIA TPA, Public Safety and Justice, Law
    Enforcement Tribal Agency Account.
        6. +$100,000 to restore and enhance the Sauk-Suiattle cemetery
    damaged by the United States Navy training in 1997.
        7. +$1.301 million. For the Northwest Intertribal Court System to
    provide court related services to nine tribes and for a regional
    appellate court system.
        Other requests.--+$100,000 to conduct a Comprehensive Needs
    Assessment of the Sauk-Suiattle membership. This is requested as a one-
    time non-recurring cost to TPA, BIA. +$350,000 for Cultural Research
    funding for anthropological and archaeological studies specific to
    Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe. No research studies, published or
    unpublished, exist on the Sauk-Suiattle. This is needed to preserve
    Tribal history, cultural preservation, documentation and protection of
    historical and sacred sites, identification of burial grounds, and to
    restore language. +$575,000 to develop economic enterprises for the
    Tribe with funding to be added to BIA Tribal Government Account;
    +$100,000 to Tribal Base for Indian Child Welfare for additional staff,
    program enhancements, program resources, and the development of a much
    needed short term emergency placement home for foster children, added
    in the BIA, TPA for Human Services, ICWA Account. +$50,000 to Tribal
    Housing Base Budget for HIP and administrative management. +$100,000 to
    finally establish title, responsibility and ownership of tribal
    allotments, Tenas Creek Cemetery, and Suiattle Cemetery; and, then to
    place those allotments that are Tribal property under Tribal management
    through Public Law 93-638. The multiple jurisdiction and joint
    responsibilities that currently exists between the Sauk-Suiattle Tribe,
    the U.S. Forest Service and the BIA, need to be clarified. (Mitigating
    settlement has not yet been achieved from damages caused by the US
    Navy's use of the Suiattle Cemetery for training maneuvers in 1997).
    +$5.5 Mil for planning and acquisition of lands and the construction of
    homes and to protect the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribes' Natural
    Resources, Gathering, Hunting and Fishing Areas. To maintain access to
    all Rights without infringements.

                          PRIORITY REQUESTS-NARRATIVE

        1. Homeland Security.--Tribes are not funded to provide essential
    homeland security measures, including protection of drinking water
    sources, public safety, and emergency planning. Current funding is
    allocated to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the
    Department of Defense, with no allocation to Tribal governments. We
    request $100,000 new funding for this initiative.
        2. Increase in Core Tribal Government Infrastructure.--Sauk-
    Suiattle currently receives a paltry $160,000 in recurring funding to
    conduct all aspects of Tribal government, including the Legislative
    Body, Natural Resources, Tribal Court and all Social Services and
    Education programs. The Tribe requests an additional $250,000
    appropriation increase above the $160,000 allocated to the Sauk-
    Suiattle Indian Tribe through the BIA Tribal Priority Allocations,
    Tribal Government, Other Aid to Tribal Government Budget Base. To
    strengthen its position to maintain a stable government, these
    additional funds would employ or purchase legal assistance, a grant &
    contracts manager, and a business planner & developer, to assist in the
    protection of the Tribes' natural resources, increase Tribal court
    capacity beyond the current four (4) hours per month, and employ staff
    support for Tribal governmental activities. This includes the
    replacement of federal excess property, government office equipment and
    furnishings that the Tribe has been using since the 1970's. The Tribe
    is requesting funding of the Contract Support Costs at 100 percent.
        3. Education.--The Tribes' current funding from the BIA includes
    less than $4,000 for higher education. This funding is totally
    inadequate and provides for very little educational assistance to the
    Tribal members. The Tribe requests that BIA Education funding be
    increased by $100,000 to provide educational opportunities to our Sauk-
    Suiattle Tribal members, so that we do not leave anyone behind.
        4. Mountain Goat Herd Study.--For the restoration of the mountain
    goat herds which have been depleted in the Northern Cascades. The
    mountain goat is integral to the cultural heritage of the Tribe. It is
    a Tribal resource providing for the unique mountain heritage of the
    Tribes' culture. It is a source for food, cultural and ceremonial
    objects, and the origin of our cultural belief system. The last hunt by
    Tribal members was 7 years ago due to the scarcity of the mountain goat
    stock. The $450,000 requested would provide funds to conduct a three-
    year study of the goats in the Northern Cascades range, and to develop
    preservation and protection plans of this tribal resource.
        5. BIA Law Enforcement.--The Tribe continues to have inadequate law
    enforcement funding, especially in respect to Homeland Security issues.
    The Tribe needs to keep pace with current events and technology within
    its law enforcement department and is requesting $200,000 funding to
    ensure access to 911 across the nation, a minimum of one full-time law
    enforcement officer on per shift, twenty-four hours each day. Currently
    the Tribe has two forty-hour a week officers under its BIA contract.
    The Police Department requests additional funding for officer's
    salaries after the 3-year grant funding expires. This should include
    funding for all Indirect Costs to the Tribe. We just recently separated
    some functions from a joint organization and we request funding for a
    complete Fisheries Enforcement program.
        6. Suiattle Cemetery Reparation.--In 1997 the Navy destroyed the
    Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribes' cemetery. At issue here is the destruction
    of the headstone grave markers, foliage, and sentiments that were
    damaged during the training maneuvers. The grave markers were displaced
    and proper location cannot be reestablished. The title ownership and
    responsibility of this cemetery must finally be resolved.
        7. Northwest Intertribal Court System.--The ``Circuit Court ``
    System provides judicial, prosecutorial services to nine member tribes
    judicial process. The System operated on $597,584 last year with an
    unmet need of $1,300,997. Tribal courts are essential for tribal
    sovereignty & providing due process to individuals within tribal
    jurisdiction.

                                 OTHER REQUESTS

        a. Needs Assessment.--For a Comprehensive Needs Assessment of the
    Tribal community population to determine social, economic, education,
    housing, environmental, and cultural preservation needs. The Assessment
    will provide information for short and long term Tribal planning to
    enhance the delivery of coordinated services to Tribal community
    members. This request of $100,000 is for a one-time, non-recurring
    cost.
        b. Cultural Research.--$350,000 is requested to conduct formal
    archaeological studies on identified sites, including the recording of
    tribal history and culture through an anthropological study, a
    recording of our unique language, and restoration of the language. No
    formal studies exist on the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe. Knowledge about
    a Tribes' past is necessary to better understand the scale of progress,
    or lack thereof. And, in the case of the Sauk-Suiattle people we have
    defied the odds of extinction by surviving and retaining our
    traditional and cultural ways.
        c. Land Acquisition.--The Sauk-Suiattle Tribe has 200 members, 20
    houses on the reservation, one community building, and no vacant
    sustainable land to develop a Tribal economy. The Tribal unemployment
    rate is more than 65 percent. Over 80 percent of our employed tribal
    members make less than $7,000 a year. The Tribe would provide
    employment, generate Tribal revenue, decrease dependency on federal
    funds, and enable our members to return to their ancestral homelands
    with the increased land base. The Tribe is looking to protect their
    natural resources, hunting, fishing and gathering rights. We request a
    special appropriation of $5.5 million for the Tribe to purchase land.
        d. Increase Economic Development Enterprise.--The Sauk-Suiattle
    Indian Tribe is focused on developing economic self-sufficiency. Since
    these efforts require dedicated time to expedite results, the Tribe
    requires a stable economic incubation period of three years for funding
    in order to: (1) Hire a business manager/planner to focus on the
    effort, (2) Develop business plans, (3) Developing business codes, and
    (4) Initiate a viable financial enterprise(s). The Tribe has calculated
    a three-year cost of $575,000 for this project.
        e. Increase in BIA Indian Child Welfare.--Requests that $100,000 in
    appropriations be added to the Tribes' base budget of $50,000 through
    the BIA Tribal Priority Allocations, Human Services, Indian Child
    Welfare Act account for ICW program development or enhancements. The
    increased funds will go towards: (1) A proposed Emergency-Crisis
    Placement Home, (2) To develop a training program for the non-Native
    foster families serving the Tribe to better understand the Tribes'
    culture; and (3) Develop a Family Reunification program that will
    provide resources and training for families ready to reassume their
    roles as parents or are at risk of losing their families. Of our 200
    tribal members, 80 are under the age of eighteen.
        f. Housing.--Addition to the Housing Improvement Program (HIP) to
    repair and improve current houses of the Tribal members. Plus, provide
    for administrative costs to manage the housing program. The $50,000
    requested would provide the funds to cover these costs.
        g. Allotments.--There are several thousand acres of unresolved
    Tribal allotments that should be factored into study. These lands
    (5,000+ acres) were allotted to Tribal members and then taken without
    compensation in 1897 when the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest was
    created. Tribal cemeteries are located within the area of the allotted
    lands. The cemetery sites are sacred sites and need protection. We need
    documents from the U.S. Forest Service that indicate that the United
    States Government is holding these sites in trust for the Sauk-Suiattle
    Indian Tribe. This proposal is to initiate the Public Law 93-638
    management of these sites by the Tribe under the BIA trust status. This
    will address and clarify the issue of ownership.
        Regional American Indian Appropriations Priorities.--The Sauk-
    Suiattle Indian Tribe supports the following regional requests from the
    following Indian consortiums and organizations: Skagit System
    Cooperative, Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board, Northwest
    Indian Fisheries Commission, Western Washington Indian Employment and
    Training Programs, Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, and the
    Small Tribes of Western Washington organization. Plus, the U.S. Forest
    Service funding request to protect, study and manage Mountain Goat
    habitat.
        National American Indian Appropriations Priorities.--We urge that
    funding for tribes, their programs and their developments be given the
    highest priority.
        We urge your consideration of our request and appreciate the
    consideration.

                                     ______

              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 2004 request for funding from
    programs in the Department of the Interior (DOI). The Tribe requests
    that Congress:
      --Continue to provide $396,000 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 $864,000 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 Corps 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 nearly
    complete and the detailed planning activity for the balance of the
    project. 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 initiate the research necessary to allow the Corps 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. In fiscal year 2003,
    $396,000 was appropriated. 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 2004 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;
      --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 2001 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 dependent 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 Southwest Tribal Fisheries Commission

                             APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST

        The Southwest Tribal Fisheries Commission (SWTFC) respectfully
    requests a Congressional appropriation of $150,000.00 for fiscal year
    2004. The funds will be used toward achieving the goals of the SWTFC:
    (1) support the professional development and sustainable funding of
    Tribal fisheries resource management and conservation capabilities, (2)
    restore and expand Southwest (SW) tribal recreational fishing programs
    to promote economic development and conservation capacity building on
    tribal lands by providing enhanced outdoor recreation opportunities,
    and (3) build meaningful, well-coordinated partnerships with tribal,
    state, federal and local interests on issues of common concern that
    generate regional benefits.

                              BACKGROUND OF SWTFC

        The SWTFC is a non-profit organization formed in September 2002
    (using a $91,000.00 base-funding contract through the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs) to assist Indian Tribes in the southwestern United States to
    develop and organize a more comprehensive and collaborative approach to
    securing the futures of their respective fisheries management programs,
    and to generally support tribal capacity building. The SWTFC purpose is
    to mobilize Tribes to work in a more coordinated and strategic fashion
    to secure underlying recreational fishing programs and to advance
    meaningful resource management projects/initiatives that strike a
    sustainable balance between economic development and resource
    conservation on tribal lands.
        The Southwestern Tribes served by the SWTFC (presently, those
    Tribes and Pueblos within the states of Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado,
    Utah, Nevada and Southern California) hold significant lands and
    natural resources, and have become important contributors to the
    development of regional recreation economies and resource conservation
    efforts. Many of these tribes have developed and relied heavily upon
    economies that are natural resource and recreation based, with
    recreational fishing programs evolving into important components of
    tribal social fabric and economic viability. Furthermore, with tribes
    being ineligible for long established Federal-Aid conservation funding
    programs such as Pittman-Robertson, Dingell-Johnson, and Wallup/Breaux,
    tribal recreational programs provide critical revenue sources that
    enable many Tribes to fund important conservation work on their lands.
    In addition to providing high quality regional recreational fishing
    opportunities, SW tribal resources/programs also play significant roles
    in regional conservation efforts, with a number of Tribes having been
    at the forefront in the development of successful native-fish
    conservation and recovery programs for species such as the Apache
    trout, Colorado River Cutthroat trout, Rio Grande Cutthroat trout, Gila
    topminnow, Gila chub, Bonytail chub, Razorback sucker and Silvery
    minnow, to name a few.
        In developing these core enterprises and conservation programs over
    many decades, SW Indian Tribes have worked closely with the U.S. Fish &
    Wildlife Service (USFWS) and have become completely reliant upon the
    network of National Fish Hatcheries (NFH) located on Indian lands to
    support their fisheries programs. A steady shift of USFWS policy and
    budget priorities through recent decades has led to a gradual
    deterioration of tribal recreational fishing programs and the fish
    hatchery facilities upon which these programs depend. The recent (2000)
    closure of the Mescalero NFH on the Mescalero Apache Reservation (NM),
    together with increasing unmet demands for both sport and native fish
    management resources on Indian lands throughout the southwest provide
    clear evidence of this decline. These trends and challenges have
    mobilized Tribes to organize their efforts in a more strategic and
    results-oriented fashion, through the SWTFC, with state, federal and
    local partners to preserve the integrity/viability of their recreation
    and conservation programs.
        The SWTFC seeks to develop and foster these working relationships,
    while further serving as a ``capacity-building'' resource to Tribes in
    helping them to plan and develop projects and programs that, through
    time, strike a sustainable balance between recreation/resource-based
    economic development and scientifically sound conservation. In pursuing
    this ``capacity-building'' objective, the SWTFC will seek to secure the
    economic/financial underpinnings of Tribal fisheries programs while
    jointly cooperating, as appropriate, with federal, state, tribal and
    local partners to enhance professional management capabilities on
    tribal lands.
        The SWTFC will further serve as a regional ``conduit'' among its
    member-tribes and state, federal and local partners to encourage the
    development of cooperative inter-agency conservation efforts using a
    ``landscape'' approach to maximize benefits. The SWTFC intends to
    establish professional steering Committees, comprised of regional
    tribal/non-tribal experts, to formulate management standards and
    protocols that assist Tribes in developing sustainable programs and
    otherwise guide ongoing research and administrative actions. Non-tribal
    partners, like the USFWS, will benefit from the approach of having the
    SWTFC providing a vehicle to improve coordination with tribal
    governments on a regional basis, which will, in turn, result in more
    efficient and effective allocation of outside agency resources on
    programs of mutual concern.
        The SWTFC is currently complimenting and leverage existing USFWS
    technical assistance programs. With the help of USFWS, the SWTFC is
    assessing recreational/native fish management needs and contributions
    of SW Tribes. In addition, the SWTFC expects to assist with resource
    and business planning, identifying and developing feasible fish
    hatchery/rearing capabilities (including those for native-fish), and
    establishing a regional/watershed approach to developing and executing
    more effective regional conservation efforts.

                 ORGANIZATION, MANAGEMENT & BUDGET OF THE SWTFC

        The SWTFC is comprised of member Tribes who have designated tribal
    representatives to the Commission. SWTFC is governed by Officers, all
    experienced in tribal resource conservation and/or business management,
    who are duly elected from member-tribe representatives. Officers and
    management of the SWTFC will be supported by key representatives from
    regional partner agencies or interests to conduct appropriate program/
    project reviews and otherwise provide management recommendations to the
    Board.
        SWTFC operations are managed by an Executive Director who is
    experienced in both business and conservation management (B.S. Wildlife
    Ecology and M.B.A.), is a former Director of a prominent southwestern
    tribal fish & wildlife organization (White Mountain Apache Tribe, AZ),
    and has extensive hands-on experience managing tribal programs and
    working with various government agencies and private interests. At its
    inception, the SWTFC will also employ a full-time Administrative
    Assistant and a Biologist/Project Manager. The complete operating
    budget for the SWTFC (salaries, office, project support, travel,
    supplies, etc.) is projected to be $250,000.00.

                                   CONCLUSION

        The SWTFC and the Mescalero Apache Tribe are taking the lead in
    rehabilitating the fish hatchery to transform it into a viable tribal
    economic enterprise in the Southwest. Again, the SWTFC and Mescalero
    respectfully request your support. Thank you for the opportunity to
    submit written testimony before the Committee. If you have any
    questions, please contact our Washington, DC counsel Shenan Atcitty at
    202-457-7128 or John Cooley, SWTFC Executive Director, can be reached
    at 928-368-5492.

                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of the Squaxin Island Tribe

        Thank you, distinguished Members of this Subcommittee, for
    accepting written testimony from the Squaxin Island Tribe on the fiscal
    year 2004 Budgets for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Indian
    Health Service (IHS).
        The Squaxin Island Tribe, a signatory of the 1854 Medicine Creek
    Treaty, has a 2002 year-end enrollment of 736 and an on-reservation
    population of 400 living in 103 homes (18 new homes will be occupied in
    2003). Squaxin has an estimated service area population of 2,747, a
    growth rate of about 10 percent, and an unemployment rate of about 30
    percent, according to the BIA Labor Force Report. According to the
    Mason County Economic Development Council, Squaxin is the fourth
    largest employer in Mason County.
        The BIA and IHS are preparing to re-organize. We are concerned that
    this will come at the expense of diminishing tribal programs and the
    delivery of tribal services. Therefore, we ask that the Subcommittee
    include language directing both the BIA and IHS not to reduce funds
    appropriated by this Subcommittee to offset Departmental or agency
    shortfalls, to support reorganization plans, or trust reform
    initiatives without consulting with Tribal Leadership. This language
    should be included in future appropriations bills for these agencies.

                            TRIBAL SPECIFIC REQUESTS

      --$5.42 million for Tribal Infrastructure Improvements
      --$250,000 to support the design and construction of new fire station
      --$940,000 for Public Safety and Justice Department

                               REGIONAL REQUESTS

        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 NATIONAL REQUESTS

        1. Provide a minimum of $25,000,000 in BIA Tribal Priority
    Allocation (TPA) General Increase for inflationary adjustment;
        2. Provide $5 million increase for BIA and $98 million for IHS to
    fully fund Contract Support Cost (CSC);
        3. Provide $4.5 million increase to the Indian Health Service (IHS)
    Office of Tribal Self-Governance;
        4. Provide $360 million for IHS mandatory, inflation and population
    growth increase to maintain existing health care services; and,
        5. Support all requests and recommendations of the National
    Congress of American Indians and National Indian Health Board.

                   INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS--$5.42 MILLION

      ESTIMATED COSTS OF SQUAXIN ISLAND TRIBE'S INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Improvement                             Cost
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Replacement of potable water infrastructure lost to road        $773,000
     realignment............................................
    Additional potable water storage--housing and government         784,000
     area...................................................
    Additional potable water distribution lines for new              396,000
     housing................................................
    Enhance potable water system-economic development zone..         761,720
    New wastewater treatment plant-economic development zone       2,004,000
    Wastewater collection system-economic development zone..         700,000
                                                             ---------------
          Total Infrastructure Project Estimated Costs......       5,418,720
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The City of Mason County, Washington is reconstructing the access
    road to the Squaxin Island Tribe's main housing areas. A critical water
    supply main and water pumping station is in this right-of way and must
    be replaced due to the road realignment. Funding must be secured for
    this portion of the overall infrastructure improvement project by
    January 2004.

                                 REGIONAL PLAN

        The Tribe is working with the Indian Health Service and a private
    engineering firm to complete a regional infrastructure plan. We are
    partnering with local agencies and surrounding landowners to ensure
    that the plan supports both the Tribe's and its neighbors' current and
    future needs.

                                   WASTEWATER

        The topography of the Tribe's land base dictates two separate
    wastewater collection and treatment systems--one serving the housing
    and government area and one serving the economic development zone. We
    have just completed a new wastewater treatment plant that supports the
    housing and government area. Using funds from USDA, IHS, and NAHASDA,
    the new plant, a Sequencing Batch Reactor, has the capacity to handle
    forecasted demand for the next twenty years. The economic zone,
    however, needs a new treatment facility to support both immediate and
    long-term growth.

                                 DRINKING WATER

        The overall scarcity of safe drinking water points toward combining
    the Tribe's three separate water systems. Three existing wells in the
    housing and government area continue to produce only marginal
    quantities of water. Research indicates that we will have to depend on
    water from the economic zone for most of our future needs. The
    preliminary plan calls for connecting all of the Tribe's existing wells
    and up to three new wells.

                      FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 4--$250,000

        The Squaxin Island Tribe, in a joint effort with Mason County Fire
    Protection District 4, is developing a $1.0 million multi-bay manned
    facility to be located in the Kamilche area (about five miles South of
    Shelton, Washington in the 35th Legislative District and 6th
    Congressional District) to provide citizens with improved fire
    protection and emergency medical services. This current station serves
    a rural area of 52 square miles, approximate 6,700 residents and 2,500
    homes and farm homes. The new fire station will have quarters for up to
    six resident firefighters, training facilities for 100 students, room
    for four emergency vehicles, and administrative offices. It could
    eventually become the headquarters for Fire District 4.
        Fire District 4 has committed to contribute $250,000 cash toward
    construction costs, as well as waive the fire protection fees, that
    were previously paid by the Tribe, for the next 25 years.
        The Tribe has committed to contribute $750,000 in cash ($500,000
    Tribal funds are available) toward the design and construction of the
    new fire station, to contribute the land for the new facility, and to
    contribute $40,000 a year to Fire District 4 for operating costs.
        We are seeking $250,000 in appropriations to complete the funding
    for this project.

                  PUBLIC SAFETY AND JUSTICE REQUEST--$940,000

        The Squaxin Island Tribal Public Safety and Justice Department is
    dedicated to protecting lives, maintaining peace and ensuring that the
    property and resources of the Squaxin Island Tribe are protected
    through the enforcement of the Laws and Regulations set forth by the
    Squaxin Island Tribal Council. Over the past few years, the number of
    caseloads and calls have continued to increase placing a higher demand
    on the level of services needed in order to provide a program suitable
    to the needs of the growing community.
        The Squaxin Island Tribe is seeking $939,159 in additional funds to
    address the critical need to improve the services of the Squaxin Island
    Public Safety and Justice Department. The Squaxin Island Tribe is
    located in Kamilche, Washington in SE Mason County. The Squaxin Island
    Public Safety and Justice Department has continued to operate on
    funding levels insufficient to meet the needs of the department and
    community. This has resulted in operating a program at minimum capacity
    which has placed a negative impact on the service level provided to the
    Squaxin Island Community. Over the next few years the Tribe will be
    enhancing the shellfish habitat and production programs which will
    increase the demand on the water enforcement program to address issues
    of illegal harvesting. It is vitally important to ensure that natural
    resources are protected.
        The Department is in need of two (2) additional FTE officers for
    24-hour coverage in order to ensure the safety of the community is
    being met. The process of protecting the public is hampered by lack of
    officers to provide the 24-hour coverage, which is very critical in
    life and death situations. Additional funds are also needed for the
    Justice program to fund a Public Defender whom the Tribe contracts with
    to provide legal representation to the community members. The Public
    Defender funding level is inadequate to meet the increasing need of the
    Squaxin Island Community. The graph below demonstrates the increasing
    caseload over the past few years. Also listed below is a budget which
    lists the additional funds that the Tribe needs to effectively meet the
    increasing service level demand.
        The Public Safety enhancements will benefit the Squaxin Island
    Tribe by providing the Department with sufficient funds to operate a
    full-fledged program providing the 24-hour coverage needed to ensure
    that the community, property and resources are being protected
    effectively.
        The Squaxin Island Tribe envisions a culturally and economically
    strong community of self-governing, resilient people, united by shared
    values and traditions--by protecting life and maintaining the peace,
    protecting tribal property and resources, serving in a reasonable and
    prudent manner, and carrying out these responsibilities diligently,
    courteously, and with pride.

                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the United Tribes Technical College

        For thirty four years, United Tribes Technical College (UTTC) has
    been providing postsecondary vocational education, job training and
    family services to Indian students from 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 the fiscal year 2004 Department of Interior Budget.
        The request by the United Tribes Technical College Board for the
    fiscal year 2004 Bureau of Indian Affairs budget is:
      --$4 million in BIA funds for UTTC, which is $1 million over the
            fiscal year 2003 enacted level minus a .65 percent cut.
      --$4 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 2003 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. UTTC is chartered by the five
    tribes in North Dakota and operate under an Indian Self-Determination
    and Education Assistance Act contract with the BIA. This year UTTC
    enrolled 645 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 90 percent. We hope to
    enroll 2000 adult students by 2008.
        In addition, we serve 147 children in our pre-school programs and
    148 children in our Theodore Jamerson Elementary school, bringing the
    population for whom we provide direct services to 940.
        UTTC Course Offerings and Partnerships with Other Educational
    Institutions.--UTTC offers 14 vocational/technical programs and awards
    a total of 24 two-year degree and one-year certificates. The North
    Central Association of Colleges and Schools is the accrediting body for
    UTTC. UTTC was accredited again in 2001 for the longest period of time
    allowable--ten years or until 2011--and with no 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
      --On-Line Education
      --Nutrition and Food Services
      --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 We received assistance through Indian
    Health Service to establish the only degree granting Injury Prevention
    program in the nation. Injuries are the number one cause of mortality
    among Native people for ages 1-44 and the third for overall death
    rates. IHS spends more than $150 million annually for the treatment of
    non-fatal injuries and treatment of injuries is the largest expenditure
    of IHS contract health funds. (IHS fiscal year 2004 Budget
    Justification).
        --On-Line Education.--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, and plan to serve
    rural-based Indian Tribes. 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 that translate into higher income earning potential for
    graduates.
        --Nutrition and Food Services.--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 Food Services
    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 Food Services 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. UTTC has published and
    made available tribal food guides to our on-campus community and to
    tribes.
        --Tribal Government Management/Tourism.--Another of our new
    programs 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 are partnering with three other tribal colleges (Sitting
    Bull, Fort Berthold, and Turtle Mountain) in this offering. The
    development of the tribal tourism program was well timed to coincide
    with the national Lewis and Clark Bicentennial this year. As you may
    know, Lewis and Clark and their party spent one quarter of their
    journey in North Dakota. 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 Services and the Peabody Museum at
    Harvard University. The objects made by our students are now part of a
    major exhibition in the Great Hall at Monticello 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.
        Economic Development Administration funding was made available to
    open a ``University Center.'' The Center is used to help create
    economic development opportunities in tribal communities. While most
    states have such centers, this center is the first ever 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 one to three years for
    admittance. New housing must be built to accommodate those on the
    waiting list as well as to increase enrollment. Enrollment for the
    2002-2003 academic year has increased by 31 percent. In order to
    accommodate the enrollment increase, UTTC partnered with local renters
    and the Burleigh County Housing Authority. Approximately 40 students
    and their dependents were housed off campus. The demand for additional
    housing also presents challenges for transportation, cafeteria,
    maintenance and other services.
        UTTC is building a new 86-bed single-student dormitory on campus.
    UTTC formed a unique strategic alliance with the U.S. Department of
    Education, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the American Indian
    College Fund, the Shakopee Mdwekanton Sioux Tribe and other sources to
    build the dormitory. The new dorm will help UTTC address its housing
    shortage. It will however create new challenges such as shortages in
    classroom, office and other support facility space.
        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.
        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 (EDA, USDA, DOEd) to raise $1 million to renovate a
    building to create a new student life and technology center.
        Thank you for your consideration of our request. We cannot survive
    without he basic vocational education funds that come through the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Wind River Irrigation Project in Wyoming

        Construction of Bureau of Indian Affairs-administered Wind River
    Irrigation Project (WRIP) began in 1905 as authorized by congressional
    legislation. Although construction continued off and on for over 50
    years, the project was never completed. Currently, the WRIP is in a
    condition of extreme disrepair. Very little maintenance has been
    performed on the WRIP in the years since construction ceased. Studies
    commissioned by both the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes
    (Tribes) and the State of Wyoming, as well as BIA reports show that the
    WRIP has over $50 million in deferred maintenance.
        As the result of decades of neglect, many essential water delivery
    structures in the WRIP are in immediate danger of failing. As these
    structures fail, large portions of the WRIP will be left without water.
    Such failure will have a huge impact not just on the livelihoods of
    agricultural producers left without water, but also on the entire
    Fremont County economy. A study conducted in 2000 concluded that the
    WRIP has a maximum life of 5 to 10 years if a large-scale
    rehabilitation effort is not undertaken.
        The poor overall condition of the WRIP results in extremely
    inefficient use of water. Irrigation efficiencies in the WRIP range
    from 45 percent to as low as 27 percent. The inefficiency of the WRIP
    results in water shortages, even during normal or wet years. Water
    supply modeling done as part of a recent basin-wide planning effort
    undertaken by the State of Wyoming showed that the WRIP has one of the
    largest unmet needs of any irrigation project in the Wind River basin,
    even during wet years. During the past three years of drought, water
    shortages in the WRIP have been especially severe.
        The poor condition and water delivery in the WRIP leaves farmers in
    the WRIP at a competitive disadvantage with other farmers in the region
    who irrigate in nearby, better-funded irrigation districts (Midvale
    Irrigation District, Riverton Valley Irrigation District, and Leclair
    Irrigation District).
        To solve the problems on the Wind River Irrigation Project, a
    large-scale rehabilitation effort must be undertaken. The Tribes have
    completed numerous studies on WRIP rehabilitation, much of the
    engineering work has been done, and all that remains is to secure
    funding. The total cost of WRIP rehabilitation, based on studies that
    are several years old, is over $50 million. This cost is currently
    being updated. Completing a rehabilitation project of this magnitude
    will likely require a combination of federal and state funding. During
    the past legislative session, the Tribes worked closely with Wyoming
    legislators to pass into law a bill that will allow the Tribes to
    receive funding for water projects through the Wyoming Water
    Development Commission. In the months since the passage of this bill,
    the Wyoming Water Development Commission has been working closely with
    the Tribes to prepare an application for funds to help rehabilitate the
    WRIP.
        We sincerely hope that Congress will be able to appropriate funds
    in the amount of $3.5 million per year over a three year period on a
    non-reimbursable basis for rehabilitation of the Wind River Irrigation
    Project--to begin initial and emergency rehabilitation. These funds
    should be in addition to funds normally allocated to the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs for their irrigation projects. With a combination of
    federal and state funding, the WRIP can be rehabilitated for the
    benefit of everyone in the Wind River Basin.

                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Enewetak/Ujelang Local Government Council

        Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of this Subcommittee: Thank
    you for providing this opportunity to the people of Enewetak to
    describe issues that relate to our ability to live on Enewetak Atoll.
    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 health care program; 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; and, monitoring of
    the Runit dome.
        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, an agriculture
    rehabilitation program, and the operation of a vessel.
        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 has 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), $850,000; transportation costs
    (labor, fuel, operations and maintenance), $300,000. Included in the
    three foregoing categories is the cost of administration of the
    program. Due to the foregoing, we respectfully request that this
    committee increase the amount requested by the Administration for this
    program for fiscal year 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.
    Alternatively, the Congress could direct the U.S. Court of Appeal for
    the Federal Circuit to review and certify, or to reject in whole or in
    part, the award of the Tribunal similar to an existing Congressional
    provision that deals with judgments of the Marshall Islands courts
    against the U.S. arising from its administration of the Marshall
    Islands under the U.N. Trusteeship.
        It is important to note that 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 56 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, radiological
    remediation and soil and plant rehabilitation are required. 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.
        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.

                       FUNDING OF THE HEALTH CARE PROGRAM

        In Section 102 of Public Law 96-205, the U.S. Congress, authorized
    a program of medical care and treatment for the peoples of the atolls
    of Bikini, Enewetak, Rongelap, Utrik and other Marshallese determined
    to be affected as a result of the U.S. Nuclear Testing Program in the
    Marshall Islands. The funding for such program continued, in an amount
    of $2 million annually for 15 years, under the terms of Article II
    Section 1(a) of the Agreement Between the Government of the United
    States and the Government of the Marshall Islands for the
    Implementation of Section 177 of the Compact of Free Association,
    Public Law 99-239. The funding for such medical care and treatment
    program expired as of October 21, 2001. The RMI has provided funding
    for the continuation of this program from the Section 177 trust fund.
    However, that fund is now so depleted that the RMI cannot fund the
    program in the future. The Congress in Section 104 of Public Law 96-
    205, intended such medical care and treatment program to continue
    unless terminated by the express approval of the Congress. Congress has
    not approved termination. The program needs to continue and the funding
    needs to be increased to $4 million annually to provide a medical
    safety net for the people of the 4 atolls and other Marshallese
    determined to have been affected by nuclear testing. Even at the $4
    million level, the program will only be able to expend $28 per person
    per month for the program costs. The $4 million should include an
    inflation factor by being tied to the U.S. medical CPI.
        We would now like to describe the food and agriculture program:

                     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 that brings us the imported
    food, and an operation and maintenance component conducted out of a
    facility on Enewetak known as the field station.
        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.
        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.
        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.
        Field Station.--Operation and maintenance of the entire program is
    conducted out of a facility referred to as 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.

                                   CONCLUSION

        We thank the Congress for its past support and its consideration of
    the items described above.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center

        Our organization provides the following recommendation and input
    for the fiscal year 2004 Department of the Interior and Related
    Agencies Appropriations bill. Our Center is cognizant of the need for
    public land acquisition in our local region and the priorities that are
    important, given limited funding. This letter provides our fiscal year
    2004 funding recommendations for Land and Water Conservation Fund
    projects and the Conservation Trust Fund. We urge that $450 million be
    allocated to the Federal LWCF program in fiscal year 2004. We
    specifically recommend $3.7 million for the National Park Service to
    fund the acquisition of the unique Ackerson Meadow property and to also
    acquire the Hazel Green property, and $2 million to purchase Mojave
    National Preserve inholdings. We recommend $2.5 million for the U.S.
    Forest Service to acquire wilderness inholdings in Northern California.
    We recommend $2 million for the Bureau of Land Management to purchase
    wilderness inholdings in the desert lands under their management. As
    other groups have endorsed, we also agree that the Conservation Trust
    Fund should be funded at its dedicated amount of roughly $2 billion in
    fiscal year 2004.
        As you are aware, the LWCF is critically important for protecting
    important lands and at-risk resources in California and elsewhere. For
    example, in our local region, there is a 400-acre parcel of land
    (called the Ackerson Meadow property) that lies directly adjacent to
    Yosemite National Park. The forest on the Ackerson Meadow property
    contains nesting pairs of rare Great Gray Owls, and amazingly, the
    Ackerson Meadow property also contains riparian breeding habitat for
    the threatened Willow Flycatcher. The meadow system is both a wet and
    dry meadow complex that supports abundant wildflowers, ferns, and
    groundcovers, and the stream system of the property may contain rare
    Mountain Yellow-Legged Frogs. All of this is currently at risk as the
    property owners have placed the land on the open market, which could
    lead to its development and the permanent loss of an opportunity to add
    this unique and critical wildlife habitat to either Yosemite Park or
    the Stanislaus National Forest (which also abuts the property). This
    Ackerson Meadow parcel is representative of other precious, vitally
    important parcels that have national significance. Once they are
    developed or altered, the resource values that could last for countless
    generations could be forever lost.
        The following is a list of specific areas, including Ackerson
    Meadow, that deserve high priority consideration for immediate funding:

    Ackerson Meadow
        Out of the entire region that lies west and northwest of Yosemite
    National Park, there is no other public or private that provides as
    much important diversity and unique value as Ackerson Meadow. More than
    100 bird species have been documented to use the property. Rare Great
    Gray Owls nest along the meadow edge. Willow Flycatchers breed along
    one section of the stream. There are Native American sites, one old
    homestead building, and many outstanding scenic values. The property is
    currently listed for sale to any interested buyers, and the potential
    for it to be developed or converted into a cattle ranch makes the
    priority for purchase extremely high. In addition, the current property
    owner has discussed logging the property if no buyer steps forward
    soon. Such logging would directly affect the nest stands needed by the
    Great Gray Owls. These 400 acres of spectacular meadow and forest could
    be purchased for $2,500,000 from the present owners and managed by the
    National Park Service for its outstanding wildlife values. If the
    property, instead, sold to developers or as a cattle ranch, the
    potential for any public land purchase would plummet, while any future
    purchase price would correspondingly climb dramatically.

    Wilderness Inholdings on Forest Service Land within California
        Each year, numerous private parcels that are inholdings within
    designated Wilderness are offered for sale by the landowner. For fiscal
    year 2004, we request $2,5000,000 to purchase available inholdings now
    available, including two properties in the Trinity Alps Wilderness area
    and in the Marble Mountains Wilderness Area. Both wilderness areas
    provide important habitat for wildlife and recreational opportunities
    to the public. The Pacific Crest Trail runs through both wilderness
    areas. The Trinity Alps wilderness is especially popular with hikers,
    offering numerous loop trails extending off the Pacific Crest Trail.
    The Marble Mountains Wilderness Area is known for its diverse forests
    of tanbark oak, madrone, Douglas fir, foxtail pine, and mountain
    hemlock. The private lands in the Trinity Alps and Marble Mountain
    areas represent only a small fraction of the California Forest
    inholdings that will be put on the market for sale in the coming years.
    Annual funding allocated specifically for critical forest inholdings
    would allow the Forest Service to purchase land on a prioritized need
    basis to prevent development of lands and protect areas of significant
    ecological value.

    Wilderness Inholdings on BLM lands within the Desert Region of
            California
        In southern California, the BLM Desert District manages 65
    individual wilderness areas throughout the California desert. Hundreds
    of land acquisition opportunities exist among the 65 wilderness areas
    the BLM manages. Due to the numerous important ecosystems and habitats
    of these areas, the BLM would like an annual appropriation of
    $2,000,000 to purchase critical inholdings. For every $1,000,000
    allocated, 1,500 acres of land can be acquired and protected. New
    opportunities arise each year as landowners place their property on the
    market. Some properties have more urgent funding needs and some
    properties are of greater ecological significance. With an annual
    funding allocation for critical inholdings, the BLM will be able to
    acquire and protect the most sensitive lands in the wilderness areas
    each year.

    Mojave National Preserve Inholdings
        The Mojave National Preserve, managed by the National Park Service,
    is a diverse ecosystem that contains sand dunes, Joshua tree forests,
    desert washes, dry lakes, and mile-high mountains. The landscape
    provides habitat to a wide variety of animals including bighorn sheep,
    coyotes, iguanas, wild burros, and the threatened desert tortoise.
    Numerous private inholdings exist within the National Preserve, some of
    which have proposed development by the owners in the past. As these
    inholdings become available for purchase it is essential that they be
    acquired for preservation to prevent development and critical habitat
    loss. The purchase of critical inholdings within the Mojave National
    Preserve is an ongoing project and we request funding of $2,000,000 for
    fiscal year 2004. Funding will be used to secure the most urgent
    properties first.

    Hazel Green Property--adjacent to Yosemite National Park
        Yosemite, made famous by its spectacular mountain and valley
    scenery and its groves of giant Sequoia trees, is one of America's
    oldest and best-loved national parks. The Hazel Green property, located
    on the western boundary of the park, is targeted for hotel development.
    Acquiring the Hazel Green property will help realize the transportation
    components of the Yosemite Valley plan, which is to reduce traffic
    congestion and crowding. The property will be listed with a local real
    estate agent shortly so funding of $1,200,000 for fiscal year 2004 is
    needed to acquire these lands.
        All of the properties described above provide important values that
    should be maintained in public ownership. Prices will never be lower in
    the future, and the threats to many of these areas make acquisition
    especially timely.
                                     ______

                     Prepared Statement of Audubon New York

        Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on behalf of
    Audubon New York, the State program of the National Audubon Society. My
    name is David J. Miller, the Executive Director of the organization
    that promotes the protection and proper management of birds, other
    wildlife and their habitats through advocacy and education. I am
    testifying in support of the Conservation Trust Fund, which should be
    fully funded at its dedicated level for fiscal year 2004, $2.08
    billion. My primary reason for submitting this testimony is to
    respectfully request an allocation of $200 million for the stateside
    Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and $125 million for State
    Wildlife Grants.
        Your predecessors in the Congress had a simple, but brilliant, idea
    in the mid-1960's. They recognized that non-renewable resources, oil
    and gas, were being depleted on the Outer Continental Shelf, and
    billions of dollars of revenue were being realized by the Federal
    government through leases authorizing the exploration and removal of
    these commodities. About this time, a report had been issued by the
    Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, chaired by Laurence
    Rockefeller, which documented the need for quality and accessible
    outdoor recreation and recommended a funding source be identified so
    that other non-renewable resources could be safeguarded for their
    natural attributes and/or for their recreational value. A bi-partisan
    effort resulted in the creation of the Land and Water Conservation Fund
    in 1964.
        The LWCF is one of the components of the Conservation Trust Fund
    and has two basic elements: a federal program and a stateside matching
    grant program. The federal side provides funds to acquire land and
    water resources for national parks, forests, wildlife refuges and other
    public land. These are important purposes and we support the continued
    availability of money for federal use. As important, however, is the
    stateside program, which provides 50 percent matching grants to states
    and localities for the planning, acquisition, development and
    improvement of parks and recreational facilities. These are enormously
    important because they provide close-to-home opportunities for people
    to refresh their spirit, to interact with family and friends and to
    enjoy the healthful attributes of the great outdoors. The funds
    supplied by the federal government to this program are most efficient
    since they are matched by state and local dollars. Since its inception
    in 1964, more than 38,000 projects have been funded and the LWCF has
    touched the lives of most every U.S. citizen in one way or another,
    whether they realize it are not.
        The fund is authorized at $900 million annually. Originally, the
    formula between federal and stateside funding provided that not less
    than 60 percent of the annual appropriation was to go to stateside
    projects. In the early 1980's, the formula was changed to allow not
    more than 40 percent for the stateside program. Obviously, this was a
    substantial change and resulted in a further strain on stateside
    projects. Stateside funding trickled in from that time until 1995, when
    the funding dried up completely.
        Recognizing the importance of the funding, New York State carried
    the ball authorizing bond acts and other funding mechanisms to continue
    state projects and 50 percent matching grants to municipalities for the
    same purposes authorized in the LWCF. The demand for these funds
    greatly exceeded their availability and in 1998 Governor George E.
    Pataki called for the creation of an Empire State Task Force for Land
    and Water Conservation Funding. Ironically, Laurence Rockefeller agreed
    to serve as the Honorary Chair since he continues to believe in the
    importance of close-to-home recreational opportunities. Audubon New
    York, and an incredible number of diverse and concerned organizations,
    responded to the Governor's call and under the direction of Parks
    Commissioner Bernadette Castro, and then Environmental Conservation
    Commissioner John Cahill, mobilized a massive grassroots campaign to
    revitalize the stateside LWCF. The result was unanimous and bipartisan
    support for the Fund by the New York Congressional delegation.
        As a result of the vocal support heard all around this Country,
    monies once more started to flow. New York received almost $2 million
    in fiscal year 2000, more than $4.5 million in fiscal year 2001 and
    more than $7 million in fiscal year 2002, and it looked like we were
    trending in the right direction. Even though the Conservation and
    Reinvestment Act (CARA) was not passed, there was a good feeling about
    the Conservation Trust Fund, which was authorized for 6 years, starting
    at $1.6 billion annually and was to grow by $160 million each year.
    Unfortunately, fiscal year 2003 served to once more take the wind out
    of the proponent's sails. Once more we started to go backwards. Once
    more we were disappointed, even though the need for respite and
    sanctuary is clearly greater today than it was in fiscal year 2001.
        We respectfully request that you stop the deterioration of these
    critical programs during a time of such need. We ask that you remember
    the vision of your predecessors in the mid 1960's. We ask that you
    fully fund the Conservation Trust Fund, recognizing that this was the
    compromise presented when CARA failed! To go backwards from the reduced
    commitment cannot be justified, especially since it represents such a
    small amount in the relative scheme of domestic spending.
        For fiscal year 2004 please provide full funding for the stateside
    LWCF. $200 million will allow the states and their municipalities to
    continue to address the recreational needs of their citizenry. This
    number is higher than the $160 million requested by the Administration,
    but it is far below the original share authorized for the states.
    Audubon New York believes that ultimately the LWCF should be funded at
    its $900 million authorized level, and that amount should be evenly
    split between the federal and stateside programs. New York has funded
    more than 1,100 projects, in every County in the State, with LWCF
    funds. Since the year 2000, approximately 60 projects have been funded
    throughout the state from eastern Long Island to the Niagara Frontier;
    from New York City to the Thousand Islands and from the Southern Tier
    to the Adirondacks. Valuable open space has been protected, ball fields
    built and trails aligned. None of these essential community amenities
    would have been available without the support of the Congress. We thank
    you for this, and we urge you to continue that good work in the future.
        The other Conservation Trust Fund program that we would like to add
    our support for today is the State Wildlife Grants program. This is
    another critical program, which provides money for wildlife
    conservation projects that stabilize, restore, enhance and protect wild
    species and their habitats. Although authorized at $150 million, the
    Administration is only recommending funding at the $60 million level.
    Audubon New York urges an appropriation in the area of $125 million. We
    struggle daily to prevent species from becoming endangered, and with
    more than 1,000 species in such danger, we desperately need the funding
    requested. The federal government needs to remain a partner in this
    effort and we implore the appropriators to recognize that it is less
    expensive to protect them today than it would be to help them recover
    tomorrow.
        I thank you for this opportunity to share the thoughts of Audubon
    New York with you. Again, we are asking for full funding for the
    Conservation Trust Fund at $2.08 billion; $200 million for the
    stateside Land and Water Conservation Fund; and $125 million for the
    State Wildlife Grants program. Let's live up to the promises and
    commitments of the past; and let's invest in our communities, families
    and children's future. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Conservation Trust Fund Coalition

        Mr. Chairman, we, the Conservation Trust Fund Coalition, are
    writing to express our support for fully funding the Conservation Trust
    Fund (also known as the ``Conservation Spending Category''), the key to
    providing adequate levels of conservation, recreation, historic
    preservation, ocean conservation, and wildlife funds at the local,
    state, and federal level.
        As a broad and diverse coalition of conservation and civic
    organizations, historic preservationists, state wildlife directors,
    advocates for marine and coastal areas, park and recreation directors,
    advocates for urban and wilderness areas, outdoor recreation and
    sporting goods industry leaders, hunters and anglers, and youth sports
    groups, we believe that the Conservation Trust Fund represents a major
    advancement in conservation spending. The programs within the Trust
    Fund encourage active lifestyles, promote smart growth, and stimulate
    the economy by investing in communities across America.
        For fiscal year 2004, we support maintaining the integrity of and
    fully funding the Conservation Trust Fund at its dedicated $2.08
    billion level. To make this possible, we respectfully urge you to
    provide sufficient 302(b) allocations to both the Interior and the
    Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations Subcommittees to
    allow them to provide full funding for portions of the Conservation
    Trust Fund within their jurisdiction without harming other important
    programs.
        We hope that you will join us by supporting the Conservation Trust
    Fund at its dedicated level, safeguarding the health and well being of
    America's communities and preserving our natural, cultural, and
    historic resources. Thank you for your consideration of this important
    matter.
                                     ______

                  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 2004 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.

                            CONSERVATION TRUST FUND

        TOC supports full funding for the Conservation Trust Fund. We
    believe that the Conservation Trust Fund represents a major advancement
    in conservation spending and urge the Subcommittee to fully fund and
    maintain the integrity of the Conservation Trust Fund at its authorized
    level of $1.56 billion in fiscal year 2004.

                           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 2004, $14.9
    million above fiscal year 2003 enacted levels.
                Consultation Program
        Each year, FWS reviews more than 62,000 federal actions under
    Section 7 consultations. TOC requests that the Subcommittee increase
    funding by $8 million to $56 million in fiscal year 2004 to ensure
    timely completion of these consultations.
                Recovery Program
        TOC is extremely concerned about the Administration's proposed $2.4
    million cut to the endangered species recovery program. We appreciate
    the Subcommittee providing a modest increase in fiscal year 2003 and
    urge an additional increase be provided in fiscal year 2004. Within
    this increase, TOC respectfully requests the committee specifically
    earmark funds for the southern sea otter.
        The southern sea otter was listed as threatened under the
    Endangered Species Act in 1977. The current population has suffered
    significant declines in six out of the last seven years. Necropsy data
    indicates that nearly 40 percent of otters examined had an infection at
    the time of death. TOC respectfully requests $500,000 in fiscal year
    2004 to produce an epidemiology plan, conduct a health assessment
    workshop, and support the scientific research recommended by the
    Southern Sea Otter Working Group.

    National Wildlife Refuge System--Coral Reef Conservation
        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 overutilization 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, the Department's budget is
    grossly inadequate to properly manage, monitor and protect the over two
    million acres of coral reefs under its jurisdiction. TOC respectfully
    requests an additional $1.5 million in fiscal year 2004 be directed 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.

    Manatee Law Enforcement
        TOC urges the Subcommittee to continue funding manatee law
    enforcement in fiscal year 2004. Heightened law enforcement efforts are
    necessary to protected the endangered Florida manatee and curtail
    motorboat 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. While we support the
    Administration's proposed increase of $500,000 we ask for an additional
    $500,000 to promote recovery and minimize human caused mortalities
    within federally designated manatee refuges and sanctuary areas.

    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 the physical
    and 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. he National Invasive Species Act
    (Public Law 104-332) authorizes $2.5 million for the FWS to eliminate
    this source of aquatic invasives. We appreciate the Subcommittee's past
    support and urge the full $2.5 million be provided in fiscal year 2004
    to help develop and demonstrate environmentally sound ballast water
    treatment technologies.

                             NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

    Buck Island Reef National Monument, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands
        The Buck Island Monument has expanded in size from 880 acres to
    18,135 marine acres, a twenty-fold growth. As a result, TOC
    respectfully requests an additional $1.0 million in funding in fiscal
    year 2004 for the Park Service to administer this ocean park;
    scientifically assess, monitor and protect its marine resources; and
    conduct outreach and education programs for its increased number of
    visitors.

    Virgin Islands Coral Reef National Monument, St. John, U.S. Virgin
            Islands
        TOC respectfully requests an additional $500,000 in funding in
    fiscal year 2004 to administer this new monument; scientifically
    assess, monitor, and protect its marine resources; and conduct outreach
    and education programs.

    Channel Islands National Park
        TOC respectfully requests an additional $500,000 in funding in
    fiscal year 2004 for the Channel Islands National Park. This funding is
    necessary for the Park to continue working with the State of
    California's Department of Fish and Game and NOAA's National Marine
    Sanctuary Program to protect Park resources, conduct a scientific
    assessment of the new marine reserves, and support education and
    outreach efforts for Park visitors.
        Additional funding should be also provided to improve the
    management and protection of special coral reef areas in Florida's Dry

    Tortugas National Park and Biscayne National Park.

                            U.S. GEOLOGICAL SERVICE

    Coral Reef Conservation
        TOC respectfully requests $4.5 million in fiscal year 2004 for the
    U.S. Geological Survey to support research and monitoring of coral
    reefs, particularly in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Research and monitoring
    is needed to better understand the impacts of fishing on coral reefs,
    the causes of coral diseases, and the role of marine protected areas in
    coral reef conservation.

    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 because
    only 32 percent of our estuaries and 5 percent of our ocean waters are
    monitored. The 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 NWQAP is
    absolutely essential if we are to make progress in reducing the impacts
    of excess nutrients in the marine environment.
        We greatly appreciate the Subcommittee's rejecting the
    Administration's proposed 10 percent budget cut last year and request
    $66.8 million in fiscal year 2004, $3 million above the
    Administration's fiscal year 2004 request.

    Toxics Substances Hydrology Program
        The Toxic Substances Hydrology Program provides objective
    scientific information on the behavior of toxic substances in the
    nation's hydrologic environments. The information is used to improve
    characterization and management of contaminated sites, to protect human
    and environmental health, and to reduce potential future contamination
    problems. The program is guided by reviews conducted by the National
    Research Council. We urge the committee to reject the Administration's
    proposed $2.5 million cut to this program and restore funding in fiscal
    year 2004 to the fiscal year 2002 level of $13.9 million.

                          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 moratorium
    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 historic support of this language and
    strongly supports its continued inclusion in fiscal year 2004.
        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 2004 requests.

                                     ______

                  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 2004 Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
    Appropriations bill. On behalf of the more than 200,000 members and
    supporters of TWS, a 70-year-old organization dedicated to preserving
    America's last remaining wild places, I provide below our fiscal year
    2004 funding recommendations for a number of important conservation
    programs. Our top priorities include:
      --Continuation and full funding for the Interior portion of the
            Conservation Trust Fund (Land Conservation, Preservation and
            Infrastructure Improvement Fund) at $1.56 billion;
      --Within the Conservation Trust Fund, $450 million for Land and Water
            Conservation Fund federal land acquisition; and
      --Within the Conservation Trust Fund, $150 million for the Forest
            Legacy program.
        We also urge you to maintain the integrity of both the Conservation
    Trust Fund, and of the Land and Water Conservation Fund contained
    within it.
        Adequate funding for the programs discussed below is vital to
    protect America's wild areas and environmental values, essential
    components of our American identity and our heritage. The land and our
    relationship with it infuse our history, our heroes, and our hearts. We
    hope to work with you to find the resolve and funding to protect those
    values that, like freedom itself, are a national birthright.

                            CONSERVATION TRUST FUND

        We respectfully urge the Subcommittee to provide full funding for
    its portion of the Conservation Trust Fund (CTF) at $1.56 billion for
    fiscal year 2004. In one of its great bipartisan environmental
    achievements, the Congress established the Conservation Trust Fund in
    2000 to address the chronic and severe underfunding of our nation's
    conservation, recreation, wildlife, and cultural treasures' needs.
        We thank the Subcommittee for providing the full dedicated for CTF
    programs under the jurisdiction of the Interior Appropriations
    Subcommittee for fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002. However, we are
    troubled by the drop of over $400 million in total CTF funding in the
    final fiscal year 2003 Omnibus appropriations bill, and by the cut of
    nearly $600 million in the President's fiscal year 2004 budget. We
    strongly urge you to maintain Congress' commitment to the CTF for
    fiscal year 2004 by providing the dedicated funding level of $1.56
    billion for Interior appropriations programs.
        Additionally, Congress should reject the proposal in the
    President's budget to erode the fund's original purposes by cutting
    funding for its authorized programs, such as the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund and State and Tribal Wildlife grants, while adding
    funding for new programs such as the poorly-defined Cooperative
    Conservation Initiative.
        Land and Water Conservation Fund.--Within the CTF, we urge the
    Subcommittee to reject the Administration's proposal for the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), and instead to provide at least $650
    million for LWCF's original, authorized programs, including $450
    million for Federal Land Acquisition. For decades, LWCF has been a
    premier tool to fund two things: federal land acquisition and a state
    assistance program. This year, in an attempt to make LWCF look full,
    the Administration shoehorns in numerous additional unrelated programs.
    This was done to mask cuts of over 50 percent in real land acquisition.
    Funding in the President's Budget for National Park Service, Fish and
    Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service
    land acquisition is cut from a combined total of $429 million enacted
    in fiscal year 2002 to $187 million proposed for fiscal year 2004.
    Americans have long relied on federal land acquisition to protect and
    complete its parks, forests and refuges, and the Administration's cuts
    would result in smaller, more degraded lands and fewer recreation
    experiences--and the words ``Land and Water Conservation Fund'' would
    lose the meaning they have had since 1965.
        We specifically recommend LWCF federal land acquisition funding for
    24 priority projects for fiscal year 2004, listed in Appendix A.
    Federal acquisition of these lands is necessary to address grave,
    immediate environmental threats with the potential for permanent
    damage, and to help protect and restore wildlands of significance (e.g.
    those with rare ecosystems, endangered species, and/or other special
    qualities).
        Forest Legacy.--We also recommend $150 million within the CTF for
    Forest Legacy. Authorized by Congress in 1990, the Forest Legacy
    program offers the opportunity for the federal government to work in
    partnership with states, local communities and private landowners to
    ensure that the multiple benefits found on forest lands--economic
    sustainability, wildlife habitat protection, and recreational
    opportunities--are secured for future generations. Since its inception,
    Forest Legacy has proven an extremely popular means to combat the loss
    of privately-owned timberlands to development, but is currently unable
    to meet national demand. In fiscal year 2003, states submitted funding
    requests totaling over $300 million in Forest Legacy funding, yet less
    than a third of this amount was appropriated. In addition, several
    other states are in the process of enrolling in the program in the near
    future, increasing the demand for funding. We specifically recommend
    Forest Legacy funding for 11 priority projects, listed in Table B
    below.

                ADDITIONAL AGENCY APPROPRIATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS

        U.S. Forest Service.--Forest Service lands provide a vast array of
    popular 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 this, many important
    conservation programs that help maintain Forest Service lands'
    recreational and ecological components are chronically underfunded,
    while programs that harm our national forests have traditionally
    received too much funding. We urge the Subcommittee to provide $76
    million for Wildlife, Fish, Watershed and Atmospheric Sciences
    Research, approximately a $25 million increase over the fiscal year
    2004 President's Budget request. We also recommend $285 million for the
    Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness Program, an increase of $30
    million, as well as $200 million for the Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat
    Management Program, an increase of $65 million.
        We are concerned that the proposed fiscal year 2004 President's
    Budget's for the Forest Service Research and Development account falls
    $8 million short of the $260 million needed to prevent the further
    erosion of scientific capability within the Forest Service.
    Additionally, TWS strongly urges the Subcommittee to restore funding to
    the Rehabilitation and Restoration program at the fiscal year 2001
    level of $142 million; and to fund Deferred Maintenance and
    Infrastructure Improvement at the fiscal year 2002 level of $60
    million. These two funds are critically important for mitigating
    environmental impacts after severe wildland fire events and for
    reducing the $8 billion road maintenance backlog. Finally, we request
    that you avoid endorsing the President's proposal to reduce the number
    of wildland firefighting crews and engines by 53 percent, but instead
    at least double the wildland fire budget to prepare for a fire season
    similar to 2000 or 2002.
        Fish and Wildlife Service.--The National Wildlife Refuge System
    passes a significant milestone when it celebrates its 100th anniversary
    this year. Unfortunately, the Refuge system is suffering under a nearly
    $2 billion backlog in operations and maintenance. TWS gratefully
    acknowledges the Subcommittee's faithful and consistent efforts to
    improve funding for the system, and we look forward to continuing our
    collaborative work with the Subcommitee towards additional
    improvements. We recommend $700 million for the Operations and
    Maintenance Program, an increase of $298 million above the President's
    Budget, to carry out necessary repairs, fund new staff positions, and
    support development of Comprehensive Conservation Plans.
        National Park Service.--TWS is grateful for the President's
    continued support of the National Resource Challenge, but an increase
    of $12.4 million is needed in this fifth and critical year of this
    program to bring its funding level to $80 million. We also recommend $6
    million for the Soundscape program, to assist the National Park Service
    (NPS) in preserving and/or restoring the natural soundscapes within the
    parks. Additionally, as a member of the steering committee for
    Americans for Our National Parks, we recommend an additional $178
    million over the enacted fiscal year 2003 levels in Park Operations to
    adequately protect the natural and cultural resources of the National
    Park system, bringing the total NPS Operations appropriation to $1.63
    billion.
        In addition, TWS continues to recommend the formation of a
    Wilderness Branch within NPS, as the agency is the conservator of the
    largest total area of wilderness in the world.
        Bureau of Land Management.--The President's fiscal year 2004 Budget
    proposes $43 million for the National Landscape Conservation System
    (NLCS), including an increase of $2.7 million for operations. This
    funding increase is critical to protect the cultural and ecological
    ``crown jewels'' of the BLM system: 15 National Monuments, 15 National
    Conservation Areas, hundreds of wilderness areas and wilderness study
    areas and numerous segments of Wild and Scenic Rivers and National and
    Scenic Trails. We also suggest the Subcommittee work with the agency
    and other interests to allocate funding for specific resource
    protection priorities at NLCS units.
        For BLM overall, TWS recommends an increase of $2 million for
    Resource Management Planning above the fiscal year 2004 President's
    Budget request of $48 million, to ensure effective public participation
    and outreach for new planning starts.
        We also endorse the Interior Department's multi-agency Invasive
    Species Initiative, and urge the Subcommittee to provide the full $9
    million increase for its programs proposed in the fiscal year 2004
    President's Budget.

                            TABLE A.--RECOMMENDED FEDERAL LWCF PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
                                                [In millions of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                        Fiscal year
                     Agency                             State                    Project name           2004 funding
                                                                                                          request
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    BLM....................................  Arizona...................  Grand Canyon Parashant                1.2
                                                                          National Monument.
                                             California................  California Desert Wilderness          2
                                                                          Inholdings.
                                             Utah......................  Grand Staircase Escalante/            1
                                                                          Calf Creek.
    USFS...................................  Alaska....................  Cube Cove--Admiralty Island.          4
                                             Alaska....................  Tongass--North Knig Slough..           .510
                                             Alaska....................  Unuk River--Misty Fjords               .400
                                                                          Nat. Monument.
                                             California................  California Wilderness                 2.5
                                                                          Inholdings.
                                             Florida...................  Pinhook Swamp/Suwanee                 2.5
                                                                          Wildlife Corridor.
                                             Georgia...................  Chattahoochee NF--Etowah              1.2
                                                                          River Basin.
                                             Georgia...................  Chattahoochee NF--Springer             .700
                                                                          Mountain.
                                             Georgia...................  Chattahoochee NF--Thrower             1.25
                                                                          Tract.
                                             Idaho.....................  Payette NF--Thunder Mtn.              5
                                                                          Area--River of No Returns.
                                             Montana...................  Gallatin National Forest--            2
                                                                          Taylor Fork.
                                             New Mex...................  Gila Wilderness--Margaret              .075
                                                                          Stewart Purchase.
                                             New Mex...................  Gila Wilderness--Middle                .175
                                                                          Percha Purchase.
                                             New Mex...................  Gila Wilderness--Spring                .340
                                                                          Canyon Purchase.
                                             New Mex...................  Kelly Purchase..............           .320
                                             N. Dakota.................  Griffin Ranch--Bullion Butte          1.5
                                                                          Roadless Area.
                                             Vermont...................  Vermont Long Trail                    0.20
                                                                          Additions--Bolton Mt..
                                             Washington................  Cascade Crest...............          8
    NPS....................................  California................  Mojave National Preserve              2
                                                                          Inholdings.
                                             California................  Yosemite National Park--              1.2
                                                                          Hazel Green Property.
                                             Texas.....................  Big Thicket National                  6
                                                                          Preserve.
    NPS/FWS................................  Colorado..................  Baca Ranch/Great Sand Dunes.         12
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        TABLE B.--RECOMMENDED FOREST LEGACY PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Fiscal year
                   State                      Project name      2004 funding
                                                                   request
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Maine..............................  Boundary Mountains to          5
                                          Nahmakanta.
                                         Katahdin Forest......          8
                                         Machias River........          2
                                         Tumbledown Mtn./Mt.            4.3
                                          Blue/Bald Mtn..
    New Hampshire......................  13-Mile Woods........          2
    New York...........................  Moose River Corridor.          2
                                         Sable Highlands-               5
                                          Domtar.
                                         Tahawus-National Lead          3.5
    Vermont............................  Chittenden County              4.15
                                          Uplands.
                                         Mallory Brook........          0.25
                                         Northeast Kingdom IP           1.5
                                          Realty Lands.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Anza-Borrego Foundation

        The Anza-Borrego Foundation thanks you for this opportunity to
    provide recommendations and comments on the fiscal year 2004 Department
    of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. On behalf of
    the more than 1,000 members and supporters of the Anza-Borrego
    Foundation, an organization dedicated to the acquisition of lands for
    Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, the largest contiguous state park in
    the nature, I provide below our fiscal year 2004 funding
    recommendations for the Land and Water Conservation Fund projects and
    the Conservation Trust Fund.
        Our top priorities include:
      --Support of the allocation of $450 million to the federal LWCF land
            acquisition program in fiscal year 2004.
      --Support of funding the Conservation Trust Fund (commonly known as
            CARA ``Lite'' or the Conservation Spending Category) at its
            dedicated amount of $2.08 billion in fiscal year 2004.
      --We specifically recommend $4 million for the Bureau of Land
            Management to fund the California Desert Wilderness Inholdings
            and Mojave National Preserve Inholdings federal LWCF projects.
            (Please see below.)
        The Anza-Borrego Foundation (ABF) is a small regional land trust
    that acquires land through donation or purchase from willing sellers
    that benefits Anza-Borrego Desert State Park. ABF was first organized
    in 1967 at the request of the California State Parks Commission to deal
    with the issue of nearly 60,000 acres of inholdings in the 600,000-acre
    Anza-Borrego Desert State Park. In our 36 years of business, this small
    but mighty foundation has acquired and transferred to the Park over
    30,000 acres of inholdings and significant park resource lands.
        ABF and the Anza-Borrego Desert State Park have benefited from
    major funding from the stateside LWCF. In 2001, with the help of ABF,
    the Park acquired 2,675 acres of the Lucky 5 Ranch. This acquisition
    links two state parks, Rancho Cuyamaca State Park and Anza-Borrego
    Desert State Park, thus creating a vital wildlife corridor between
    these two publicly held lands. Currently California State Parks is
    seeking additional stateside LWCF funding for the acquisition of 3,339
    acres of the Vallecito Ranch. Here again, this acquisition will link
    BLM lands to the south with existing state park land to the north. Both
    of these acquisitions possess untold natural and cultural resources
    including prime habitat for the federally listed endangered Peninsular
    bighorn sheep.
        Although our Foundation's focus in land acquisition is local in
    scope and while this particular park has benefited only from the
    stateside LWCF sources, the Anza-Borrego Foundation actively
    participates as a partner in the broader land trust movement to protect
    California's deserts. We enthusiastically support the need to fully
    fund the federal LWCF to benefit the following California projects.
        California Desert Wilderness Inholdings.--$2 million.
        In southern California, the BLM Desert District manages 65
    individual wilderness areas throughout the California desert. These
    areas are as large as 200,000 acres and as small as 1,500 acres.
    Landscapes vary between ecosystems, ranging from mountainous high-
    altitude desert to lowland dry lakes and expansive sand dunes. The
    designated wilderness areas provide habitat to numerous species
    including bighorn sheep, bobcats, mountain lions, wild burros, gray
    foxes, fringe-toed lizards and the threatened desert tortoise. The
    Kingston Range Wilderness, home to the Banded Gila monster, is one of
    only five places in the world where this critter exists.
        Hundreds of land acquisition opportunities exist among the 65
    wilderness areas the BLM manages. Due to the numerous important
    ecosystems and habitats of these areas, the BLM would like an annual
    appropriation of $2,000,000 to purchase critical inholdings. For every
    $1,000,000 allocated, 1,500 acres of land can be acquired and
    protected. New opportunities arise each year as landowners place their
    property on the market. Some properties have more urgent funding needs
    and some properties are of greater ecological significance. With an
    annual funding allocation for critical inholdings, the BLM will be able
    to acquire and protect the most sensitive lands in the wilderness areas
    each year.
        Mojave National Preserve Inholdings.--$2 million.
        The Mojave National Preserve, managed by the National Park Service,
    is a diverse ecosystem that contains sand dunes, Joshua tree forests,
    desert washes, dry lakes, and mile-high mountains. The landscape
    provides habitat to a wide variety of animals including bighorn sheep,
    coyotes, iguanas, wild burros, and the threatened desert tortoise.
    Numerous private inholdings exist within the National Preserve, some of
    which have proposed development by the owners in the past. As these
    inholdings become available for purchase it is essential that they be
    acquired for preservation to prevent development and critical habitat
    loss. The purchase of critical inholdings within the Mojave National
    Preserve is an ongoing project and we request funding of $2,000,000 for
    fiscal year 2004. Funding will be used to secure the most urgent
    properties first.
        In conclusion, as an organization that was formed exclusively to
    acquire park inholdings, the Anza-Borrego Foundation is vitally aware
    of the significance of acquiring these inholdings to make ``whole''
    these vital publicly owned lands. We, therefore, support and recommend
    the allocations of $450 million for federal LWCF land acquisition, and
    $2.08 billion for the Conservation Trust Fund and, specifically $4
    million for the projects identified above.
        Thank you.
                                     ______

                           DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

        Prepared Statement of the American Forest and Paper Association
        he American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA) \1\ supports
    sustainable forest management on all forest lands. Principles such as
    active management, long-term forest health and sustainability, and
    local level decision-making are vital components of AF&PA's New Federal
    Forestry policy. Federally supported research and forest health
    programs are vital to achieving sustainable management on private
    forests. AF&PA supports Forest Service and Energy programs that will
    help achieve these objectives.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ AF&PA is the national trade association of the forest, pulp,
    paperboard, and wood products industry. AF&PA represents approximately
    200 member companies and related trade associations (whose memberships
    are in the thousands) which grow, harvest, and process wood and wood
    fiber; manufacture pulp, paper, and paperboard products from both
    virgin and recovered fiber; and produce solid wood products.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Congress should address the nation's forest health crisis through
    support for Hazardous Fuels Reduction, Forest Health Management, and
    Forest Health Research Initiatives. AF&PA considers the Forest Products
    program a vital means of promoting forest health and providing a stable
    supply of fiber for society. Priority research efforts include FIA;
    Forest Products, Utilization, and Process; Biobased Products and
    Bioenergy; Industries of the Future; and Systems Integration &
    Production Industrial Gasification programs. Following are specific
    funding level and program recommendations for fiscal year 2004:
              ensuring long-term forest health and sustainability
        Our nation's forestlands face a forest health crisis. Millions of
    acres of public and adjacent private forestland are at high risk to
    catastrophic wildfire, insect infestation, or disease. The President's
    Healthy Forests Initiative (HFI), building on the National Fire Plan,
    will help reduce these threats and restore the health of our nation's
    forests. The fiscal year 2004 budget needs to support these programs to
    improve forest health, reduce hazardous fuels, improve fire suppression
    efforts, and assist rural communities. Specifically, support is needed
    for:
        Hazardous Fuels Reduction.--AF&PA recommends $262.100 million for
    this program. Increased funding is needed for hazardous fuels reduction
    in order to protect resource values such as fish, wildlife, and water.
    There are significant treatment needs in all areas of the country and
    in all three condition classes. Regional allocations need to reflect
    these nationwide priorities.
        Rehabilitation and Restoration.--Rehabilitation and restoration
    work is critically important, and requires a dedicated funding source.
    AF&PA has serious concerns with the Forest Service's proposal to shift
    funds from other programs, as this will adversely affect other
    important work. Projects within this budget should focus on protecting
    soil and water quality.
        Fire Suppression Operations.--Congress needs to promptly resolve
    the chronic problem of fire suppression costs exceeding available
    funds. While the President's request of $604.580 million for fiscal
    year 2004 is a significant increase over the fiscal year 2003 budget of
    $417.964 million, it will prove to be insufficient if the nation
    experiences a future fire season like the ones in 2000 and 2002.
        Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management.--AF&PA supports the
    President's request of $134.794 million for this program, and seeks to
    ensure that important wildlife habitat and conservation programs are
    undertaken. The drawdown in the Knutson-Vandenberg (KV) fund to pay for
    wildfire suppression costs has a major impact on this and other
    programs. Approximately $170 million was borrowed from the KV Fund
    during the 2002 fire season; the Fund is now still owed a total of $433
    million. Failure to completely repay the KV Fund diminishes
    implementation of much-needed wildlife habitat, reforestation, TSI, and
    other conservation projects. In some regions, this adversely impacts
    non-essential KV projects, such as fish and wildlife programs that are
    already underfunded.
        Vegetation and Watershed Management.--AF&PA supports the
    President's request of $192.606 million for this program. This program
    should address the significant reforestation backlog, currently
    estimated at 838,066 acres. Reforestation accomplishments have steadily
    decreased while reforestation needs have increased since 1999 primarily
    due to wildfires.
        Forest Health Management.--AF&PA supports the President's request
    of $82.019 million for the overall Forest Health Management budget, but
    recommends an allocation of $44.963 million for Federal Lands and
    $37.056 million for Cooperative Lands. It is vitally important that
    programs to treat insects and disease be fully funded in order to
    protect both federal and adjacent private forests. AF&PA supports the
    concept behind the Emerging Pest and Pathogens Fund, but recommends
    greater flexibility to address the forest health crisis. Pest
    suppression funds should not be limited to new pests or pathogens as
    proposed by the Administration.
        State Fire Assistance.--AF&PA recommends $58 million for the
    program under the ``Wildland Fire Management, Fire Operations--Other''
    budget area, and $28 million under the ``State and Private Forestry,
    Cooperative Fire Assistance'' budget area. AF&PA supports these
    increases to provide States and communities with increased technical,
    financial, and strategic assistance to reduce hazardous fuels and
    enhance their capacity to implement fire protection activities.
        Watershed Forestry Assistance.--AF&PA supports the development of a
    new Watershed Forestry Assistance program, funded at $20 million. This
    program would assist States in monitoring Best Management Practices and
    would promote the beneficial relationship between good forest
    management and water quality.
        Community and Private Land Fire Assistance (CPLFA).--AF&PA
    recommends $15 million for this program, which is designed to aid
    landowners and communities in the prevention, preparation, and response
    to wildfire threats in the wildland-urban interface. This program
    directly supports the objectives of the National Fire Plan.

                            ACTIVE FOREST MANAGEMENT

        Active forest management is needed to ensure that the agency meets
    legislative mandates of promoting forest health and providing a stable
    supply of fiber for society. If the agency is to address urgent forest
    health needs and meet its responsibilities, funds must be provided for:
        Forest Products.--AF&PA recommends an increase to the total volume
    sold, to 3.0 BBF, and funding of $404 million to support this program.
    Timber sales can be an important tool to achieve forest health
    objectives. Furthermore, the timber program is one of the few Forest
    Service programs that generates revenue. The Forest Service expects to
    achieve greater program efficiencies as a result of administrative
    actions now under consideration; increased timber volume is likely to
    result. Salvage sales are an important component of the timber sale
    program as a means to treat forests following insect outbreaks, fires,
    blow down, and other natural disasters. The Salvage Sale Fund balance
    is so low, however, that Forests are unable to take advantage of
    salvage opportunities. This fund is normally replenished with proceeds
    from salvage sales; however, Congress should appropriate funding to
    rebuild the capacity of this fund. AF&PA also recommends an increase in
    timber sale pipeline funding sufficient to provide for one-half of a
    year's program in the pipeline (1.2 BBF by the end of fiscal year
    2004). Additionally, AF&PA recommends that the accomplishment
    measurement be changed from volume offered to volume sold.
        Land Management Planning.--AF&PA supports the President's request
    of $70.868 million and urges the agency to expedite forest plan
    revisions in order to stay on schedule and to ensure consistent and
    reliable management. Revision of older plans is a high priority and it
    is critical that these funds not be diverted for other planning
    purposes.
        Deferred Maintenance and Infrastructure Improvement.--AF&PA concurs
    with the findings of the Program Assessment Rating Tool, which
    highlighted significant problems with strategic planning regarding
    deferred roads maintenance. Congress should require the Forest Service
    to develop a prioritization system and complete a backlog analysis
    within one year.

                                    RESEARCH

        Research helps find innovative ways to promote and enhance forest
    sustainability and provides scientifically sound data that benefits
    both public and private forests. Congressional support is needed for:
        Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA).--AF&PA recommends $67.691
    million for FIA, which is the target funding for fiscal year 2004
    required to deliver the base federal FIA program. Funding for this
    program should include $14.8 million for State and Private Forestry,
    $6.2 million for National Forest System, and $46.691 million for Forest
    and Rangeland Research. FIA provides the forestry community with timely
    and comprehensive forest data needed to make resource allocation
    decisions. The President's request for fiscal year 2004 would severely
    hamper the program. The Forest Service should analyze the collected
    data annually in a consortium with State Foresters, universities, and
    other stakeholders, and make this data available through annual
    reports.
        Forest Products, Utilization, and Process.--AF&PA recommends
    $18.005 million for the program and suggests that the increase over the
    agency's request be allocated to the Forest Products Lab for the
    Building Durability Test Facility ($2.5 million), the Coalition for
    Advanced Housing Research ($885,000) and core functions ($1 million).
    To help promote forest sustainability, the Forest Products Lab and
    experiment stations conduct research focusing on the efficient and
    effective use of wood fiber. Unfortunately, funding for this research
    has suffered from steady erosion in budget over the last several years.
    Support is needed for the core functions of the research stations to
    address issues such as the use of small diameter wood and bioenergy
    production, and for the construction and operation of a Building
    Durability Test Facility at the Forest Products Lab to address mold and
    moisture issues. Funding is also needed for the Coalition for Advanced
    Housing Research for research on damage mitigation from natural
    disasters like floods, earthquakes and hurricanes.
        Biobased Products and Bioenergy.--AF&PA recommends $10 million for
    biobased products and bioenergy research, of which $1 million should be
    specifically appropriated for Agenda 2020. Biobased Products and
    Bioenergy research is needed to improve forest utilization, reduce U.S.
    reliance on oil, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Agenda 2020 plays
    a vital role in improving forest productivity; developing new bio-
    energy technologies with superior environmental performance;
    encouraging research in new forest-based materials and biobased
    products; and innovating new technologies for wood and wood composite
    materials.
        Forest Health Research Initiatives.--AF&PA supports the President's
    proposed increases to the Forest Service Research and Rangeland
    Research budget for new science and technologies, including the
    research targeted at invasive species and the Healthy Forests
    Initiative. AF&PA looks forward to working with Congress to identify
    priority research needs.
        Industries of the Future.--The forest product industry's Agenda
    2020 program has a proven track record for pre-competitive R&D. Working
    with National Labs, universities, and private sector concerns, the
    Agenda 2020 program undertakes research to improve the energy
    efficiencies of the wood and paper products sectors. Unfortunately, the
    Administration has proposed a 54 percent reduction in this program. We
    strongly urge the committee to fund these programs at a continuing
    level of $10.5 million for fiscal year 2004.
        Systems Integration & Production Industrial Gasification.--The
    forest products industry is engaged in the fifth year of a pre-
    competitive research program with DOE to develop power generation by
    gasifying pulping liquor and wood residuals. This new technology has
    the potential to produce a net 22 gigawatts of power from a renewable
    fuel source, displacing as much as 100 million barrels of oil per year.
    The DOE budget stops this research program mid-stream. AF&PA recommends
    that this funding level be restored to the fiscal year 2003 level of
    $14.68 million.

                                   CONCLUSION

        AF&PA appreciates the chance to provide the Subcommittee with
    testimony regarding fiscal year 2004 appropriations for the Forest
    Service. If implemented, the funding levels proposed for the programs
    listed above will help promote sustainable management and forest health
    on public and private lands.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the American Sportfishing Association

        The American Sportfishing Association (ASA) recommends the
    following as the Subcommittee considers appropriations for fiscal year
    2004. The American Sportfishing Association is a non-profit trade
    association whose 555 members include fishing tackle manufacturers,
    sport fishing retailers, boat builders, state fish and wildlife
    agencies, and the outdoor media.
        The ASA makes these recommendations on the basis of briefings with
    agency staff and from years of experience with fisheries management in
    this Nation. It is important to note that sportfishing provides $116
    billion in economic output to the economy of the United States each
    year.

    Forest Service
        The American Sportfishing Association strongly objects to the
    Forest Service budget structure as it relates to fisheries. Fusion of
    budget line items make it impossible to track specific expenditures and
    does not promote accountability to industry and state partners, the
    public, or Congress. ASA recommends the budget return to individual
    line items for each of the following areas: (1) fish; (2) wildlife; (3)
    vegetation; (4) and threatened and endangered species habitat
    management.
        ASA supports the proposed fiscal year 2004 budget of $134.8 million
    for Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management Program, but is concerned
    that this represents no real dollar increase for fiscal year 2004.
        Given a healthy fishery resource, recreational anglers and others
    in local communities depend on forest roads to access fishing and other
    related recreational areas. Many of these roads and bridges are
    deteriorating or unsafe, requiring maintenance to keep them usable and
    assure they do not contribute to poor water quality. The ASA supports
    the increase in the fiscal year 2004 budget for the roads, trails, and
    facilities program but requests an additional $50 million in funding
    for fiscal year 2004. The Forest Service has a $10 billion road
    maintenance backlog. If this backlog were eliminated, annual road
    maintenance needs would continue to be a minimum of $152 million
    annually.

    National Park Service
        The ASA supports the President's requested funding of $12.0 million
    for the Cooperative Conservation Initiative (CCI) under the Challenge
    Cost Share program. This initiative's goals to restore, conserve, and
    enhance natural resources is vital to ensuring quality and longevity of
    parks natural resources. In addition, we support the $10 million
    funding level for the traditional Land and Water Conservation Fund, but
    recommend the funds are dispersed through consultation with the states.
        The Natural Resources Challenge, a program intended to protect
    native species and habitat through resource management and performance
    measures, has yet to provide evidence of success. Without proper
    evidence that this program is accomplishing the original set of goals
    and objectives, the American Sportfishing Association cannot support
    funding of the National Resource Challenge program. Until a clear
    status of proposals can be presented and specific natural resources
    information needs are determined we no longer support funding.
        The ASA is concerned with the structure and use of Cooperative
    Ecosystem Studies Units (CESU). The Biological Resources Division (BRD)
    of USGS is the primary research arm of the Department of the Interior
    and the CESUs create competition between these research unit systems.
    As we understand it, the CESUs purpose is to coordinate and complete
    research for the Park Service with other federal and state agencies in
    areas adjacent to national parks. CESU's activities lead to a
    duplication of expenditures and efforts from federal and state agencies
    when research projects are competing for the same government funding.
    The ASA urges Congress to strictly define the need for CESUs and
    express the difference between these study units and the longstanding
    efforts of the BRD Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units of
    USGS. Unless a distinction can be made, the monies for this program
    should be transferred from the CESUs to the Biological Resources
    Division.

    Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
        The BLM manages 117,000 miles of fishable streams, 17,000 miles of
    anadromous fish habitat, and 3 million acres of fishable lakes and
    reservoirs which provide recreational anglers with high quality fishing
    opportunities, generating $390 million annually in economic benefits.
    In order to manage these resources, the Administration is requesting
    $11.87 million in fiscal year 2004 for Fisheries Management. This
    represents a program increase of $200,000 from the fiscal year 2003
    enacted budget, but remains $250,000 below the fiscal year 2002 enacted
    budget. The ASA strongly encourages Congress to increase BLM's
    fisheries budget by an additional $1 million.
        The ASA is extremely concerned that at current staffing levels, the
    Bureau's staff will be unable to meet its statutory requirements. A
    recent workforce evaluation showed that with its current level of
    staffing in fisheries, the BLM is staffed at only 50 percent of its
    1993 identified needs. Nowhere in the fiscal year 2004 budget request
    are these staffing deficiencies addressed. Already, approximately 30
    percent of existing wildlife and fisheries staff time is being directed
    to energy-related functions. The ASA strongly supports hiring
    additional fish and wildlife staff to address these critical program
    areas in the context of addressing the Nation's Energy Policy, but
    recommends these positions be directly funded from the energy account,
    rather than extracted from the existing base Wildlife Management,
    Fisheries Management or Threatened or Endangered Species Program
    budgets.
        The BLM manages over 23 million acres of land classified as
    riparian or wetland. These areas provide vital habitat components for
    hundreds of fish and wildlife species, filter sediment from water,
    afford greater water storage capacity, dissipate flood waters and offer
    excellent recreational opportunities. For these reasons and more, the
    ASA supports BLM efforts in riparian areas, but remains concerned that
    the requested $21.97 million is insufficient to meet all of the
    identified needs. The ASA requests that Congress add $3 million to this
    riparian program, and urges BLM to continue its coordination with State
    fish and wildlife agencies in order to achieve optimal program results.
        The ASA understands the fiscal year 2004 budget request for BLM
    includes $1 million to conduct long-term, large-scale, ``cumulative
    effects'' resource monitoring. We support this effort and the manner in
    which these fiscal resources are included in the appropriate programs
    including wildlife management; fisheries management; soil, air and
    water; and cultural resources. Conversely, BLM is proposing $500,000 to
    expand resource monitoring to increase its ability to assess the
    cumulative impact of oil and gas development, especially on cultural
    resources and species-at-risk. This effort is targeted at states where
    coalbed natural gas development is occurring. However in this instance,
    the funding is contained in the oil and gas account. The ASA supports
    this monitoring, but recommends the fiscal resources to conduct this
    work be allocated within the appropriate program area budget where
    biological and cultural resource expertise exists.

    Fish and Wildlife Service
        The American Sportfishing Association is pleased with the overall
    requested increases for the fiscal year 2004 budget. Despite these
    increases, there are several reductions that will cut necessary
    programs and further delay conservation efforts.
        The North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) is a
    cooperative program that matches at least 1:1 in non-federal funds, is
    incentive based and is one of the most successful programs for
    restoring wetlands for fish and wildlife habitat. With more than 2,000
    partners including communities, governments, nonprofit organizations,
    States, and academia involved in this program, the ASA strongly urges
    Congress to appropriate the full $55 million as authorized for 2004.
        The ASA is pleased with the requested increase of $25.2 million for
    operations and maintenance of the National Wildlife Refuge System. With
    a maintenance backlog of $663 million this funding can only begin to
    address the needs for maximum operation of the Service's refuges. The
    ASA also recommends continued support of the Cooperative Alliance for
    Refuge Enhancement (CARE) recommendations for eliminating the backlog
    of the Refuge Operations and Maintenance by recommending future budget
    requests.
        The ASA is pleased with the increase in funding for the Fisheries
    Program's ``Vision for the Future'' developed by partners and States.
    The ASA supports the Presidents request for $103.6 million for this
    program, which is an increase of $9.0 million from fiscal year 2003.
    Although we support this increase there are certain factors within the
    Fisheries Program with which the ASA is concerned. We support an
    increase of $5.0 million for hatchery operations, but a significant
    hatchery purpose is to produce fish for mitigation and funding for this
    is absent from the proposal. There is a statutory responsibility to
    produce fish as mitigation for Federal water projects. In support of
    the Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council's recommendations for
    the Service's Fisheries Program, the ASA urges Congress to provide an
    additional $5.0 million for the Federal fishery mitigation programs
    conducted by the Service.
        The ASA supports the proposed increase of $3.0 million for hatchery
    maintenance repairs and improvements on aging infrastructures. However,
    the ASA is concerned about the $300 million backlog of hatchery
    maintenance. We urge Congress to allocate an additional $7.0 million to
    hatchery maintenance for the fiscal year 2004 budget, and we ask
    Congress to support the President's additional request of $1.0 million
    to combat aquatic nuisance species.
        The American Sportfishing Association urges Congress to support
    Fisheries Program efforts to restore fish passage for important
    recreational fisheries. This can be accomplished by Congress
    appropriating an additional $3.0 million for elimination of barriers to
    allow fish passage and fish migration nationwide. This program is
    critical to the health of our nations waters and to keep fish habitat
    as close to its natural state as possible.
        The ASA is concerned for the continuation of the Connecticut River
    Atlantic Salmon Commission Migratory Fish Restoration Program's efforts
    to restore migratory fish in the four state basin of Connecticut,
    Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont. The ASA requests an
    additional $770,000 to the Fish and Wildlife Service for this program.
        The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program has worked with 28,700
    private landowners in restoration efforts for over 1,790,220 acres
    across the United States. The ASA supports the President's increase of
    $9.6 million, but asks Congress to add an additional $4.0 million to
    enhance the Coastal program which has also made significant
    improvements to wetlands and fishery habitats.
        One important aspect of the Service is to control invasive non-
    native species. This program needs to be a priority within the Service.
    The ASA recommends an additional $10 million for the Service's invasive
    species control programs. This problem is not only domestic but also
    international and requires additional funding to ensure the survival of
    native species.
        No single agency has the responsibility to obtain the Food and Drug
    Administration's approval for aquatic drugs and chemicals necessary to
    run federal, state and private hatcheries. To meet this critical need,
    the ASA urges Congress to make available $450,000 in new funds to be
    added to the Service's Aquatic Animal Drug Approval Partnership
    program. This program would complete this important process that state
    fish and wildlife agencies have already provided substantial funding.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Appalachian Mountain Club

        On behalf of the Appalachian Mountain Club's 90,000 members, thank
    you for the opportunity to provide comments on the fiscal year 2004
    Interior Appropriations Bill. Founded in 1876, the AMC is America's
    oldest conservation and recreation organization, with chapters from
    Maine to Washington D.C. AMC is dedicated to protecting critical
    resources throughout our region, including the Northern Forest and the
    Central Appalachian Highlands. In addition, our staff and volunteers
    contribute countless hours to provide safe outdoor recreation
    opportunities for the public in places like the White Mountain National
    Forest, Acadia National Park, the Delaware Water Gap National
    Recreation Area, and the Appalachian Trail, not to mention many state
    parks and forests. As you will see by our priorities below, we place a
    premium on those programs that foster partnerships and leverage the
    substantial local, state, and private efforts in our region.
        On behalf of the Appalachian Mountain Club I am submitting
    testimony in strong support of:
      --An increase in funding for the Forest Legacy Program to at least
            $150 million,
      --Full funding ($900 million) of the state and federal components of
            the Land and Water Conservation Fund,
      --Full funding ($2.08 billion) for the Conservation Trust Fund (Title
            VIII),
      --An increase in funding to the Rivers and Trails Conservation
            Assistance Program to $15 million, and
      --Priority consideration to projects in the Northern Forest and
            Central Appalachian Highlands.

                              REGIONAL PRIORITIES

    The Northern Forest
        Encompassing 26 million acres across Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont
    and New York, the Northern Forest is the largest contiguous forest area
    east of the Mississippi. Its rugged mountains, legendary rivers,
    extensive array of lakes and ponds, and endless woodlands lie within a
    day's drive of 70 million people. The forest's capacity to grow quality
    timber for high-value manufacturing; to lure visitors with breathtaking
    displays of natural beauty; and to showcase a rich cultural and
    historical tradition are the cornerstones on which to build a robust
    regional economy.
        In response to growing anxieties about development, land
    stewardship, traditional access, and community sustainability, local
    businesses and community leaders, elected officials, and conservation
    organizations are working together to protect the important places and
    traditional values in the Northern Forest. Private initiative has been
    tremendous. In the last ten years, the region has witnessed some of
    America's most exciting and innovative conservation partnerships,
    protecting more than 2.4 million acres through a combination of state,
    federal, local and private investments of $301 million. Our job in this
    region is not done, and for fiscal year 2004, $38 million in needs from
    the Forest Legacy Program have been identified.

    Central Appalachian Highlands
        The AMC also supports efforts to protect the critical treasures of
    the Central Appalachian Highlands of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania
    and Connecticut. This surprising region of beauty, water and life lies
    within a two hour drive of 20 million people and supplies quality
    drinking water to over 11 million residents of the New York
    metropolitan area. The Highlands provide abundant outdoor recreation
    opportunities and critical wildlife habitat in one of the most densely
    populated regions of the country.
        The recent release of the U.S. Forest Service report on the
    Highlands confirmed what locals have long understood: these water-rich
    forests are the lifeblood of our region, and they will be lost soon
    without further land conservation. The report reaffirms the ``national
    significance'' and threatened nature of the Highlands region, including
    the loss of over 5,000 acres of open space annually. The report
    identified 100,000 acres of high-value conservation lands that are
    imminently threatened by development in the NY-NJ Highlands. Given the
    pace of development and high cost of land in the Highlands, a
    significant federal investment and partnership in the region is needed
    to secure its future. The Highlands Coalition has identified nearly $16
    million in funding needs through the Forest Legacy Program in fiscal
    year 2004 in the NY & NJ Highlands alone. Full funding of the Land &
    Water Conservation Fund's state and federal programs would provide an
    additional source of funding. As federal land units are scarce in the
    Highlands region, we also support innovative conservation partnerships
    between the states and federal government, building upon the successful
    model to preserve Sterling Forest in New York.

                               PROGRAM PRIORITIES

    Forest Legacy Program (FLP)--$150 million
        With the program on a track to serve as many as 43 states within a
    year, the rest of the country is quickly finding out what the Northeast
    has known for decades: that the Forest Legacy Program is an excellent
    tool for leveraging federal, state, local, and private resources.
    States have a chance to opt into the program, and every project
    requires at least a 25 percent match. Private landowners are
    comfortable with the program's market-based approach; in fact, Forest
    Legacy easements give landowners the support they need to continue
    traditional uses of the land, including forestry. At the same time, the
    public enjoys the many benefits that Forest Legacy promotes, including
    scenic beauty, clean water, outdoor recreation and wildlife. Because of
    the program's impressive track record of creating win-win conservation
    solutions, this committee has steadily increased Forest Legacy funding
    to $68.3 million in fiscal year 2003. In light of the overwhelming and
    expanding demand for this program, the AMC strongly encourages this
    committee to continue the momentum behind Forest Legacy by raising the
    funding level in fiscal year 2004 to at least $150 million.

    Forest Legacy Project Requests
      --Machias River, Maine--$2 million
      --Tumbledown/Mt. Blue, Maine--$4.3 million
      --Katahdin Forest, Maine--$8 million
      --Boundary Mountains to Nahmakanta, Maine--$5 million
      --Pillsbury-Sunapee, New Hampshire--$2.5 million
      --Thirteeen Mile Woods II, New Hampshire--$1.2 million
      --Moose Mountain, New Hampshire--$1 million
      --Trout Pond, New Hampshire--$1 million
      --Chittenden County Uplands, Vermont--$4.15 million
      --Monadnock Mtn./Victory Basin, Vermont--$1.5 million
      --Mallory Brook, Vermont--$250,000
      --Sable Highlands, New York--$5 million
      --Moose River Corridor, New York--$2 million
      --Tehawus-National Lead, New York--$3.5 million
      --Highlands/Taconics region (including Pochuck Mountain and Torne
            Valley), New York--$8 million
      --Upper Delaware River Watershed, New Jersey--$8 million

    Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)--$900 million
        As our nation's conservation cornerstone, LWCF is critical to the
    future of many places that Americans treasure. From playgrounds and
    ball fields, to biking paths and hiking trails, national parks, refuges
    and forests, LWCF has been the key to providing places for all
    Americans to recreate and get outdoors. Since its inception, LWCF has
    helped communities acquire nearly seven million acres of parkland,
    water resources, and open space. We strongly urge the subcommittee to
    fully fund LWCF at $900 million in fiscal year 2004.

    1Conservation Trust Fund--$2.8 billion
        At the close of the 106th Congress, the Interior Appropriations
    Subcommittee established the Conservation Trust Fund (Title VIII).
    Through an amendment to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
    Control Act of 1985, the new fund was fenced off in a separate
    ``conservation spending'' budget category that set aside a total of $12
    billion in increased funding over a six-year period. The Conservation
    Trust Fund is still subject to annual appropriations. We applaud the
    creation of this budget category and ask that you honor this commitment
    by providing the full level of $2.08 billion for the Conservation Trust
    Fund in fiscal year 2004.

    Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program (RTCA)--$15 million
        Through technical assistance to build trails, restore rivers, and
    establish open space, RTCA fosters walkable communities for healthier
    lifestyles. RTCA, one of the National Park Service's smallest programs,
    delivers enormous returns by building partnerships between state and
    local interests and strengthening communities. RTCA has been recognized
    by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention as an effective
    program for improving community health by increasing the opportunities
    for readily available opportunities for outdoor physical activities.
    For fiscal year 2004, we urge you to increase funding for this
    innovative program to $15 million.

    In Conclusion
        Mr. Chairman, as we look forward, we are faced with an historic
    opportunity to conserve places of extraordinary natural and public
    value. To successfully meet this challenge, conservation solutions will
    depend on creative partnerships between government, businesses and the
    non-profit community. Federal funds, leadership and expertise are
    critical components of this partnership. We urge Congress to continue
    to take up this challenge of working with the people of the Appalachian
    region to protect its irreplaceable resources. On behalf of the
    Appalachian Mountain Club, I would like to thank the chairman and
    members of the subcommittee for considering our request.

                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Appalachian Trail Conference

        I am writing, in behalf of the Appalachian Trail Conference, to
    request the Subcommittee's consideration of an fiscal year 2004
    appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund in an amount
    totaling $8.3 million for three separate line items for the USDA Forest
    Service--a ``Georgia Mountains'' project ($1 million), a ``Tennessee
    Mountains'' project ($5.3 million), and a ``Virginia Mountains''
    project ($2 million). Each of those project areas includes parcels
    relevant to the Appalachian National Scenic Trail. In the case of the
    Tennessee Mountains project and the Virginia Mountains project, the
    request also includes other parcels that, while not proximate to the
    Appalachian Trail, nevertheless represent critical in-holdings within
    the proclamation boundaries of the affected forests (Cherokee and
    George Washington/Jefferson, respectively). Permit me to further
    describe the basis for our request.
        The Appalachian Trail was initially established between 1923 and
    1937 and has been maintained as a continuous long-distance footpath
    since that time. In 1968, with the passage of the National Trails
    System Act, the Appalachian Trail was designated as the nation's first
    national scenic trail. The act also authorized state and federal land
    acquisition to establish a permanent route and protective corridor or
    greenway along the 14-state, 2,171-mile route of the trail. Since 1978,
    with strong bipartisan support within the Congress, the two affected
    federal agencies--the National Park Service and the USDA Forest
    Service--have made remarkable progress in their respective Appalachian
    Trail land-acquisition programs. Indeed, those programs are now 99-
    percent complete. In the case of the National Park Service, the agency
    has acquired more than 108,200 acres of land, affecting more than 2,600
    parcels in eleven states, and has protected more than 618 miles of the
    footpath. In the case of the USDA Forest Service, the agency has
    acquired more than 55,890 acres, affecting more than 675 parcels in the
    eight national forests crossed by the trail, and protected 149 miles of
    the footpath. Together, those programs represent perhaps the most
    successful land-acquisition programs in the history of those two
    agencies.
        At this point in the evolution of those two programs, our
    expectation is that the National Park Service will complete its
    program, possibly by the end of this fiscal year, with prior-year
    appropriations. However, in the case of the Forest Service, indications
    are that additional appropriations will be necessary to complete that
    agency's Appalachian Trail land-acquisition inventory, which includes
    about 70 parcels, affecting about 4,000 acres and about five miles of
    the footpath in the states of Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and
    Virginia. In those states, the agency has been impacted by significant
    escalation in land values, particularly in the past five years. As a
    result, our current best estimate of funding requirements to complete
    the Appalachian Trail program is approximately $5.5 million. Slightly
    more than one-half ($3 million) of that remaining need is reflected in
    the above-referenced request for fiscal year 2004.
        Georgia Mountains Project ($1 million).--We are requesting an
    fiscal year 2004 appropriation of $1 million for the so-called Springer
    Mountain (Glover/Little) parcel in the Chattahoochee National Forest.
    This request is consistent with the Administration's fiscal year 2004
    budget request and represents a second-phase acquisition, building on
    an earlier appropriation in fiscal year 2003, for acquisition of this
    key in-holding in that forest. That tract is a highly scenic parcel in
    the foreground vista of Springer Mountain, the southern terminus of the
    Appalachian Trail and the jumping-off point for thousands of would-be
    ``thru-hikers'' who, each year, set out to hike the full length of the
    Appalachian Trail in one season. Due to estate issues, our
    understanding is that the parcel must be acquired this year.
        Tennessee Mountains Project ($5.3 million).--Our request includes a
    second-phase acquisition of approximately 3,400 acres of the so-called
    Rocky Fork tract--a 10,000-acre in-holding in the Cherokee National
    Forest. The first-phase acquisition benefited from an appropriation in
    fiscal year 2003 and will affect about 1.5 miles of the Appalachian
    Trail. The Administration's fiscal year 2004 budget request includes
    $3.5 million for the second-phase Rocky Fork acquisition. However, the
    Appalachian Trail Conference is requesting additional appropriations in
    order to permit other acquisitions in the forest, including several key
    in-holdings--affecting approximately 250 acres ($325,000)--in the
    Highlands of Roan area, as well as nine in-holdings--affecting
    approximately 450 acres ($1 million)--along the 220-mile route of the
    Appalachian Trail through that forest.
        Virginia Mountains Project ($2 million).--Our request for the two
    Virginia forests (Jefferson and George Washington) includes several
    components. One-half of the request ($1 million) is for the acquisition
    on an opportunity, willing-seller basis, of as many as nine parcels,
    affecting approximately 800 acres, that border the Appalachian Trail.
    The balance of the request would provide, again on an opportunity/
    willing-seller basis, for the acquisition of in-holding parcels in
    three areas of the Jefferson National Forest: the Mount Rogers National
    Recreation Area, a number of parcels bordering the Pine Mountain Trail
    near the Virginia/Kentucky border, and the so-called Rocky Hollow Cave
    property, which provides critical habitat for the endangered Indiana
    bat. Although the estimate costs for land acquisition related to those
    three areas exceeds $2 million, we are requesting only one-half that
    amount in fiscal year 2004.
        More detailed descriptions of the three project areas are provided
    in separate attachments.
        The Appalachian Trail Conference is a private, nonprofit,
    educational organization established in 1925 to coordinate the design,
    construction, and maintenance of the Appalachian Trail, to conserve
    adjacent lands, and to provide educational opportunities for trail
    visitors who now number in the millions each year. The Conference has a
    membership of 33,000 individuals and also serves as a federation of 31
    affiliated hiking and outing clubs throughout the eastern United States
    that maintain an assigned segment of the Appalachian Trail. In fiscal
    year 2002, more than 4,700 citizen volunteers from those clubs
    contributed more than 184,000 hours toward the construction and
    maintenance of the trail footpath, its system of overnight shelters and
    campsites, and in education and outreach to its visitors.
        Thank you for considering our fiscal year 2004 appropriations
    request and for the steadfast support of the Subcommittee over many
    years.

        Attachments
                               Virginia Mountains
        State: Virginia
        Region/Forest: Region 8, George Washington and Jefferson National
    Forests
        Congressional District/Representatives:
                    6th District, Rep. Goodlatte
                    9th District, Rep. Boucher
                    Senators Allen and Warner

                              APPROPRIATION HISTORY
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Appropriations received: 1989-2002......................  \1\ $4,321,179
    Purchased through fiscal year 2002: Acres...............           6,209
    Appropriated 2003.......................................  ..............
    2004 Administration request.............................  ..............
    2004 Conservation request...............................      $2,000,000
        Acres...............................................           1,650
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Dollar amount indicated in appropriations history for the Forest
      includes reprogrammed money and money received from the Emergency
      Inholding appropriation

        The proposed fiscal year 2004 appropriation is intended to address
    on an opportunity-purchase basis a number of land-acquisition needs in
    the Mount Rogers National Recreation Area, as well as for protection of
    endangered species habitat at Rocky Hollow Cave, and right-of-way needs
    for the Pine Mountain Trail through the Jefferson National Forest.
    Although those needs exceed the $1 million requested, an appropriation
    in that amount should permit acquisition of key tracts in any and
    perhaps all of those areas. An additional $1 million is requested to
    acquire tracts for the Applachian National Scenic Trail corridor across
    the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests.
        Mount Rogers National Recreation Area ($1,000,000).--Six parcels,
    with an estimated value of $1,083,000, have been identified as high-
    priority acquisitions within the Mt. Rogers NRA. The Mount Rogers
    National Recreation Area is of exceptional biological interest because
    of the number of organisms that occur nowhere else in the state, most
    of them associated with elevations above 4,000 feet. Some represent
    northern forms that extend southward along the higher elevations of the
    Appalachians, but the majority are species endemic to the southern
    Appalachians that extend no farther than Mount Rogers.
        Acquisition of the tracts would result in protection of views in
    the NRA, securing endangered species habitat, provide for continued and
    expanded recreational use in the Mt. Rogers area, and improve visitor
    access. The properties would also improve Forest Service management by
    decreasing boundary maintenance, reducing the potential for
    encroachments, and by consolidating ownership.
        These acquisitions are of national concern because of the use that
    the Mount Rogers NRA is receiving. The NRA is within a day's drive of
    more than 100 million people. Last year, it is estimated that more than
    one million people visited the NRA. Equestrian use, mountain biking,
    angling, and hiking are very popular, but concentration of these uses
    promotes overcrowding and resource damage. The acquisition of these
    tracts would enable completion of additional trail systems to spread
    the visitor use over a larger area.
        All six tracts are within the proclamation boundary of the
    Jefferson National Forest and are within the Mount Rogers National
    Recreation Area. They also are identified for acquisition in the
    Forest's Land Adjustment Plan and acquisition is consistent with
    existing Jefferson Forest Plan direction to acquire lands that
    facilitate consolidation of National Forest ownership and enhance
    wilderness and other resource values such as key recreational tracts
    and habitat for endangered species.
        All of these tracts have willing sellers. There are no known health
    or safety concerns with any of the seven tracts, nor are there any
    known hazardous materials present.
        If the Forest Service is not able to purchase these tracts, in all
    likelihood they will be sold to private investors. The trend in these
    areas is to subdivide property into recreational and residential home
    sites. Should this occur, it will become increasingly difficult to
    protect the NRA, the trails, and endangered species habitat.
    Descriptions of these properties follow.
        The Craig tract is located in the NRA and is a 128 acre tract that
    is retangular in shape and adjoins National Forest on three sides. The
    owner of this tract is a willing seller and has recently contacted the
    Forest Service regarding his interest in selling the property.
    Acquisition will eliminate a possible request for legal access across
    National Forest. There is no need for additional infrastructure to make
    this tract safe and usable by the general public if acquired. The
    interest to be acquired is fee simple with no reservations.
        The 40-acre Zachary property adjoins the Lewis Fork Wilderness and
    is a complete inholding within the Forest and NRA. Acquisition of this
    tract would enable the closure of a road, which has been a law-
    enforcement problem involving illegal use of the wilderness.
        In addition to the Craig and Zachary tracts, there are four other
    tracts on the NRA identified for acquisition at this time. The 30-acre
    James property, the 40-acre Dixon Lumber tract, the 228-acre Andrews
    property, and the 220-acre Jennings tract. Acquisition of these tracts
    would provide ecosystem protection and consolidation, preservation of
    historic and prehistoric artifacts, and would protect the unique plant
    and animal diversity of the Mount Rogers NRA.
        Rocky Hollow Cave ($100,000).--Acquisition of this 285-acre
    property would permanently protect a known bat cave for the Indiana
    bat, an endangered species. It was noted after a visit to the cave in
    1998 that ``Rocky Hollow Cave has the best potential for large-scale
    repopulation of nay of the 13 most important Indiana bat caves and
    mines in Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee, and Virginia.''
    Attempts to protect the cave through acquisition and by gating have
    been made by the Forest Service, The Nature Conservancy, and the
    Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries throughout the past 20
    years. In addition to those agencies and organizations, this project
    also is supported by the American Cave Conservation Association and Bat
    Conservation International.
        Pine Mountain Trail Tracts ($915,000).--A variety of tracts,
    affecting a total of 2,612 acres are required to establish a right-of-
    way for the Pine Mountain Trail across the Jefferson National Forest.
    The Pine Mountain Trail is located along the crest of Pine Mountain,
    the highest point in Kentucky and the geological break between the
    ridge and valley and Cumberland Plateau geological provinces.
    Approximately 27 miles of trail currently are constructed within the
    proclamation boundaries of the Jefferson National Forest. However, the
    entire trail, as planned, would extend for 110 miles along the crest of
    Pine Mountain from Breaks Interstate Park on the Virginia/Kentucky
    border to Pine Mountain State Park in Kentucky. An additional ten miles
    of trail would extend from Pine Mountain State Park to Cumberland Gap
    National Park. Also, the state of Tennessee is actively constructing
    140 miles of trail that would extend from Chattanooga, Tennessee to
    Cumberland Gap National Park. Proposed acquisitions are intended to
    provide easements or fee-simple ownership for a right-of-way along
    approximately nine miles of the trail presently situated on private
    lands between Skeggs Gap and Pound Gap.
        Appalachian National Scenic Trail ($1,000,000).--The Appalachian
    National Scenic Trail (A.T.) is a public footpath through 14 states
    across 2,169 miles of spectacular Appalachian Mountain ridgelines from
    Maine to Georgia. Management of the A.T. is a partnership between the
    Forest Service, National Park Service, Appalachian Trail Conference
    (ATC), and local trail-maintaining clubs. This partnership has become a
    model for partnerships between governmental agencies and private
    groups. The local hiking clubs are made up of a small army of
    volunteers dedicated to the maintenance and protection of the A.T.
        With the passage of the 1968 National Trails System Act, and 1978
    amendments to that act, funds were authorized to provide a permanent,
    protected corridor along the entire trail route. The Congress has
    continually supported the acquisition of land for the protection of the
    A.T. The Forest Service, National Park Service and the Appalachian
    Trail Conference have worked in partnership to complete the trail
    acquisition project. Overall, about 99 percent of the entire A.T.
    corridor from Georgia to Maine now is protected or in public ownership.
    Corridor protection within the Jefferson and George Washington national
    forest boundaries also is very close to completion: Since 1978, the
    Forest Service has acquired nearly 200 tracts and more than 15,500
    acres along the trail within the two forests. Indeed, only nine
    parcels, totaling 814 acres, remain to be acquired, at an estimated
    cost of $1.2 million.
        In the New River/Pearisburg area near the Virginia/West Virginia
    state line, an environmental assessment is nearing completion that will
    determine the preferred route for the trail to eliminate road-walking
    along busy Route 460 and to provide greater physical separation between
    the footpath and the adjacent Celanese industrial complex there.
    Additional lands (estimated at 170 acres, more or less) will be
    acquired on a willing-seller basis from the Celanese corporation.
        At the Big Walker farm in the Nebo Valley of Bland County,
    additional land acquisition is necessary to supplement the very narrow
    right-of-way interests presently in national forest ownership. This
    area is characterized by wide-open and sweeping views of the pastoral
    landscapes unique to southwest Virginia, and additional public
    ownership (140 acres) is warranted in order to preserve that scenic and
    agricultural character.
        The 34-acre Abbot tract is adjacent to the A.T. corridor below the
    popular Dragon's Tooth area in Craig County. The tract is within a
    prominent A.T. viewshed and adjoins a Forest Service parking lot that
    provides visitor access to the area.
        The 22-acre Schliefer property is an inholding adjacent to the A.T.
    corridor within the Mt. Rogers National Recreation Area and likely will
    be developed if it remains in private ownership. Acquisition of the
    property would help ensure the remote, primitive character of the trail
    in the NRA.
        Other tracts include Cash (78 acres), and Campbell (292 acres)
    properties. However, due to the circumstances surrounding a number of
    the affected owners, not all of these properties are suitable for
    acquisition at this time. For this reason, although total land-
    acquisition needs involve 814 acres at an estimated cost of $1.5
    million, only $1 million is being requested in fiscal year 2004 for the
    acquisition of approximately 450 acres.

                              Tennessee Mountains

        State: Tennessee
        Region/Forest: Region 8, Cherokee National Forest
        Congressional District: 01: Representative(s): Bill Jenkins
        Senators William Frist and Lamar Alexander

                              APPROPRIATION HISTORY
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Appropriations received: 1996-2002......................      $5,280,000
    Purchased through fiscal year 2002: Acres...............           4,800
    Appropriated: 2003......................................      $4,400,000
        Acres...............................................           2,442
    2004 Administration request.............................      $3,800,000
        Acres...............................................           2,649
    2004 Conservation request...............................      $5,300,000
        Acres...............................................           3,420
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Significance.--The proposed acquisitions consist of inholdings of
    various sizes within the Cherokee National Forest. The Cherokee
    National Forest shares a common border with National Forests in
    Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia. The Forest encompasses several
    high elevation mountain ranges in the Southern Appalachians with a rich
    biodiversity in both flora and fauna. Centered between the north half
    and south half of the Forest is the Great Smoky Mountains National
    Park. It is the most visited national park in the United States.
    Visitation to the entire area is very high and is steadily increasing
    due to easy access and proximity to large metropolitan areas including:
    Knoxville, and Gatlinburg, Tennessee that are within a thirty minute
    drive; Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Asheville, North Carolina, one hour;
    Atlanta, Georgia and Lexington, Kentucky, two hours; Nashville,
    Tennessee and Cincinnati, Ohio, three hours.
        A portion of the lands proposed for acquisition would protect the
    Appalachian National Scenic Trail (A.T.). The A.T. is a public footpath
    through 14 states across 2,172 miles of spectacular Appalachian
    Mountain ridgelines from Maine to Georgia. About 220 miles of the A.T.
    cross the Cherokee National Forest. Management of the A.T. is a
    partnership between the Forest Service, National Park Service,
    Appalachian Trail Conference, and local hiking clubs.
        Acquisition of these key tracts in the Tennessee Mountains of the
    Cherokee National Forest will protect the Appalachian Trail, provide
    opportunities for public recreational uses (such as hunting, hiking,
    and fishing), improve public access, and protect critical natural
    resources, including wildlife habitat and fragile mountain watersheds.
        The Rocky Fork Tract (2,649 acres).--The Forest Service proposes to
    purchase approximately 2,649 acres of the larger area known as Rocky
    Fork. This would be the second of a multi-phased purchase of the entire
    10,000-acre tract. (Purchase of 2,130 acres was funded in fiscal year
    2003). The tract encompasses the northeast section of the Rocky Fork
    area and is situated along the crest of Rich Mountain and includes
    Higgins Ridge and the entire upper watershed of Higgins Creek. Numerous
    tributaries combine within this area to form Higgins Creek, a major
    tributary, which then flows, into Indian Creek. Both Higgins Creek and
    Indian Creek are designated trout streams. The tract's northern
    boundary lies along the crest of Rich Mountain adjoining the Sampson
    Mountain Wilderness and features stunning views of distant mountain
    ranges and valleys in Tennessee, North Carolina and Virginia.
    Elevations of this tract range from 2, 200 feet in the valleys to 4,400
    feet on Higgins Ridge at Frozen Knob. Ridgetops, rugged terrain,
    abundance of water and a mixture of hardwoods and evergreens provide
    excellent critical habitat for a variety of native fish and wildlife.
        The Rocky Fork tract is one of the largest undeveloped and pristine
    forested areas remaining in the rugged chain of the Appalachian
    Mountains. Rocky Fork harbors miles of native brook trout fisheries and
    vital watershed, rugged outcroppings and ridgelines featuring
    breathtaking views of distant mountain ranges and valleys including the
    Nolichucky River Valley in Unicoi and Greene Counties. Rocky Fork
    serves as critical wildlife habitat for black bear, deer, turkey,
    peregrine falcon and many other species. Much of the boundary adjoins
    National Forest, including the Sampson Mountain Wilderness. The
    Appalachian Trail, a National Scenic Trail, is situated along the
    western boundary of Rocky Fork. Acquisition of Rocky Fork would close a
    substantial gap in public lands along of the new scenic U.S. Hwy. 23
    corridor (soon to be designated I-26), enhance protection to the
    Appalachian Trail and Sampson Mountain Wilderness, preserve a large
    expanse of critical watershed, wildlife habitat and aesthetic beauty,
    and expand recreational opportunities, such as hiking, mountain biking,
    hunting, and fishing.
        The Forest Service has sought the acquisition of Rocky Fork for
    many years, but since the development of the U.S. Hwy 23 corridor,
    ownership of this large private holding has changed twice within the
    last four years. Thus far, purchasers have not pursued development of
    this wild area. With each transaction, combined with the expected
    completion of the U.S. Hwy 23 corridor linking the Tri-Cities in
    Tennessee to Asheville in North Carolina, development of Rocky Fork
    becomes an increasing possibility. Should this happen, an opportunity
    to preserve such a magnificent mountainous area will be lost forever.
    The estimated cost of acquiring this 2,649-acre portion of Rocky Fork
    is $3,800,000.
        The Roan Mountain/Big Ridge Tract (250 acres).--This inholding lies
    on the slopes of Big Ridge in the Roan Mountain area of Carter County,
    Tennessee, on the headwaters of Doe River near the North Carolina/
    Tennessee state line. Georges Creek, an excellent native Brook Trout
    stream, flows 0.5 mile through the property, as do several unnamed
    tributaries. The slopes and peaks of this tract are covered with a
    mixed hardwood forest, with elevations that range from 2,600 to 4,000
    feet. The property ties together fragmented and isolated National
    Forest (NF) ownership and adjoins Roan Mountain State Park. Roan
    Mountain State Park is one of Tennessee's premier state parks which
    enjoys a high visitor count and features camping, cabin rentals, a
    historic farm, trout fishing, hiking trails, and vistas. Nearby is the
    6,285-foot summit of Roan Mountain, an environmentally sensitive
    highlands area known for its unique flora, including scenic
    rhododendron gardens amid spruce-fir forests and grassy balds. Views
    from and to the property are outstanding. If not acquired, the property
    will be sold for private development, complicating NF management and
    limiting public benefits and uses.
        National Forest purchase of this property will:
      --Protect the best and most productive native Brook Trout waters in
            this region.
      --Protect habitat for 11 rare and endangered plant species, including
            several sedges.
      --Provide and improve public access to National Forest land.
      --Enhance FS management and public recreational use by linking roads
            and trails.
      --Provide habitat for a variety of wildlife, including black bear,
            deer, and wild turkey.
      --Protect a fragile and sensitive watershed that's within 200 feet of
            the Doe River.
      --Protect waterfalls on Georges Creek that are critical for native
            trout management.
      --Preserve natural scenic values along US Highway 19E, a major
            tourist route.
      --Provide opportunity to plan a hiking/bike trail connecting with
            other public lands.
      --Protect high elevation slopes and peaks within view of the
            Appalachian National Scenic Trail. While the property is
            outside the trail's corridor, it is highly visible from the
            trail's vistas on nearby White Rocks Mountain and from the
            summit of Roan Mountain.
        In short, public ownership of the Roan Mountain/Big Ridge property
    will protect critical natural resources, greatly enhance National
    Forest management, and provide enormous public benefits. The estimated
    cost for this tract is $325,000.
        In addition to the Roan Mountain/Big Ridge tract, there is an
    opportunity to acquire two other smaller inholdings within the Cherokee
    National Forest that would provide critical public access to a large
    block of National Forest ownership and protect the highly scenic I-26
    corridor. The purchase price of these two tracts, affecting 170 acres,
    is estimated at $175,000. Those tracts, together with the Roan
    Mountain/Big Ridge tract include a total of 420 acres at a cost of
    $500,000.
        Appalachian National Scenic Trail (884 Acres).--A total of 9
    inholdings are proposed for purchase for protection of the Appalachian
    Trail (A,T.) within the Cherokee National Forest in Carter, Unicoi, and
    Greene counties. The tracts are located in the Sugarloaf Gap, Little
    Mountain, Shook Branch/Watauga, Hump Mountain, Allen Gap, and Buck
    Mountain areas. Acquisition of these scenic tracts will help maintain
    the undeveloped mountainous environment and visitor experiences along
    the Appalachian Trail.
        Over the years, tremendous progress has been made to acquire A.T.
    corridor lands and only a few remain that are not funded with prior-
    year appropriations. Additional funds are needed, however, due to a
    rerouting of the A.T. in the Shook Branch/Watauga area, where the trail
    is being relocated off a paved road with residences and onto a much
    improved route through a forested area, and as a result of significant
    land-value escalation during the past several years.
        The Appalachian Trail often is described as a national treasure. To
    complete protection of that treasure in the Tennessee Mountains
    requires additional funding. The total estimated funding need to
    purchase these tracts, encompassing 884 acres, is $2,200,000. However,
    only $1,000,000 is being requested in fiscal year 2004 for the
    acquisition of seven of the nine parcels, affecting approximately 300
    acres.
        Constituencies.--There is growing public concern over development
    in areas that adversely affect critical ecosystems such as the above
    properties. The Cherokee Forest Land and Resource Management Plan
    addresses the need for significant land acquisition for recreation and
    ecosystem protection. Support for land acquisition by the Forest
    Service comes from local, state, regional, and national organizations,
    including the State Rivers Coordinator, The Wilderness Society, The
    Trust for Public Land, The Nature Conservancy, the State Historian, the
    Southern Appalachian Highlands Conservancy, the Tennessee Wildlife
    Resources Agency, The Conservation Fund, the Southern Appalachian
    Forest Coalition, the Southern Environmental Law Center, Partners of
    Cherokee National Forest, local sportsman groups, and the Appalachian
    Trail Conference and its local affiliates, the Tennessee Eastman Hiking
    Club and the Smoky Mountains Hiking Club.

                               Georgia Mountains
        State: Georgia
        Region/Forests: Region 8, Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests
        Georgia 10th Congressional District: Representative Deal
        Senators Miller & Cleland

                              APPROPRIATION HISTORY
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Appropriations received: fiscal year 1997...............        $155,000
        Acres acquired......................................           45.87
    Appropriations received: fiscal year 2002...............      $1,200,000
        Acres acquired......................................             175
    Appropriations received: fiscal year 2003...............      $3,200,000
        Acres to acquire....................................             550
    2004 request............................................      $1,000,000
        Acres...............................................             125
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Springer Mountain ($850,000).--This tract was identified as a
    critical purchase for the Appalachian Trail project and has been
    actively sought for more than 30 years. The owners of the tract agreed
    to sell in 2003, but due to rapidly escalating land values in the area,
    the appraised price exceeded the original project budget, and a phased
    purchase became necessary. The 2004 request is the second and final
    part of a phased purchase for this tract. The Springer tract
    encompasses the foreground vista from the southern terminus of the
    Appalachian Trail and is seen by many thousands of Forest visitors each
    year. Due to estate issues, this purchase must be completed this year.
    The remaining $150,000 will be used for other high-priority riparian
    area inholding tracts in the Chattahoochee and Oconee national forests.
        Constituencies.--The Chattahoochee Land and Resource Management
    Plan clearly addresses the need to acquire and consolidate the Forest.
    Support for acquisition by the Forest Service comes from local, state,
    regional and national organizations, including The Trust for Public
    Lands, The Nature Conservancy, The Conservation Fund, the Appalachian
    Trail Conference and its local affiliate, the Georgia Appalachian Trail
    Club, the Southern Environmental Law Center, Georgia Forest Watch,
    local sportsmen, Trout Unlimited, The Wilderness Society, the Georgia
    DNR, the Chattawah Land Trust, NRCS, local county commissioners, the
    University of Georgia, The Upper Etowah River Alliance, and local
    business leaders.

                                     ______

                         Prepared Statement of Audubon

        Mr. Chairman, on behalf of over one million members and supporters
    of Audubon, thank you for the opportunity to express to your Committee
    our recommendations for fiscal year 2004 funding of Department of the
    Interior and U.S. Forest Service programs. The purpose of our testimony
    is to recommend levels of funding for specific programs that are vital
    to our mission to protect birds, other wildlife, and their habitat.

                             EVERGLADES RESTORATION

        We are grateful to the Committee for its long-standing support of
    Everglades restoration through the appropriations process and in
    important appropriations-related policy issues such as the Modified
    Water Deliveries project and the programmatic regulations. We urge the
    Subcommittee to support the following funding needs for fiscal year
    2004:
      --National Park Service Land Acquisition Assistance to the State of
            Florida should be funded at $20 million (the Administration's
            fiscal year 2003 request).--The State of Florida has run out of
            money for land acquisitions and the integrity of the entire
            CERP rests on land acquisition.
      --U.S. Geological Services and NPS Everglades science programs should
            be increased to at least $15 million.--CESI funding should be
            gradually restored to its previous levels of $12 million.
            Adequate funding should also be provided to ongoing critical
            Everglades studies regarding the sheet flow of water across the
            Everglades, water quality, the levels of mercury and other
            contaminants, nutrient levels, and the complex interaction of
            groundwater and surface water in South Florida. On-going
            science and research are critical to the successful use of
            adaptive assessment. Applied research that directly supports
            implementation and monitoring of project effectiveness is vital
            to the success of the CERP.
      --The Restoration, Coordination, and Verification Team (RECOVER),
            should be funded by Interior at $3 million.--Interior and the
            Corps of Engineers share federal leadership on RECOVER, so it
            is appropriate that Interior contribute to this aspect of
            Everglades restoration.
      --CERP implementation for Fish and Wildlife Service and NPS in fiscal
            year 2004 should be increased to $10 million.
      --The Modified Water Deliveries project should be funded at $15
            million, $2 million above the Administraion's request.--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 in
            2005. This will require $15 million in fiscal year 2004 and an
            additional $15 million in fiscal year 2005.

      LAND CONSERVATION, PRESERVATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT FUND
                                    (LCPII)

        We urge you to renew the commitment to fully fund LCPII at its
    dedicated amount of $2.08 billion in fiscal year 2004, while the DOI
    appropriations portion of LCPII should receive $1.56 billion.
    Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)
        We urge the Committee to appropriate the full $900 million
    authorized for LWCF, with $200 million allocated to the stateside LWCF
    program, to combat the rapid rate of habitat loss threatening America's
    native birds and wildlife. Incorporating input from our 27 state
    offices and more than 500 chapters, we have identified dozens of
    critically important conservation opportunities through LWCF and we
    will provide a complete list of those priorities for the committee's
    consideration in the coming weeks.

    State Wildlife Grants
        This valuable program provides matching grants for design and
    implementation of habitat and wildlife conservation plans and allows
    states to conserve and restore declining native species prior to a
    necessity to list them as endangered or threatened. The
    Administration's request of $60 million for combined State and Tribal
    Wildlife Grants short-changes the important conservation goals of this
    program. Audubon supports funding SWGs at $125 million in fiscal year
    2004.

                      U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (FWS)

    National Wildlife Refuge System
        America's Refuge System faces a massive $2 billion backlog of
    operations and maintenance needs that is widely recognized as a
    handicap to Fish and Wildlife Service efforts to conserve and protect
    the System's more than 94 million acres of prime habitat for more than
    2,000 bird and wildlife species. We call on the Committee to seize the
    opportunity provided by the Refuge System Centennial to increase
    funding for refuge operations and maintenance by $100 million over the
    fiscal year 2003 level.

    Endangered Species Program
        We firmly believe that the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is one of
    our nation's most important environmental laws. We continue to be
    disappointed that the Endangered Species Program has not been funded at
    the level needed to carry out its critical purpose of staving off the
    loss of irreplaceable species and biological diversity. Although FWS's
    needs are much greater, in order to maintain its programs, we urge the
    Committee to appropriate at least $275.7 million toward the Endangered
    Species Program.

    Law Enforcement Operations
        The FWS Law Enforcement program is a primary means of protecting
    fish, wildlife, and plants throughout the United States. There are
    currently only 231 FWS special agents, despite an authorized level of
    253. We therefore urge the Committee to provide $3 million over the
    Administration's request to $55.6 million in fiscal year 2004.

    Neotropical Migratory Birds and the Multinational Species Conservation
            Fund
        Approximately 500 of the existing 800 bird species found within the
    United States migrate across this nation's borders annually. The
    Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act (NMBCA) was passed to
    reverse the decline of migratory birds that breed in the United States
    by protecting their habitats in Latin America and the Caribbean. For a
    great deal of these species, this region contains almost the entire
    world population of these birds in the non-breeding season. In 2002,
    the very first year for this program, there were 290 grant proposals,
    from 33 countries and 31 states, for a total of more than $120 million
    in proposed grants and matching conservation work submitted to the Fish
    and Wild Life Service. With the limited budget of $3 million, however,
    only 32 of the proposals could be granted. In light of the enormous
    demand for this program, we respectfully request the full-authorized
    amount of $5 million in fiscal year 2003 and 2004.
        We ask that for the remaining Multinational Species Conservation
    mammal funds, you appropriate $2 million each for the Asian Elephant
    Conservation Fund, the African Elephant Conservation Fund, and the
    Great Apes Conservation Fund; and $3 million for the combined
    Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Fund.

    Migratory Bird Management (MBM)
        The President's budget for fiscal year 2004 is insufficient to
    enable FWS MBM to adequately carry out its mission. We urge the
    Committee to increase funding for MBM by $12.4 million, for a total of
    $43.5 million.
        The FWS Migratory Bird Management (MBM) budget has been essentially
    flat for the last 10 years. No increase has been provided since 1998,
    and the base funding for MBM programs has been steadily eroded by cost
    of living increases and unforeseen expenses. MBM has had to absorb
    $475,000 in postal costs for the Harvest Information Monitoring (HIP)
    program and $300,000 for DOI's Office of Aircraft Safety this year,
    expenses that were previously covered out of a FWS overhead cost pool.
    For the first time this year, OAS has not issued a waiver to FWS to fly
    planes over weight capacity limits, so valuable migratory bird survey
    data could be disrupted. We recommend that $2 million be provided to
    begin to replace aged planes so surveys may continue. No funding has
    been provided for an additional $400,000 cost of living increases this
    year. Last year the $575,000 duck stamp program was transferred to MBM
    without any accompanying funding. MBM has also been burdened by
    unforeseen earmarks, including a $550,000 reward band study and a
    $250,000 golden eagle survey. While these earmarked programs would be
    warranted at some point in the future, FWS can not carry them out this
    year without cutting core activities. MBM needs more FTEs, particularly
    biologists, to carry out its responsibilities through support of
    Partners in Flight (PIF), the U.S. Shorebird Plan, and the North
    American Waterbird Conservation Plan. The office has zero funding for
    PIF regional coordinators, which were eliminated this year. An
    additional $1.1 million would provide for seven PIF regional
    coordinators, plus nominal program expenses. Despite a hiring freeze
    and dramatic reductions in travel expenses, MBM faces a deficit of $2
    million in fiscal year 2004.

                        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.
    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 million, a total
    increase of $37 million, to the USGS for the Biological Research
    Division. Ongoing research and monitoring within BRD help Interior's
    land management agencies to maintain the health, diversity, and
    ecological balances of biological resources. Funding at current levels
    for the BRD is not fully adequate to meet the science needs of the
    Interior agencies and the complex, interrelated natural systems they
    must manage.

    West Nile Virus
        Nearly two hundred species of birds have been infected by West Nile
    Virus, which has spread to forty-four states since it was first
    reported in 1999. The BRD requires additional staff and funding to
    better understand and contain this epidemic. We urge the committee to
    provide $3 million to BRD for research and monitoring in fiscal year
    2004.

                           U.S. FOREST SERVICE (USFS)

    International Programs
        Audubon strongly urges the Committee to provide $10 million to
    these grossly under-funded programs in fiscal year 2004. Of special
    interest to Audubon within the International Programs is the Migratory
    Bird Conservation program. Unfortunately, many migratory birds are
    experiencing rapid population decline due mainly to the loss of habitat
    outside of the United States. An increase of $3 million, to $4.2
    million for the Migratory Bird Conservation Program will provide the
    resources needed to help conserve such species as the Kirtland's
    Warbler, Swallow-Tailed Kite, Cerulean Warbler, Bicknell's Thrush, and
    The Mountain Plover. Without such support, these migratory bird species
    will likely continue to decline and may ultimately face extinction.
        Thank you for providing us with this opportunity to testify on
    Audubon's priorities for the Interior Department and U.S. Forest
    Service. I appreciate the fact that this is a large agenda, but the
    problems facing America's birds, wildlife and their habitat are
    daunting. We look forward to working with you to protect America's
    birds, wildlife and habitat.

                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of The Cascades Conservation Partnership

        Mr. Chairman, The Cascades Conservation Partnership, a public-
    private campaign, is seeking appropriations in fiscal year 2004 to
    protect important conservation and recreation lands in Washington's
    Central Cascades. Our request matches each forest conservation
    objective with the appropriate tool, either Forest Legacy or LWCF.
    Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony to the committee.

           FOREST LEGACY REQUEST.--$2.5 MILLION--EASTON/YAKIMA RIVER

      --Funds would secure conservation easements on 1600 acres to retain
            forests near Easton and the Yakima River.
      --Rapid conversion of prime forestland to urban type developments
            fragments habitat, reduces recreational opportunities and
            increases risk of fire.

                  LWCF REQUEST.--$8.5 MILLION--PLUM CREEK/I-90

      --Funds would acquire 6,500 acres of checkerboard lands identified by
            Congress as important for acquisition. Reduces management
            expenses of public and private landowners.
      --Forest Service options to purchase expire at end of this year.
      --Wildlife habitat includes 1,700 acres of late-successional forest.
      --Lands are near Interstate 90, include 5 miles of trails, and are
            extremely popular with recreationists.

                   LWCF REQUEST.--$3.5 MILLION--CARBON RIVER

      --Funds would acquire 700 acres of Plum Creek Timber Company lands,
            adjacent to Mt. Rainier National Park, providing important
            wildlife and salmon habitat and recreational opportunities.

                    EXPLANATION OF FISCAL YEAR 2004 REQUEST

    Forest Legacy.--$2.5 million--Easton/Yakima River
        The Forest Legacy project would acquire conservation easements on
    approximately 1600 acres on lands to retain forests near Easton and the
    Yakima River. This strategic project supports a working forest
    landscape connected to nearby private, state and national forest lands.
    Rapid conversion of prime forestland to urban type developments
    fragments habitat, reduces recreational opportunities and increases
    risk of fire and fire suppression costs.

    LWCF.--$8.5 million--Plum Creek/I-90, Wenatchee National Forest
        Keystone Lands.--Bringing certain lands into public ownership would
    eliminate the checkerboard ownership pattern and improve management of
    both public and private lands. Over 1,600 acres of roadless area and
    1,700 acres of late-successional forest provide critical habitat for
    species dependent on large contiguous forested areas to survive. These
    parcels are contained in areas that have been given special
    designations by the Forest Service, such as the Snoqualmie Pass
    Adaptive Management Area.
        Forested creeks in the Cle Elum River Valley provide important
    habitat for fish and wildlife as well as abundant recreational
    opportunities. Several trails and campgrounds are located in this area
    just south of the Alpine Lakes Wilderness. Significant roadless areas,
    including Kachess Ridge and Teanaway, surround the valley. Parcels in
    the Manastash Roadless Area include groves of pine and fir, with waters
    flowing into Taneum Creek, which supports bull trout. These tracts of
    land are home to threatened spotted owls. They also contain miles of
    trails and scenic vistas.
        Urgency.--Plum Creek Timber Company is a willing seller, and
    appraisals are complete. But the ancient forests on fiscal year 2004
    parcels are threatened with logging next year, as the restrictions on
    logging and road building in these parcels run out at the end of this
    year.
        Option Lands.--In negotiations with Plum Creek Timber Company over
    the I-90 land exchange, many important lands were dropped from the
    transfer. However, the Forest Service was granted an option to purchase
    many of the highest priority lands. These options run out at the end of
    2003. If the Forest Service allows its options to expire, Plum Creek
    may sell the lands to another buyer (the company has been actively
    marketing its Cascade lands). Even if Plum Creek agrees to sell the
    lands to the Forest Service following the expiration of these options,
    a new appraisal may be required, which may increase the purchase price
    significantly.
        Congressional Support.--In 1998, Congress passed legislation that
    directed the I-90 Land Exchange between the Forest Service and Plum
    Creek Timber Co. be completed. Congress found that, ``. . . the
    checkerboard ownership pattern in the area has frustrated sound and
    efficient land management on both private and National Forest lands . .
    . [and that] acquisition . . . of certain parcels of land . . . will
    serve important public objectives, including . . . enhancement of
    public access, aesthetics and recreation opportunities . . . protection
    and enhancement of old-growth forests and habitat for threatened,
    endangered and sensitive species . . . meet a broad array of ecosystem
    protection and other public land management goals . . . [and provide] a
    significant reduction in administrative costs to the United States . .
    .'' (section 602, fiscal year 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act). The
    legislation specifically mentions trails, streams and unroaded lands as
    important public gains. The subject parcels still retain those values.
    LWCF.--$3.5 million--Carbon River, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie NF
        700 acres of Plum Creek Timber Company lands, adjacent to Mt.
    Rainier National Park, provide important lowland forest habitat and
    connections. This includes over 2 miles of frontage on the Carbon
    River, protecting salmon habitat. The project is part of a larger
    valley conservation plan with broad public support, designed to improve
    recreation, habitat protection and economic stability.

                     THE CASCADES CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIP

    Unique Effort to Protect Wildlife Connections and Recreational
            Opportunities
        Providing a Private Match for Public Funding.--The Cascades
    Conservation Partnership is an unprecedented three-year public-private
    campaign to purchase and protect forest lands that link the Alpine
    Lakes to Mt. Rainier. The Partnership seeks funding to accomplish this
    goal. In addition to seeking Land and Water Conservation Fund
    appropriations for the acquisition of lands included in our proposal,
    we have undertaken a private fundraising campaign. To date, The
    Partnership has raised $14.5 million from over 16,000 citizens.
        Focusing on Wildlife.--Our effort is to protect important
    conservation lands-especially habitat corridors between Washington's
    north and south Cascades-to ensure the viability of many wildlife
    species. Several of these species are threatened or endangered. Further
    fragmentation of the forest threatens the wildlife corridors and risks
    splitting species into smaller, more vulnerable populations.
        Spotted owls, wide-ranging cougars tracking herds of deer and elk,
    and martens will make good use of the habitat we protect. Even smaller
    species such as salamanders need a connection.
        Protecting Spectacular Lands & High Demand Recreation Areas.--In
    addition to their importance to wildlife, these lands are prized for
    the values they contribute to our quality of life. Key lands included
    in our proposal provide clean water for drinking and spawning habitat
    for endangered salmon. The lands contain vast recreational
    opportunities for the burgeoning population of Washington State,
    including more than 45 miles of trails. Hiking, horseback riding,
    bicycling, hunting, fishing, and camping are just an hour's drive from
    Seattle.

                       COMBINED FUNDING AND ACQUISITIONS

        Several sources of funds have been used to conserve forests in the
    Cascades.
        Federal Funds.--Congress has appropriated $40 million for nearly
    23,000 acres in the checkerboard country. These acquisitions included
    4,000 acres of roadless lands, five miles of river, more than 5,000
    acres of ancient forest and over 12 miles of trail, including segments
    of the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail.
        Private Funds.--The Partnership has raised over $14.5 million to
    date, and has purchased 4,200 acres, including three mile-square
    parcels in the Manastash roadless area plus lands in a valley near
    Leavenworth. These tracts, containing old-growth forests, streams and
    trails, were donated to the Forest Service.
        Forest Legacy Program.--The federal Forest Legacy Program provides
    grants to states to conserve forest land threatened with conversion to
    urban developments. With conservation easements, the lands can remain
    as forestland in private ownership. For selected areas this will
    provide added support to the wildlife corridors, where the core is in
    public ownership.
        Washington State.--Washington State and nearby cities have acquired
    nearby critical low-elevation properties to better protect the greater
    Central Cascade ecosystem from development, including urban sprawl. In
    the past decade, Washington and other local governments have acquired
    more than 37,000 acres in the area surrounding The Partnership's
    proposal. Currently, funding for two major state acquisitions is
    pending.
        Related Transportation Project.--The Washington Department of
    Transportation is planning an expansion of Interstate 90 east of
    Snoqualmie Pass. One objective of this project is to improve wildlife
    connectivity. Among the improvements will be major bridge structures
    that will allow wildlife to move under the freeway, and two of the
    structures are adjacent to our acquisition targets on the Yakima River
    Wildlife Corridor. The Partnership's forest conservation project will
    solidify the habitat areas north and south of the freeway, and the I-90
    project will improve wildlife movement between these areas. Both
    projects are essential for wildlife connectivity. The I-90 project will
    also reduce the threats of accidents involving animals crossing the
    freeway.

                     THE CASCADES CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIP

        Alpine Lakes Protection Society; Biodiversity Northwest; Kittitas
    Audubon Society; Kittitas League of Women Voters; Kongsberger Ski Club;
    North Cascade Conservation Council; Northwest Ecosystem Alliance;
    Seattle Audubon Society; Sierra Club; The Mountaineers; Washington
    Native Plant Society; Washington Trails Association; Washington
    Wildlife Federation; and The Wilderness Society.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of the Highlands Coalition

        On behalf of the more 100 member groups of the Highlands Coalition,
    I am writing to request fiscal year 2004 appropriations from the Land
    and Water Conservation Fund and Forest Legacy Program to conserve the
    valuable forests in the Highlands region. I am also writing to
    encourage a total appropriation for Forest Legacy of $150 million as
    part of full funding ($2.08 billion) of the Conservation Trust Fund
    (Title VIII) package authorized in 2000.

                                   BACKGROUND

        The over 2 million-acre Highlands Region is defined by a series of
    forested ridges stretching through four states (PA, NJ, NY and CT).
    These ridges border and buffer several major metropolitan areas,
    including Philadelphia, New York City and Hartford. Approximately 25
    million people live within an hour of the Highlands, and over 15
    million people rely on surface and ground waters from Highlands
    watersheds for their drinking water. Some 247 threatened and endangered
    species occur in the Highlands and over 14 million people visit the
    region's parks annually for recreation. For these reasons, the USDA
    Forest Service found the Highlands to be of ``national significance''
    in their 1992 and 2002 studies of the region.
        Unfortunately, the forested ridges of the Highlands are becomingly
    increasingly fragmented and converted to non-forest uses due to intense
    development pressure from suburban sprawl. The USDA Forest Service's
    NY-NJ Highlands Regional Study: 2002 Update documented the loss of over
    5,400 acres of open space to development annually in the NY-NJ
    Highlands alone between 1995 and 2000, a four-fold increase since their
    previous study of the region in 1992. The Study projects that if
    current trends continue, the population of the NY-NJ Highlands region
    (1.4 million) could increase by 50 percent, leading to significant
    impacts on both water quality and quantity, wildlife and recreation.
        Only 20 percent of this nationally significant region has been
    conserved publicly or privately. The NY-NJ Highlands Regional Study:
    2002 Update identified nearly 540,000 acres of land that have high
    conservation value for water, wildlife, recreation, and productive
    forests and farmland, but are currently unprotected. Almost 100,000
    acres of these high-value lands are identified as facing imminent
    development pressure. The Highlands Coalition, a group of over 100
    national, regional, state and local organizations working to protect
    the region, has identified 180,000 acres of priority conservation lands
    in the NY-NJ Highlands at an estimated value of $750 million.

                  FISCAL YEAR 2004 FUNDING NEEDS AND REQUESTS

        For fiscal year 2004, the Highlands Coalition respectfully submits
    the following requests for funding:
      --$3 million from the Land & Water Conservation Fund for the Mount
            Bethel and Egan projects, two important additions to the
            Wallkill NWR, one of our identified Critical Treasure areas of
            the NJ Highlands.
      --$8 million from the Forest Legacy program for five projects in the
            Upper Delaware River Watershed area of the NJ Highlands
            identified as the top priority by the State of NJ: Stabile,
            Culbertson, Checchio, Buckhorn Creek, and Crown Towers.
      --$8 million as requested by the State of New York from the Forest
            Legacy program for the Highlands/Taconics region, including the
            following projects: Pochuck Mountain, Blumberg, Fahnstock-
            Kisslinger, Cabot, Ice Pond, JJNC (Great Swamp) and Gilbert
            (Vernay Lake). Additional critical projects that should be
            considered for future funding include Torne Valley, Shirazi
            (Sterling Forest) and Storm King School Property.
      --$150 million in total program funding for Forest Legacy, to
            accommodate not only these critical projects in the Highlands,
            but also the many other important projects throughout the
            eastern forests. National requests for fiscal year 2004 were in
            excess of $300 million.
      --$2.08 billion for Title VIII, the Conservation Trust Fund, the
            authorized level for fiscal year 2004. For our region's
            priority projects to receive critical Forest Legacy funding,
            and also for a host of important conservation initiatives
            across the nation, it is imperative that the array of programs
            included in this title be fully funded.
        Finally, the fiscal year 2002 Interior Appropriations Bill included
    language requesting the Secretary of Interior to join the Secretary of
    Agriculture to review the findings of the NY-NJ Highlands Regional
    Study: 2002 Update and to report to the Committee on ways in which the
    Federal Government can partner with state, county, local and private
    efforts to preserve critical lands within this nationally significant
    area in the Northeast. We urge you to review the final report and
    recommendations and to consider these findings as you make decisions
    regarding funding priorities in fiscal year 2004 and beyond.
        Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the need for funding
    from the Forest Legacy program and the Land & Water Conservation Fund
    in fiscal year 2004 to protect these critical and threatened forested
    watersheds in the Highlands region.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the International Association of Fish and
                               Wildlife Agencies

                           U.S. FOREST SERVICE (USFS)

    General Comments
        The fiscal year 2004 budget approach (initiated for fiscal year
    2001) continues to make it very difficult to understand the budget
    request and to make meaningful comparisons with previous year
    appropriations. The Association continues to object to the Forest
    Service budget structure. Without specific budget line items and
    expenditures for specific purposes, the current approach does not
    promote accountability to State partners, the public, or Congress. In
    addition, the lumping of important items in the budget structure
    contributes to the continuing perception of the diminution of Forest
    Service effectiveness and accomplishment resulting from planning-based
    operational changes. In particular, the so-called ``output'' measures
    of accomplishment (e.g., acres ``enhanced'', miles of stream
    ``enhanced'') are so broad and nonspecific as to be meaningless to
    measure either the services provided or the benefits derived.
        The Forest Service is in the process of eliminating the accounting
    ``by work activities'' system and implementing a new national work
    planning system effective April 2003. We recognize the desire to reduce
    the number of budget line items but believe a better system is needed
    to get accountability for allocated monies. The Association requests
    that future budgets include individual line items specific to fish,
    wildlife, and endangered species habitat management. This should
    include specific line items for: (1) wildlife and vegetation; and (2)
    watersheds and fisheries, specifying the threatened and endangered
    species efforts within each. This breakdown will combine improved
    performance accountability with improved opportunities for integrated
    activities with the state fish and wildlife agencies and other federal
    agencies.
        Furthermore, the Association continues to urge Congress to provide
    a budget which reflects the full range of needs as identified in the
    Forest Plans. The planning process includes extensive public and agency
    considerations that are addressed in adoption of the final plans. The
    public benefits both economically and environmentally as a result of
    balanced consideration for all National Forest resources. According to
    a 1996 survey, wildlife-related recreation on National Forest lands
    contributed $21 billion to the national economy, and recreational
    fishing generated an additional $8.5 billion. All these uses on
    National Forest lands are projected to significantly increase in the
    future, and where addressed in Forest Plans, should be reflected in the
    budgets.

    Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management
        The Association supports the proposed fiscal year 2004 budget of
    $134.8 million for the Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management
    Program, which (with adjustments) is essentially level-funded. The
    Association specifically recommends and urges that the USFS coordinate
    closely with the State fish and wildlife agencies in the use of these
    funds. We also draw attention to the important partnership benefits
    achieved through the Challenge Cost-Share Program and support continued
    funding as proposed.
        The USFS needs to coordinate closely with the respective State fish
    and wildlife agencies so that programs and activities do not compromise
    State jurisdictional authorities for fish and resident wildlife. The
    USFS also needs to facilitate the cooperative design and conduct of
    research and management programs with state agencies to reduce
    duplication and increase acceptability of program results. Genuine
    cooperative efforts between the USFS and the State fish and wildlife
    agencies will play a critical role in achieving land and resource
    objectives for species and related resources.
        We applaud the implementation of the Presidential Management
    Initiatives and Forest Service Initiatives to streamline operations to
    reduce bureaucracy. While reducing the number of positions in
    headquarters by transfers to field offices, we urge the USFS take care
    to avoid positions which duplicate or overlap with state fish and
    wildlife biologist positions and programs. In times of reduced state
    budgets, it is particularly important for the Service to look to ways
    to use funding to assist the state programs and biologists involved in
    mutual projects.

    Forest and Rangelands Research
        The proposed fiscal year 2004 budget provides $252 million for
    Forest and Rangeland Research, an increase of approximately $9 million
    above the fiscal year 2003 request but essentially level with the
    fiscal year 2002 enacted budget. The fiscal year 2004 budget provides
    over $11 million for new research initiatives related to invasive
    species, the Healthy Forests Initiative and Sudden Oak Death disease.
    The Association supports the proposed fiscal year 2004 research budget
    provided current activities in the Wildlife, Fish, Water, and Air
    Research segment of the budget can be maintained.

    Roads, Trails, and Facilities
        The Association has continuing concerns regarding proposed funding
    and management decisions involving roads and trails. There is a need to
    prioritize funding for maintenance and to address deteriorating, unsafe
    conditions. We support the increases in fiscal year 2004 for the USFS
    roads, trails, and facilities program but request additional funding
    for this and subsequent fiscal years for maintenance and improvements
    to resolve the maintenance backlog.
        The fiscal year 2004 budget estimates the deferred maintenance
    backlog of roads and bridges at $10 billion, and if eliminated, the
    annual maintenance needs would be approximately $152 million. These
    figures are significantly different than the fiscal year 2003 budget
    document, perhaps due to changes in the budget structure itself. We
    urge that future budget documents break out deferred maintenance,
    backlog of improvements, and other components from facilities so that
    the funding needs and accomplishments can be more consistently
    evaluated.
        The Association strongly urges the USFS to closely coordinate with
    State and local agencies early in the process of decisions to close or
    to reduce use of roads on the National Forest System. Many roads are
    important to the transportation needs and desires of local communities
    and recreational users. While poorly designed, constructed, or
    maintained roads add significantly to water quality issues and fish
    habitat concerns, involvement of organizations with interests in
    maintaining or retaining roads may result in additional options for
    correcting those conditions without total closure. As noted in the
    past, road closures should seek a balance with consideration for
    adequate recreational and other user access to National Forest lands.
    In particular, cooperation with State fish and wildlife agencies in
    identifying roads to close or to seek alternate management options is
    strongly recommended.

    State and Private Forestry
        We commend the President for increasing the Forest Legacy budget in
    fiscal year 2004 to $91 million. We encourage Congress to support this
    $20 million funding increase over the fiscal year 2003 President's
    budget. We request that the USFS develop a nationally competitive and
    unbiased process to rank Forest Legacy projects that includes state
    lead agencies and Forest Service staff participation (Forest Service
    staff should be within comparable employment rank to avoid weighting by
    supervisors). We appreciate that the budget for fiscal year 2004 now
    includes specific funding identified for the Forest Legacy program by
    state and project.
        The Stewardship Incentive Program and Forestry Incentives Program
    were replaced with Forest Land Enhancement Program (FLEP). We support
    the $25 million request for FLEP in fiscal year 2004.
        The Association continues to strongly support programs that assist
    private landowners and States to improve and enhance fisheries and
    wildlife habitat, protect watershed values, and contribute to the
    economic and environmental well being of urban and rural America. Under
    the Cooperative Forestry component of the State and Private Forestry
    budget, we support the proposed budget increases for the Urban and
    Community Forestry program.

    National Fire Plan
        The Association is deeply concerned by the complete lack of any
    funding request in the fiscal year 2004 Forest Service budget for
    National Fire Plan rehabilitation and restoration. In fiscal year 2001
    the amount allocated for this purpose was $141.7 million; in fiscal
    year 2002 the level declined to $62.7 million; in fiscal year 2003
    Congress approved $7.1 million; and in fiscal year 2004 the President's
    budget request for rehabilitation and restoration is zeroed out. This
    comes at a time when 19.2 million acres of forestland have burned in
    the past three years--7 million in 2002 alone--with four states
    experiencing their largest fires in recorded history. Predictions call
    for another catastrophic fire season in 2003.
        Given this devastating trend, the Association is at a loss to
    understand the absence of any fiscal resources directed at
    rehabilitation and restoration, while the other four program areas of
    the National Fire Plan have experienced, and are proposed for,
    significant budgetary increases. This action on the part of the Forest
    Service also appears to be in direct conflict with Congressional
    direction for the 10-year comprehensive strategy as expressed in the
    Conference Report for the fiscal year 2001 Interior and Related
    Agencies Appropriations Act (Public Law 106-291). That report
    specifically directed, ``The Secretaries should also work with the
    Governors on a long-term strategy to deal with the wildland and
    hazardous fuels situations, as well as the needs for habitat
    restoration and rehabilitation in the Nation . . .'' As such, and given
    the obvious need for ongoing forestland rehabilitation and restoration
    throughout the life of the National Fire Plan, the Association strongly
    recommends Congress appropriate at least $25 million in the fiscal year
    2004 Forest Service National Fire Plan budget for the exclusive purpose
    of rehabilitation and restoration, and in the out years, the Forest
    Service submit realistic funding requests to meet this requirement.

                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Mother Lode Chapter of the Sierra Club

        The Mother Lode Chapter of the Sierra Club urges the Subcommittee
    to recommend a $2 million Land and Water Conservation Fund
    appropriation for Inholdings in Sierra Nevada National Forests.
        This appropriation is included in the President's Budget.
        This appropriation would purchase lands at several locations in the
    Tahoe National Forest. The first priority would be the remaining large
    parcels along the North Fork of the American Wild River. The remaining
    funds would purchase:
        (1) lands along the Middle Fork of the American River; and
        (2) Barker Pass lands near the Pacific Crest Trail.
        The significant natural values that would be preserved by each of
    these purchases are described in the following sections of this letter.
        Appropriations for purchasing lands in the North Fork of the
    American Wild River and the Middle Fork of the American River are
    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.

                   THE NORTH FORK OF THE AMERICAN WILD RIVER

        The appropriation would purchase 1,400 acres of private lands along
    the North Fork of the American Wild River in Tahoe National Forest,
    California. The anticipated cost of these lands is about $1 million.
    The Forest Service has already acquired 8,200 acres along and near the
    Wild River, and the proposed purchase would finally complete the
    acquisitions of presently available large private parcels in and near
    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.
        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 beauty and naturalness 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.

                     THE MIDDLE FORK OF THE AMERICAN RIVER

        Funds would also be used to begin the purchase of private lands in
    the canyon of the Middle Fork of the American River, the adjacent major
    drainage to the south.
        The available lands include almost all the private land in a 25-
    mile stretch of the Middle Fork canyon. This stretch of the Middle Fork
    is the boundary between Tahoe and Eldorado National Forests.
        The canyon of the Middle Fork is even more narrow, steep, rugged,
    and remote than the canyon of the North Fork, and also possesses all
    the same outstanding features. The clean waters of the river support a
    high-quality trout fishery sustained by natural reproduction. Large
    mammals, including black bear and mountain lion, are found in the
    canyon. This remote unspoiled canyon provides habitat for the same
    species of birds, including several sensitive species--spotted owls,
    peregrine falcons, golden eagles, and goshawks. Fishermen and
    naturalists who make the strenuous descent into the canyon are rewarded
    by pristine conditions and solitude.
        The Middle Fork is a major source of high-quality water for Placer
    County and fast-growing downstream areas. Placer County has developed
    the Middle Fork for water supply and hydroelectric power; this
    development directly affects only a small proportion of the 25 miles of
    canyon. Unified management of the Middle Fork Canyon by the Forest
    Service would better protect water quality and better guarantee
    preservation of its outstanding natural attributes. Possible future
    mining and logging on private land could significantly degrade the
    canyon's naturalness and the purity of the Middle Fork's waters.

                 BARKER PASS LANDS NEAR THE PACIFIC CREST TRAIL

        Barker Pass crosses the Sierra Nevada crest on the edge of the
    Tahoe Basin. Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI) has made 1,400 acres near
    Barker Pass available for purchase. These lands are just outside the
    Tahoe Basin and adjacent to the Granite Chief Wilderness. About 640 of
    the 1,400 acres were purchased by an fiscal year 2003 LWCF
    appropriation.
        The Pacific Crest Trail along the crest near Barker Pass traverses
    lands with attractive forest and meadow scenery; volcanic outcrops add
    scenic variety. Human activities do not dominate views from the Trail,
    despite past roading and logging. Upper Barker Meadow provides
    attractive campsites for PCT hikers.
        Development of these lands would have significant adverse effects
    on the Pacific Crest Trail, the Granite Chief Wilderness, and major
    trails into the Wilderness. Much of the SPI acreage could be developed
    for summer residences, especially appealing to purchasers preferring an
    isolated location. These lands are easily accessible from Lake Tahoe in
    summer by the high-standard Blackwood Canyon Road. Lands outside the
    Tahoe Basin are not subject to the Basin's strict controls on
    development.
        The integrity of the Granite Chief Wilderness and wilderness users'
    experiences would be adversely affected by development on the SPI
    parcels near the boundary of the Granite Chief Wilderness.
        The SPI lands, the largest block of private lands in the watersheds
    of the Granite Chief Wilderness, include the headwaters of Powderhorn
    and Little Powderhorn Creeks. New development and roadbuilding on the
    SPI lands would increase erosion and siltation in these tributaries of
    Five Lakes Creek. Pristine Five Lakes Creek, which flows through a
    beautiful wilderness canyon, supports an outstanding population of wild
    rainbow trout.
        Acquisition of the SPI lands near Barker Pass will foreclose the
    possibility of development adversely affecting the Pacific Crest Trail
    and the watersheds of the Granite Chief Wilderness.

                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Association of Conservation
                                   Districts

        The National Association of Conservation Districts is the
    nonprofit, nongovernment organization that represents the nation's
    3,000 conservation districts and more than 16,000 men and women who
    serve on their governing boards. Established under state law,
    conservation districts are local units of state government charged with
    carrying out programs for the protection and management of natural
    resources at the local level. They work with nearly two-and-half
    million cooperating landowners and operators--many of them farmers and
    ranchers--to provide technical and other assistance to help them manage
    and protect private land in the United States. In carrying out their
    mission to coordinate and carry out all levels of conservation
    programs, districts work closely with USDA and USDI agencies to provide
    the technical and other help farmers and ranchers need to plan and
    apply complex conservation practices, measures and systems including
    their interactions with public lands.
        The partnership of conservation districts, state conservation
    agencies, state forestry agencies, state wildlife agencies and other
    resource organizations provide farmers and ranchers with critical help
    in protecting and improving the quantity and quality of our soil and
    water resources while meeting both domestic and international food and
    fiber needs. America's agricultural producers provide many benefits to
    our citizens including clean water and air, fish and wildlife habitat
    and open space. Many of the practices producers apply on their land
    also take carbon out of the atmosphere and store it in the soil,
    providing a hedge against global climate change.
        As stewards of the nation's working lands, farmers, ranchers and
    forestland owners manage the vast majority of America's private lands
    and provide tremendous environmental benefits to the country. They also
    have a considerable influence on many of the nation's public lands.
        On behalf of America's conservation districts, I am pleased to
    provide our recommendations on selected conservation programs carried
    out through the U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of
    Interior relative to conservation on both private and public lands.

                                 FOREST SERVICE

    State and Private Forestry
        The private forestlands of the nation are coming under increasing
    pressure for production of wood and other products. Resource concerns
    and needs include growing fragmentation, wildfire threats and insect
    and disease infestation, as well as wildlife and recreation needs. The
    State and Private Forestry (S&PF) programs of the Forest Service
    promote the health and sustainability of the nation's private forest
    resources by providing technical and cost-sharing assistance to
    landowners to support voluntary stewardship of state and private
    forestlands. Conservation districts are key partners with both the
    Forest Service and state foresters in carrying out the S&PF programs.
        The Forest Stewardship Program is designed to assist nonindustrial
    private forestland owners to better manage and use their forest
    resources. Cost-shared with the states, the FSP provides technical
    assistance that enables landowners to manage lands for multiple uses.

    Fiscal Year 2004 Forest Stewardship Program Recommendation--$66 million
        Urban and Community Forestry helps to provide leadership for
    improving and expanding urban forest ecosystems in the nation's 45,000
    towns and cities. It also provides leadership for state of the art
    technology and grants to urban areas to support tree planting and urban
    tree protection actions.

    Fiscal Year 2004 Urban and Community Forestry Recommendation--$38
            million
        Cooperative Lands Forest Health Management provides technical
    assistance for insect and disease suppression programs on both federal
    and private lands. As our population continues to expand into rural
    America, Cooperative Fire Protection helps ensure cost-effective fire
    protection at the rural-urban interface.
        The Forest Legacy Program helps to protect forestlands under threat
    of conversion to nonforest uses. Economic Action Programs help rural
    communities develop and sustain locally driven natural-resource-based
    economies. Forest Resources and Information Analysis (FRIA) supports
    regional units that have responsibility for collecting and analyzing
    forest resource data to help guide management decisions.

    Fiscal Year 2004 Cooperative Lands Forest Health Management
            Recommendation.--$31 million

    Fiscal Year 2004 Cooperative Fire Protection Recommendation--$31
            million

    Fiscal Year 2004 Forest Legacy Program Recommendation--$91 million

    Fiscal Year 2004 Economic Action Programs Recommendation--$36.000
            million
        The 2002 Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Farm Bill)
    repealed both the Stewardship Incentives Program and Forestry
    Incentives Program and established the Forest Land Enhancement Program
    (FLEP). The purpose of FLEP is to encourage the long-term
    sustainability of nonindustrial private forest lands by assisting
    forestland owners in more actively managing those lands. FLEP is
    carried out through state foresters and provides resource management
    expertise, financial and educational programs assistance. Funded
    through the Commodity Credit Corporation at $100 million through 2007,
    the Office of Management and Budget will apportion funds annually.
    Conservation districts urge the subcommittee to allow full
    implementation of FLEP.

                            WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

        As a result of management decisions made in past decades that
    resulted in unnatural suppression of fires on public lands, large
    acreages of forest and rangeland have become extraordinarily dense and
    overloaded with fuels, resulting in fires that no longer burn at
    natural temperatures or rates. These catastrophic fires are dangerous
    to fight, difficult to control, and, rather than renewing forests, they
    destroy them. The President's Healthy Forests Initiative, which
    includes components of several S&PF programs, as well as Wildland Fire
    Management activities, is a new approach to address these issues.

    Fiscal Year 2004 Wildland Fire Management Recommendation--$1.8 billion
        The 2002 Farm Bill also established the Community and Private Land
    Fire Assistance Program to help focus the federal role in promoting
    firefighting efficiency, to augment federal wildfire protection
    projects, expand outreach and education programs and to help establish
    defensible wildfire buffers around communities and private homes. The
    program, authorized at $35 million annually, is implemented through
    state foresters.

    Fiscal Year 2004 Community and Private Land Fire Assistance Program
            Recommendation--$35 million
                           fish and wildlife service
        Fish and Wildlife resource concerns are significant throughout the
    nation. With growing human population dwindling land and water
    habitats, the need for active resource management programs grows with
    each passing year.
        The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program offers technical and
    financial assistance to private landowners to voluntarily restore
    wetlands and other fish and wildlife habitats on their land. The
    program emphasizes the re-establishment of native vegetation and
    ecological communities for the benefit of fish and wildlife while
    meeting the needs and desires of private landowners. Conservation
    districts are major partners in the program, raising matching funds and
    sponsoring more than 900 wetland restoration projects.

    Fiscal Year 2004 Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program
            Recommendation--$39 million
        The Private Stewardship Grants Program provides grants and other
    assistance on a competitive basis to individuals and groups engaged in
    local, private, and voluntary conservation efforts that benefit
    federally listed, proposed, or candidate species, or other at-risk
    species. The Landowner Incentive Program provides financial incentives
    to encourage landowners to help protect and conserve rare species on
    their lands. Established in the fiscal year 2002 appropriations process
    as part of the Cooperative Conservation Initiative, both programs are
    flexible and are open to all private landowners who have a desire to
    voluntarily manage for rare species on their land.

    Fiscal Year 2004 Private Stewardship Grants Program Recommendation--$10
            million

    Fiscal Year 2004 Landowner Incentive Program Recommendation--$50
            million
        The Ecological Services Program (Endangered Species and Habitat
    Conservation) works in partnership with public agencies, private
    organizations and landowners and operators with the goal of reducing
    threats to declining species. Its consultation and recovery elements
    include a wide range of management options designed to protect species
    while still allowing private economic development to proceed.

    Fiscal Year 2004 Endangered Species Recommendation--$130 million

    Fiscal Year 2004 Habitat Conservation Recommendation--$85 million
        Payments in Lieu of Taxes are funded through the National Wildlife
    Refuge Fund and are designed to offset revenue lost by localities when
    refuge acquisition results in land being removed from tax rolls.

    Fiscal Year 2004 Payments in Lieu of Taxes Recommendation--$50 million
        The Coastal Program focuses the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
    efforts in bays, estuaries and watersheds around the U.S. coastline.
    The purpose of the Coastal Program is to conserve fish and wildlife and
    their habitats to support healthy coastal ecosystems. The Service
    provides funding through the program to 16 high priority coastal
    ecosystems.

    Fiscal Year 2004 Coastal Program Recommendation--$12 million.
        The North American Wetlands Conservation Fund and associated
    program provides assistance to conserve wetland ecosystems and
    waterfowl and the other migratory birds and fish and wildlife that
    depend upon wetlands. Through voluntary partnerships, federal funding
    leverages non-federal funds for projects that focus on restoring
    wetlands and acquiring wetlands from willing sellers to be managed for
    wildlife conservation by private organizations or state and federal
    agencies.

    Fiscal Year 2004 North American Wetlands Conservation Fund
            Recommendation--$50 million

                           BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

        The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 262 million of
    America's public lands, located primarily in 12 Western States. BLM's
    mission, sustaining the health, diversity and productivity of public
    lands, becomes more challenging each year as populations and pressures
    on the resource base grow rapidly in these states.
        BLM's Payments in Lieu of Taxes are designed to offset revenue lost
    by localities when federal land acquisition results in land being
    removed from tax rolls.

    Fiscal Year 2004 Payments in Lieu of Taxes Recommendation--$200 million
        The agency's Soil, Water and Air; Range Management; Wildlife &
    Fisheries Habitat accounts and Challenge Cost Share Partnership are
    each aimed at improving the health of landscapes and watersheds and to
    manage, protect and restore important fish, wildlife and grazing
    habitats.
    Fiscal Year 2004 Soil, Water and Air--$36 million
    Fiscal Year 2004 Range Management Recommendation--$75 million

    Fiscal Year 2004 Wildlife & Fisheries Habitat Recommendation--$38
            million

    Fiscal Year 2004 Challenge Cost Share Partnership Recommendation--$21
            million
        Forestry programs within BLM target conducting commercial timber
    thinning sales and management activities to improve the condition and
    productivity of forests. OR&CA Grant Lands funds target enhanced
    management activities on environmentally sensitive public lands in
    Oregon and California.

    Fiscal Year 2004 OR&CA Grant Lands Recommendation--$114 million

                             BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

        Water needs are an increasing resource concern, especially in the
    Western United States. The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is the
    lead federal agency for supplying water to agricultural producers and
    others in the seventeen Western states. Reclamation initiated the Water
    Conservation Field Services Program (WCFSP) in 1997 to encourage the
    efficient use of water on federal projects, assist water districts
    develop and implement effective water conservation plans, and
    complement and support other federal, state, and local conservation
    program efforts. WCFSP is designed to provide technical and financial
    assistance in conservation planning, education, demonstration of
    innovative conservation technologies and implementation of effective
    conservation measures.
        The President's budget request includes a new, $11.0 million
    Western Water Initiative to help develop solutions to the increasing
    demands for limited water resources-especially in the West. The
    initiative is directed at enhancing Reclamation's efficiency and
    performance in carrying out its core mission of delivering water and
    power in an environmentally sound and cost efficient manner. The
    initiative has four key elements intended to enhance water management
    and prevent crisis-level water conflicts in the West.

    Fiscal Year 2004 Water Conservation Field Services Program
            Recommendation--$20 million
    Fiscal Year 2004 Western Water Initiative Recommendation--$11 million
        We appreciate the opportunity to provide our recommendations to the
    subcommittee.

                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of The Nature Conservancy

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate this
    opportunity to present The Nature Conservancy's recommendations for
    fiscal year 2004 appropriations. We understand and appreciate the fact
    that the Subcommittee's ability to fund programs within its
    jurisdiction is limited by our current national emergency.
        The Nature Conservancy is an international, non-profit organization
    dedicated to the conservation of biological diversity. Our mission is
    to preserve the plants, animals and natural communities that represent
    the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they
    need to survive. The Conservancy has more than 1,000,000 individual
    members and 1,900 corporate associates. We have programs in all 50
    states and in 30 foreign countries. We have protected more than 15
    million acres in the United States and Canada and more than 83 million
    acres with local partner organization globally. The Conservancy owns
    and manages 1,340 preserves throughout the United States--the largest
    private system of nature sanctuaries in the world. Sound science and
    strong partnerships with public and private landowners to achieve
    tangible and lasting results characterize our conservation programs.
        The Nature Conservancy believes that the conservation community has
    an obligation to take action as well as raise awareness. Private
    efforts alone, however, will not suffice. Federal investments in
    conservation, through federal land and fish and wildlife programs, and
    as a partner with state and local governments and the private sector,
    are essential to conserve the nation's biodiversity.

                          STEWARDSHIP OF PUBLIC LANDS

        The nation's federal lands require enhanced stewardship funding.
    Many of our ecosystems are extremely degraded, particularly by invasive
    species and poor fire management, and require substantial investments
    to restore proper ecosystem function.

    National Fire Plan
        The President's fiscal year 2004 budget includes a substantial
    increase in suppression funding and a very small increase in hazardous
    fuels reduction funding. We believe that the smartest and most cost-
    efficient way to address the threat of ecologically destructive fires
    is through long-term restoration. Continuing to spend money on
    suppression, at the expense of restoration to prevent destructive fires
    creates a vicious cycle causing more need for suppression monies. We
    believe that Congress should: (1) increase total funding for Hazardous
    Fuel Reduction to $480 million, with an emphasis on funding for long-
    term, large-scale hazardous fuels reduction projects with rigorous
    adaptive management plans; and (2) restore total Rehabilitation and
    Restoration programs to $82.7 million, the fiscal year 2002 level, with
    a portion of the funding targeted at expanding restoration ecology
    expertise. Despite one of the worst fire seasons in history, the
    Restoration and Rehabilitation activity was zeroed out for the Forest
    Service for fiscal year 2004, and reduced for DOI. Without adequate
    post-emergency restoration following unnaturally severe fires, the
    result is increased damaged caused by invasive species such as cheat
    grass--including increased risk of future fires. As part of the
    restoration funds, we recommend $10 million for development and
    production of additional native plant materials through private/public
    partnerships.

    Invasive Species
        Next to habitat loss, invasion by non-native species is the most
    pervasive threat to native biodiversity on public lands. The
    Conservancy supports the interagency National Invasive Species Cross-
    Cut Performance Budget as a start for accelerating prevention, early
    detection, rapid response, control and management and restoration. This
    multi-pronged approach emphasizes private-public partnerships and
    interagency collaboration and is essential if we are to reduce the
    threat of invasive species to the nation's lands and waters. The
    Conservancy supports the President's requested funding increases of $9
    million for BLM, BOR, NPS and USGS and $6.6 million for the Forest
    Service for enhanced invasive species management by federal land
    management agencies.

                          ACQUISITION OF FEDERAL LAND

        The Nature Conservancy applauded action by the Appropriations
    Committees to establish and fully fund the Land Conservation,
    Preservation, and Infrastructure Improvement program established in
    fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002. The Conservancy was disappointed
    that the fiscal year 2003 Interior appropriations bill did not continue
    the commitment to implementing this historic 6-year conservation
    achievement. We strongly urge the Subcommittee to fully fund this
    program at its fiscal year 2004 level of $1.56 billion.

    Land and Water Conservation Fund
        The Nature Conservancy strongly supports continued federal
    acquisition of high-priority biologically important land and urges the
    Congress to provide funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund
    (LWCF) at a far more robust level than the President's request. The
    Nature Conservancy proposes funding of 44 biologically rich land
    acquisition projects totaling $103,050,000. Priorities include
    completing multi-year projects to transform Great Sand Dunes National
    Monument into the nation's 57th National Park, expansion of Hawaii
    Volcanoes National Park, and protection of major inholdings at
    Florida's St. Marks NWR and Arkansas' Cache River NWR. A number of
    projects, including the Red Rock Lakes NWR, Northern Tallgrass Prairie
    NWR and BLM's Henry's Lake ACEC and Upper Snake /South Fork Snake River
    projects, rely upon conservation easements to achieve important
    conservation objectives while maintaining the integrity of working
    landscapes. We also encourage the Subcommittee to maintain the
    programmatic integrity of the LWCF and use it only for its
    legislatively authorized uses. We urge the subcommittee to provide at
    least the level of funding requested by the Administration for the
    state-side of the LWCF. Overwhelmingly successful ballot measures
    continue to demonstrate the substantial need and demand in states and
    counties across the country to acquire land for conservation and
    recreation purposes.

    Forest Legacy
        This program identifies and protects ecologically important
    forestland that is threatened by conversion to non-forest uses. It is
    an increasing popular and successful model of a non-regulatory
    conservation approach based on partnerships between federal and state
    governments and private landowners. This program has delivered
    measurable conservation results at sites such as the Bar J Ranch in
    Utah and the John Tully Wildlife Management Area in Tennessee, while
    maintaining sustainable public use of these lands. Building on that
    success requires a significant funding increase. We strongly support a
    $150 million appropriation for this program, including such priority
    projects as Maine's Machias River Project, Broxton Rocks in Georgia and
    Dragon Run in Virginia.

              PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES AND REFUGE REVENUE SHARING

        Programs provide payments to counties where land has been taken off
    the local property tax roles and put into federal ownership. In some
    counties, protection of significant natural resources impacts the tax
    base necessary to fund local government services, including schools and
    public safety. We urge the Committee to provide full funding for these
    programs and honor the federal government's commitment to impacted
    communities.

                             SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION

        Sound decisions on public and private land acquisition and
    management must be based on high-quality scientific information. The
    Conservancy's work on the ground long has been guided by information
    from the non-profit organization NatureServe and its state natural
    heritage program members. We support increase of $5 million for the
    U.S. Geological Survey's National Biological Information Infrastructure
    program and encourage an allocation of $500,000 to support the
    scientific information management and dissemination work of NatureServe
    and its state agency partners. We also support an increase of $2
    million in BLM's budget for long-term resource monitoring to measure
    the effects of increased energy development on other resources.

                          ENDANGERED SPECIES PROGRAMS

        The Conservancy supports a funding level of $100 million for the
    FWS's Cooperative Endangered Species Fund, an effective and flexible
    tool for building cooperative, voluntary partnerships between federal,
    state, and local governments to protect and recover critically
    imperiled species. The requested increase reflects the importance and
    unmet public funding needs of collaborative conservation strategies to
    protect critically rare species on non-federal land, and state and
    local acquisition of habitat necessary for the survival of listed and
    candidate species. We support and appreciate the Subcommittee's long-
    standing funding of $2 million annually to Southern California's
    Natural Community Conservation Planning program.
        The Nature Conservancy proposes significant increases for the FWS's
    ESA implementation programs. Funding increases would enhance the
    Service's ability to provide important incentive-based, non-regulatory
    programs that assist private landowners in protecting species. $12
    million for Candidate Conservation would expand this innovative program
    and permit more effective monitoring and implementation of existing
    agreements. $12 million for Listing would enable the Service to expand
    its evaluation of imperiled species for listing, a critical action that
    guarantees certain protections under the law, including the authority
    to purchase habitat. $55 million for Consultation/Habitat Conservation
    Planning would permit the Service to respond to the dramatic increase
    in the use of HCPs. $75 million for Recovery would permit the
    development, monitoring, and implementation of recovery plans and
    actions for a rapidly increasing number of listed species. We also urge
    support for the Cooperative Recovery Program for the four endangered
    fish species in the Upper Colorado River Basin by requesting $700,000
    of resource management funds for the FWS, along with $444,000 for
    operation and maintenance of the Ouray National Fish Hatchery.

                        STATE AND TRIBAL WILDLIFE GRANTS

        The Conservancy strongly supports this important and developing
    program and recommends funding of $125 million. We believe the
    development of state comprehensive wildlife conservation plans will set
    the foundation to direct future resources for state conservation
    objectives and encourage the states to make full use of the best
    existing scientific information, including natural heritage data.

       COOPERATIVE CONSERVATION INITIATIVE AND PRIVATE LANDOWNER PROGRAMS

        Private lands provide a portion of the habitat for at least two-
    thirds of all federally listed species. The Administration's
    Cooperative Conservation Initiative supports innovative ways to meet
    conservation needs of private landowners, local communities, states and
    the federal government through enhancing the capacity of federal
    agencies for innovative conservation partnerships.
    Challenge Cost Share
        We support increased funding for the BLM, $23 million, FWS, $11.9
    million, and NPS, $21 million. Challenge Cost Share programs leverage
    appropriated dollars through 1:1 matches with State and private
    partners to implement important restoration and resource protection
    projects. Partners for Fish and Wildlife. We support an increase for
    this program to $50 million. It provides important technical and
    financial assistance to private landowners and other partners to
    protect, restore and enhance habitat for fish and wildlife species. The
    fact that more than 2,000 private landowners are on a waiting list to
    use the program demonstrates the demand for this cost-sharing program.
    Landowner Incentive Program and Private Stewardship Grants. Last year,
    Congress funded these new programs to facilitate private wildlife
    conservation efforts. We urge the Subcommittee to favorably consider
    the Administration's request for $40 million and $10 million for these
    programs.

                            PARTNERSHIP INITIATIVES

    National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
        The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation is an excellent example
    of a program that effectively leverages conservation benefits. Federal
    support to NFWF continues to yield a return of nearly $3 for every
    single taxpayer dollar. Since its creation in 1984, NFWF has supported
    over 5,756 grants and leveraged over 230 million federal dollars for
    more than 700 million dollars in on-the-ground conservation. We
    recommend appropriations of $14 million for the USFWS, $4 million for
    the BLM and $4 million for the Forest Service.

    North American Wetlands Conservation Fund and Joint Venture program
        The North American Wetlands Conservation Fund (NAWCF) supports
    implementation of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and
    other initiatives that protect, restore, or enhance habitat for
    wetland-dependent migratory birds. Working with a variety of partners
    in Canada, Mexico, and the United States, it matches federal dollars at
    more than 2:1. The Conservancy urges $55 million for this
    extraordinarily successful program. The Conservancy is also supportive
    of Congress' and the Administration's continuing commitment and support
    for the Joint Ventures. In the fiscal year 2003 Appropriation Act,
    Congress recognized the need for increasing support for Joint Ventures
    and urged the Service to request additional funding in the fiscal year
    2004 budget The Conservancy is pleased that Joint Venture funding has
    been increased and supports the Service's request for $10.4 million for
    the Joint Venture program.

    Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund
        We support funding for this new and promising program at its
    authorized level of $5 million. Significantly, it can secure
    conservation gains by leveraging partnership investments throughout the
    Western Hemisphere. The Service should continue to administer this
    grant program through its division of bird habitat conservation,
    following the model of the North American wetlands conservation
    program.

                             INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS

        The Conservancy recommends a total of $14 million to the programs
    identified in the FWS' Multinational Species Conservation Fund. We
    propose, however, that the Committee appropriate $9 million for the
    Rhinoceros/tiger, Elephants and Great Ape funds and appropriate
    separately $5 million to the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation
    Fund. The U.S. Forest Service's International Programs address
    biodiversity challenges to forests worldwide. An increase of funding to
    $10 million would enhance current efforts to protect migratory birds.
    The NPS Office of International Affairs should be funded at $2 million
    so that the National Park Service--global leaders in conservation--can
    expand its collaborative activities to assist international partners in
    creating and managing parks and other protected areas.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present The Nature Conservancy's
    comments on the Interior budget.

     FISCAL YEAR 2004 LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND PROJECTS RECOMMENDED
                            BY THE NATURE CONSERVANCY
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         LWCF project                          TNC request
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT:
        Henry's Lake ACEC, ID.............................        $1,000,000
        Otay Mountain/Kuchamaa HCP,CA.....................         2,000,000
        Santa Rosa/San Jacinto Mountains NM, CA...........         2,000,000
        Upper Snake/South Fork Snake River, ID............         2,000,000
                                                           -----------------
          Subtotal........................................         7,000,000
                                                           =================
    U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE:
        Alaska Pennisula NWR (Pavlof Bay), AK.............           750,000
        Baca NWR, CO......................................         9,000,000
        Cache River NWR, AR...............................         2,500,000
        Cahaba River NWR, AL..............................         1,500,000
        Cape May NWR, NJ..................................         2,000,000
        Dakota Tallgrass Prairie WMA, ND/SD...............         1,000,000
        Key West NWR, FL..................................         1,500,000
        Lower Hatchie NWR, TN.............................         1,800,000
        Lower Rio Grande Valley NWR, TX...................         2,300,000
        Massasoit NWR, MA.................................           530,000
        Ninigret NWR, RI..................................           825,000
        Northern Tallgrass Prairie NWR, MN/IA.............         1,000,000
        Red River NWR, LA.................................         3,000,000
        Red Rock Lakes NWR, MT............................           750,000
        Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Easement                 1,000,000
         Program, MT......................................
        San Diego NWR, CA.................................         4,000,000
        San Joaquin NWR, CA...............................         3,000,000
        St. Marks NWR, FL.................................         1,600,000
        St. Vincent NWR, FL...............................         2,250,000
        Stewart McKinney NWR, CT..........................         1,500,000
                                                           -----------------
          Subtotal........................................        45,030,000
                                                           =================
    NATIONAL PARK SERVICE:
        Big Thicket National Preserve, TX.................         5,400,000
        Fire Island National Seashore, NY.................         1,500,000
        Great Sand Dunes National Monument, CO............         2,000,000
        Hawaii Volcanoes NP (Kahuku Ranch), HI............         6,500,000
        Obed Wild and Scenic River, TN....................         1,600,000
        Pinelands National Reserve, NJ....................         3,000,000
        Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve, FL.....         2,500,000
                                                           -----------------
          Subtotal........................................        22,500,000
                                                           =================
    U.S. FOREST SERVICE:
        Chattahoochee-Oconee NFs, GA......................         2,500,000
        Chequamegon-Nicolet NF, WI........................         4,500,000
        Delta NF, MS......................................         2,000,000
        Francis Marion NF, SC.............................         3,500,000
        Hoosier NF, IN....................................         1,750,000
        Los Padres NF, CA.................................         3,000,000
        Monongahela NF, WV................................         1,800,000
        National Forests in Alabama, AL...................         2,300,000
        Prescott NF, AZ...................................           900,000
        Shawnee NF, IL....................................         1,200,000
        Skagit River, WA..................................         2,000,000
        Sumter NF, SC.....................................         2,000,000
        Wenatchee NF (Tieton River), WA...................         1,075,000
                                                           -----------------
          Subtotal........................................        28,525,000
                                                           =================
          Total...........................................       103,055,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Northern Forest Alliance

        The 26-million-acre Northern Forest stretching from Maine's St.
    Croix River through New Hampshire and Vermont to the Adirondacks and
    Tug Hill in New York is a lifeline to millions of Americans. Clean air,
    clean water, wilderness and abundant wildlife are but a few of the
    gifts the forest offers to the 70 million people living within a day's
    drive. The forest's capacity to grow quality timber for high-value
    manufacturing; to lure visitors with breathtaking displays of natural
    beauty; and to showcase a rich cultural and historical tradition are
    the cornerstones on which to build a robust regional economy.
        The Northern Forest Alliance is a coalition of more than 40 state,
    regional and national organizations dedicated to the protection and
    stewardship of the region. Together we represent the interests of more
    than one million people. On behalf of the Alliance I am submitting
    testimony in strong support of several Northern Forest Forest Legacy
    projects, a significant increase in funding for the Forest Legacy
    Program to at least $150 million, and for full funding of the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund. Also, as you know, in 2000 Congress approved
    Title VIII, the Conservation Trust Fund (Title VIII), which should be
    funded in fiscal year 2004 at $2.08 billion, as originally authorized.
    It is critical for conservation efforts not only in our region but
    across the country that the array of programs included in this title be
    fully funded.

      THE CASE FOR SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED FUNDING FOR THE FOREST LEGACY
                                    PROGRAM

        In recent years the number of compelling projects in need of
    funding under the Forest Legacy Program, along with its popularity, has
    grown exponentially. A major reason for the success of the program is
    that the conservation mechanisms available under the program are able
    to address a range of legitimate conservation needs of the 21st
    century: the program enables landowners to retain ownership of their
    land and continue to earn income from it; conserves open space, scenic
    lands, wildlife habitat, and clean water; and ensures continued
    opportunities for outdoor recreational activities such as hunting,
    fishing, and hiking. In addition, with its minimum requirement of 25
    percent non-federal matching funds, the program leverages state and
    private dollars to complement federal money, creating partnerships that
    have lasting value.
        Authorized by Congress in 1990, the Forest Legacy Program helps
    preserve working forestlands and protect critical resources. As our
    population grows and land values rise, many private productive forests
    are in danger of conversion to housing subdivisions or second-home
    development. The United States loses more than half a million acres of
    privately-owned timberland to development each year. These changes are
    impacting the economic integrity of our forest-based communities, and
    they are also limiting the amount of recreational open space and
    critical wildlife habitat we all enjoy. The Forest Legacy Program,
    administered by the U.S. Forest Service through grants to states,
    provides a mechanism and a small pot of federal funds for protecting
    forestland and the multiple benefits these lands provide. It is
    increasingly apparent, however, that the modest funds historically
    provided for this program, despite the increase in fiscal year 2003, is
    woefully inadequate to meet current and future projected demand.

                     FOREST LEGACY SUPPORTS WORKING FORESTS

        A central purpose of the Forest Legacy Program is to ensure the
    continuation of a traditional working forest rather than fragmentation
    and subdivision. Under a Forest Legacy easement, the landowner or other
    parties may continue to harvest timber according to the terms of the
    agreement. If a landowner chooses to sell the timber harvesting rights,
    they may do so, but under many existing Forest Legacy easements, the
    landowner has retained harvesting rights and agreed to specific
    language governing harvest methods.
        With a tradition of using the forest that goes back hundreds of
    years, Northern Forest residents are not eager to see the forest
    subdivided and the lakeshores built up. Converting woods to house lots
    puts an end to local forest dependent businesses ranging from timber
    and paper production to guiding and cultural tourism. Breaking up the
    forest disrupts wildlife and jeopardizes water quality. Private
    driveways and ``No Trespassing'' signs change the culture and character
    of the region. And so local residents have banded together to identify
    the most important places that are for sale. They're working with state
    agencies, legislatures, non-profits and private donors to protect more
    than 800,000 acres in the Northern Forest from development this year.
        But they cannot do it on their own; they need assistance from the
    Forest Legacy Program to realize their goals. To meet growing national
    demands, the Forest Legacy Program should be funded at $150 million in
    fiscal year 2004. In the Northern Forest, we're depending on a $38
    million investment this year to realize the potential of this public-
    private collaboration for protecting our intact forests. It's an
    opportunity that cannot be missed, for the sake of conserving a
    landscape, a regional economy, and a cherished way of life.

               FOREST LEGACY SUPPORTS PRIVATE LANDOWNERS' RIGHTS

        Through conservation easements, a landowner can voluntarily sell
    development rights, continue to generate economic activity, and
    maintain a traditional landscape for the next generation to enjoy.
    Through the purchase of conservation easements, a landowner's private
    property rights are being protected. It is the landowner who decides
    whether or not to limit development of their property, and they are
    fairly compensated for the rights purchased.

            FOREST LEGACY PROMOTES PARTNERSHIPS AND LEVERAGES FUNDS

        The Forest Legacy Program offers the opportunity for the federal
    government to work in partnership with states, local communities and
    private landowners to ensure that the multiple benefits found on forest
    lands--economic sustainability, wildlife habitat protection, and
    recreational opportunities--are secured for future generations. Since
    its inception, the program has proven extremely popular but unable to
    meet the demand across the nation. In fiscal year 2003 states submitted
    funding requests totaling over $300 million in Forest Legacy funding,
    yet less than a third was appropriated. In addition, several other
    states are in the process of enrolling in the program in the near
    future, increasing the demand for funding.

                 FOREST LEGACY IS A POPULAR AND GROWING PROGRAM

        34 States are currently enrolled in the Forest Legacy Program, and
    several other states are currently developing plans for enrollment in
    the program or considering beginning the planning process.
        Congressional support for the program has steadily grown, with
    funding levels increasing from $7 million in fiscal year 1999 to $30
    million in fiscal year 2000 to $60 million in fiscal year 2001, $65
    million in fiscal year 2002 and over $70 million this year.
    Significantly the Administration has requested more than $90 million
    for the program for fiscal year 2004. Even at this level, however,
    several properties being offered for protection by willing landowners
    and states through the Forest Legacy Program could not be fully funded
    and will have to be carried over to the following year. The Northeast
    in particular has an abundance of worthwhile projects and documented
    needs for Forest Legacy funding which will go unmet unless Forest
    Legacy is significantly increased or other sources of funding are
    identified.
        The Forest Legacy Program must be funded at $150 million annually
    on a dependable basis to meet the nation's need for conserving large
    tracts of forest with easements. Legacy is an essential tool in land
    conservation because it enables a public/private partnership for
    protecting the many public benefits of large tracts of forest land. It
    is clear that Forest Legacy will play an important role in completing
    the emerging conservation projects in the Northern Forest.

     SUMMARY OF NORTHERN FOREST FISCAL YEAR 2004 LEGACY PROJECTS AND FUNDING
                                    REQUESTS
                              [Dollars in millions]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Acreage       Request    Project cost
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Maine:
        Machias River.............      32,000           $2.00        $15.00
        Tumbledown/Mt. Blue.......      30,000            3.00         15.00
        Bald Mountain.............      10,000            1.30          4.00
        Katahdin Forest...........     241,000            8.00         50.00
        Northern Tier: Boundary        500,000            5.00         35.00
         Mtns. to Nahmakanta......
    New Hampshire: 13-Mile Woods..       5,300            2.00          3.80
    Vermont:
        Monadnock to Victory Basin       3,524            1.50          1.90
        Mallory Brook.............         490            0.25          0.40
        Chittenden County Uplands.       8,515            4.15          4.15
    New York:
        Domtar-Sable Highlands....     105,000            5.00          8.50
        Moose River Corridor......       5,600            2.00          9.70
        Headwaters of the Hudson--      11,200            3.50          7.00
         Tahawus..................
    Property Mileage Request:
        Vermont: Long Trail.......           2.5          0.20  ............
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              LWCF--STATE PROGRAM
        Vermont workers whose employer had closed its plant in Island Pond.
    With this and other aid, a group of employees has started a new
    business, which now produces its own furniture line. In New York, the
    same program has helped the community of Tupper Lake establish a
    Natural History Center of the Adirondacks, a focal point for future
    nature based tourism in the area. Significant funding is needed
    nationally and in the Northeast Region to keep these valuable, results-
    oriented programs active in Northern Forest communities.

                         AGENCY/PROGRAM REGION REQUEST

                                ECONOMIC PROGRAMS
                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Program                               Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    USDA State and Private Forestry Division:
        Forest Land Enhancement Program National...............           22
        Economic Action Programs Northeast.....................           10
    USDA Rural Development Division: Rural Business Enterprise             4
     and Opportunity Grants Northern Forest States.............
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                NEW PARTNERSHIPS

        Without a new partnership with the federal government, however,
    even these landmark state funding programs cannot meet the conservation
    challenges in the Northern Forest. Millions of acres of forest, clean
    rivers, and pristine lakes need to be protected in this most densely
    populated part of our country. We are poised now on the cusp of an
    historic opportunity to protect the cherished landscape of the Northern
    Forest, a mainstay of the economy, ecology and culture of the
    Northeast.
        We challenge Congress to fund the Forest Legacy Program at a
    minimum level of $150 million, to fully fund the Land & Water
    Conservation Fund at $900 million annually, and the Conservation Trust
    Fund at $2.08 billion to meet the conservation needs of the 21st
    century.
        Mr. Chairman, as we begin the 21st Century we are faced with an
    historic opportunity to conserve places of extraordinary natural and
    public value. The work of protecting and caring for these special
    places must be a partnership that engages government, businesses and
    non-profit organizations. But federal funds, leadership and expertise
    are a critical element of this partnership. We urge the continued
    commitment of Congress to work with the people of Maine, Vermont, New
    Hampshire and New York to protect these irreplaceable resources. Thank
    you for considering our request.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the Sierra Nevada Alliance

        Mr. Chairman, the Sierra Nevada Alliance (the Alliance) would like
    to thank you for the opportunity to comment and make recommendations on
    the fiscal year 2004 Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
    Appropriations bill. I write these comments on behalf of the Alliance,
    a 10-year-old organization dedicated to protecting and restoring the
    natural values of the Sierra Nevada while promoting sustainable
    communities. Our top priorities include:
      --Continuation and full funding for the Interior portion of the
            Conservation Trust Fund (Land Conservation, Preservation and
            Infrastructure Improvement Fund) at $1.56 billion;
      --Within the Conservation Trust Fund, $450 million for Land and Water
            Conservation Fund Federal land acquisition; and
      --Within the Conservation Trust Fund, $150 million for the Forest
            Legacy program.
        We also urge you to maintain the integrity of both the Conservation
    Trust Fund, and of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Adequate
    funding for the programs discussed below is vital to protect the Sierra
    Nevada's wild areas and environmental values.
        The Sierra Nevada range covers 18 counties and two States,
    California and Nevada. Our range has over 50 percent of the species of
    California, supplies over 60 percent of California's water and much of
    Nevada's, and is a world renown destination for recreation. Much of the
    value of our region and its ability to fuel the Sierra economy is due
    to the conservation of wildlife, recreation, and natural treasures.
    Consequently, funding provided by the Subcommittee for Federal
    conservation programs is of vital importance to every resident and
    visitor of the Sierra Nevada.
          please provide full funding for the conservation trust fund
        We respectfully urge the Subcommittee to provide full funding for
    its portion of the Conservation Trust Fund (CTF) at $1.56 billion for
    fiscal year 2004. The Conservation Trust Fund was established by
    Congress in 2000 to address the chronic underfunding of our nation's
    conservation, recreation, wildlife, and cultural treasures' needs.
        We thank the Subcommittee for providing support for CTF programs
    under the jurisdiction of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee for
    fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002. However, we are troubled by the
    drop of over $400 million in total CTF funding in the final fiscal year
    2003 Omnibus appropriations bill, and by the cut of nearly $600 million
    in the President's fiscal year 2004 budget. We strongly urge you to
    maintain Congress' commitment to the CTF for fiscal year 2004 by
    providing the dedicated funding level of $1.56 billion for Interior
    appropriation's programs.
        Additionally, Congress should reject the proposal in the
    President's budget to erode the fund's original purposes by cutting
    funding for its authorized programs, such as the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund and State and Tribal Wildlife grants.
        Land and Water Conservation Fund.--Within the CTF, we urge the
    Subcommittee to reject the Administration's proposal for the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), and instead to provide at least $650
    million for LWCF's original, authorized programs, including $450
    million for Federal Land Acquisition. LWCF has been a premier tool to
    fund two things: Federal land acquisition and a State assistance
    program. This year, the Administration masked cuts of over 50 percent
    in real land acquisition by adding in new programs. Funding in the
    President's Budget for National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife
    Service, Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service land
    acquisition is cut from a combined total of $429 million enacted in
    fiscal year 2002 to $187 million proposed for fiscal year 2004.
    Americans have long relied on Federal land acquisition to protect and
    complete its parks, forests and refuges, and the Administration's cuts
    would result in smaller, more degraded lands and fewer recreation
    experiences.
        Federal acquisition of these lands is necessary to address grave,
    immediate environmental threats with the potential for permanent
    damage, and to help protect and restore wildlands of significance (e.g.
    those with rare ecosystems, endangered species, and/or other special
    qualities).

                ADDITIONAL AGENCY APPROPRIATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS

        Fund U.S. Forest Service Conservation Programs.--The U.S. Forest
    Service is the largest single land owner in the Sierra Nevada, owning
    38 percent of all Sierra lands. These Forest Service lands provide a
    vast array of popular recreational opportunities for millions of
    Americans. Outdoor recreation contributes more to the Sierra Nevada
    economy than any other use of the National Forest System. Despite this,
    many important conservation programs that help maintain Forest Service
    lands' recreational and ecological components are chronically
    underfunded, while programs that harm our national forests have
    traditionally received too much funding. We urge the Subcommittee to
    provide $76 million for Wildlife, Fish, Watershed and Atmospheric
    Sciences Research, approximately a $25 million increase over the fiscal
    year 2004 President's Budget request. Here in the Sierra, our aquatic
    ecosystems are the most impaired systems in the range and further
    assessments of our watersheds are greatly needed. We also recommend
    $285 million for the Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness Program, an
    increase of $30 million, as well as $200 million for the Wildlife and
    Fisheries Habitat Management Program, an increase of $65 million.
        Provide Funding for the purchase of California Wilderness
    Inholdings on National Forest Service Land.--There are about 25,000
    acres of inholdings in National Forest Wilderness Areas within
    California. Numerous inholdings exist in the Sierra Nevada. Each year,
    numerous private inholdings are offered for sale by the landowner. It
    is essential that the Forest Service acquire these lands as they become
    available to protect the ecological integrity of the wilderness areas.
    For fiscal year 2004, we are requesting $2,5000,000 to purchase
    available inholdings. There is a pressing need for consistent funding
    for these forest inholdings as they become available. Annual funding
    allocated specifically for critical forest inholdings would allow the
    Forest Service to purchase land on a prioritized need basis to prevent
    development of lands and protect areas of significant ecological value.
        We are also concerned that the proposed fiscal year 2004
    President's Budget's for the Forest Service Research and Development
    account falls $8 million short of the $260 million needed to prevent
    the further erosion of scientific capability within the Forest Service.
    Additionally, the Alliance strongly urges the Subcommittee to restore
    funding to the Rehabilitation and Restoration program at the fiscal
    year 2001 level of $142 million; and to fund Deferred Maintenance and
    Infrastructure Improvement at the fiscal year 2002 level of $60
    million. These two funds are critically important for mitigating
    environmental impacts after severe wildland fire events and for
    reducing the $8 billion road maintenance backlog. The Sierra has a
    history of suppressing fires and future wildland fire events will
    occur. It is imperative that the Forest Service have the resources to
    address these severe fires, ideally pro-actively as well as in
    response. Therefore, we request that you avoid endorsing the
    President's proposal to reduce the number of wildland firefighting
    crews and engines by 53 percent, but instead at least double the
    wildland fire budget to prepare for a fire season similar to 2000 or
    2002.
        Fund National Park Service Protection of Natural and Cultural
    Resources.--The Sierra Nevada Alliance is grateful for the continued
    support of the National Resource Challenge, but an increase of $12.4
    million is needed to bring its funding level to $80 million. As a
    member of Americans for Our National Parks, we recommend an additional
    $178 million over the enacted fiscal year 2003 levels in Park
    Operations to adequately protect the natural and cultural resources of
    the National Park system, bringing the total NPS Operations
    appropriation to $1.63 billion. In the Sierra we have both Yosemite
    National Park and Kings Canyon/Sequoia National Parks. Both these
    heavily visited parks need funding to protect the natural resources and
    ensure visitors for years to come enjoy the same beautiful and
    inspiring environment we do today.
        Fund Protection of Bureau of Land Management Lands.--In the Sierra
    Nevada, 11 percent of our lands are managed by BLM, including numerous
    wilderness areas and wilderness study areas. The President's fiscal
    year 2004 Budget proposes $43 million for the National Landscape
    Conservation System (NLCS), including an increase of $2.7 million for
    operations. This funding increase is vital to protect the these
    important lands.
        For BLM overall, the Alliance recommends an increase of $2 million
    for Resource Management Planning above the fiscal year 2004 President's
    Budget request of $48 million, to ensure effective public participation
    and outreach for new planning starts.
        We also endorse the Interior Department's multi-agency Invasive
    Species Initiative, and urge the Subcommittee to provide the full $9
    million increase for its programs proposed in the fiscal year 2004
    President's Budget. In the Sierra, numerous land trusts and watershed
    councils have identified significant problems with invasive weeds which
    require support for their eradication to restore the natural ecosystem.
        In summary, the Sierra Nevada is a unique and valued region of this
    nation, and full and adequate funding of Federal conservation programs
    is necessary to protect and restore these vibrant lands. Given that
    over 50 percent of our Sierra lands are federally owned and managed,
    significant cuts to the programs mentioned above have considerable
    negative impacts for the Sierra. I strongly encourage your committee to
    do everything in its ability to fully fund the conservation programs
    mentioned above, for the sake of millions of Americans and future
    generations. Please provide $450 million for Federal LWCF, and $2.08
    billion for the Conservation Trust Fund.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Society of American Foresters

        The Society of American Foresters (SAF) represents more than 17,000
    forestry professionals. SAF's primary objective is to advance the
    science, technology, education, and practice of professional forestry
    for the benefit of society. We offer this testimony for the fiscal year
    2004 budget for the Department of Interior and Related Agencies. With
    the understandable restriction on the length of this testimony, it is
    difficult to provide the in-depth analysis we would normally provide
    The table below details those items for which we offer suggestions that
    differ significantly from the Administration's proposal.

                                                [In thousands of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Fiscal year     Fiscal year
                      Discretionary appropriations                     2003 enacted    2004 proposed    SAF request
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Forest Inventory and Analysis \1\...............................            55.1            43.3            67.7
                                                                     ===============================================
    State and Private Forestry:
        Forest Health Management--Federal...........................            50.0            44.5            50.0
        Forest Health Management--Cooperative.......................            30.8            25.1            31.0
        Emerging Pest and Pathogens Fund............................  ..............            12.0            20.0
        State Fire Assistance.......................................            25.5            25.4            28.0
        Volunteer Fire Assistance...................................             5.0             5.0             6.0
        Community and Private Land Fire Assistance..................  ..............  ..............            35.0
        Forest Stewardship..........................................            32.0            65.6            50.0
        Watershed Forestry Assistance...............................  ..............  ..............            16.0
        Forest Legacy Program.......................................            68.4            90.8           100.0
        Urban and Community Forestry................................            36.0            37.9            40.0
        Economic Action Programs....................................            26.3  ..............            28.7
        International Forestry......................................             5.7             5.1             6.0
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          Total.....................................................           284.7           315.8           410.7
                                                                     ===============================================
    National Forest System:
        Land Management Planning....................................            71.7            70.9            72.2
        Forest Products.............................................           263.6           268.0           271.1
        Expedited Consultation......................................  ..............  ..............            15.0
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          Total.....................................................         1,353.4         1,369.6         1,374.0
                                                                     ===============================================
    Wildland Fire Management:
        Preparedness................................................           612.0           609.7           640.0
        Fire Operations.............................................           418.0           604.6           605.0
        Hazardous Fuels.............................................           226.6           231.4           262.1
        Rehabilitation and Restoration..............................             7.1  ..............            63.0
        Fire Research and Development...............................            21.2            21.4            23.0
        Joint Fire Sciences Program.................................             7.9             8.0  ..............
        Forest Health Management--Cooperative.......................             9.9             5.0             5.0
        Economic Action Programs....................................             5.0  ..............            12.5
        State Fire Assistance.......................................            46.2            46.5            58.0
        Volunteer Fire Assistance...................................             8.2             8.2            10.0
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          Total.....................................................         1,371.0         1,541.8         1,695.6
                                                                     ===============================================
    Capital Improvement and Maintenance:
        Facilities..................................................           202.3           200.9           202.3
        Roads.......................................................           231.3           245.4           245.4
        Infrastructure Improvement..................................            45.6  ..............            24.0
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          Total.....................................................           548.5           524.6           550.0
                                                                     ===============================================
    Land Acquisition/L&WCF Total....................................           132.9            44.1            50.0
                                                                     ===============================================
    Other Appropriations............................................            10.3            10.0            10.3
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ This includes funding normally allocated to S&PF, NFS, and Research. We propose creating a separate line
      item for FIA.

        Forest and Rangeland Research.--The forest health issues we are
    currently facing as a nation require an increased emphasis on research
    to achieve solutions. Increases in funding will help increase capacity.
    The Agency should also look to innovative partnerships with
    universities to further leverage research funding.
        Forest Inventory and Analysis.--The FIA program provides a clear
    understanding of forest resources, integrating data across all
    ownership boundaries. This information is crucial to ensuring forest
    management decisions are based in fact. We are concerned with the
    Administration's proposed cuts to the FIA program. To achieve the
    mandates of the 1998 Farm bill, producing an overall assessment of the
    nation's forest resources in a timely manner, FIA program funding must
    be set at a minimum of $67.7 million for fiscal year 2004. We also
    propose creating a separate line item for the FIA program. There is
    confusion in funding FIA through various line items. Consolidation will
    provide a complete understanding of all funds available for the FIA
    program.
        Fire Research.--Last year's wildfires burnt over 7.1 million acres,
    we must learn from these fires through research and transfer findings
    to those in the field. Improvements in fire management and proper
    implementation of the National Fire Plan can only be realized with
    scientific discovery, validation, and application supplied by critical
    research programs in partnership with all sectors of forestry research
    including colleges, universities, and private sector researchers.
        State and Private Forestry.--S&PF programs are a vital component of
    the sustainable management of the nation's forests. These programs
    focus on more than half of the nation's forest land, which supply clean
    water and air, recreational opportunities, and forest products.
    Development pressures are the primary threat to the sustainability of
    private forests. S&PF programs provide tools to help the 9.9 million
    landowners resist development pressures and sustain their forests for
    the nation's benefit.
        Community and Private Land Fire Assistance.--We support full
    funding for this program as authorized in the 2002 Farm Bill. The
    program enables communities to coordinate wildfire protection planning
    as well as undertake special restoration/hazardous fuel reduction
    projects, combat invasive species and build local markets for small-
    diameter materials. The one ingredient broadly lacking in the National
    Fire Plan is local county/community involvement. This program gives
    locals the needed incentive to engage in the National Fire Plan.
        Forest Stewardship, Forest Legacy, Forest Land Enhancement
    Program.--Private forest lands in the United States are increasingly
    threatened by several factors, including development pressures, the
    increasing need for forest products and services, as well as forest
    health concerns. The Federal government has an obligation to ensure
    these forests are managed sustainably, as they provide numerous public
    goods and services.
        While we appreciate the proposal to allocate additional funding for
    the Forest Stewardship Program, as an alternative, we suggest that the
    proposed $16 million initiative to fund certain predefined stewardship
    projects on a competitive challenge cost share, should be eliminated
    and instead the funding should be allocated for a new program, the
    Watershed Forestry Assistance program. This program, originally
    proposed during debate on the 2002 Farm Bill, would address watershed
    and water quality issues on private lands in cooperation with State
    agencies. This program is similar to the Watershed Restoration and
    Enhancement Agreements legislative proposal contained in the 2004
    budget.
        Emerging Pests and Pathogens Fund.--Invasive species, insects, and
    disease pose increasing threats to our public and private forests.
    There is a need for a cooperative approach to addressing this issue
    across ownership boundaries, as these invaders do not respect property
    lines. In 1998, over 54 million acres of forest land were affected by
    various insect and diseases. Invasive species are increasingly a
    threat, contributing to the decline of 46 percent of imperiled or
    endangered species in the United States, second only to habitat
    degradation and loss. This program will help address these problems
    through rapid response to this overwhelming threat affecting the health
    and sustainability of forest resources across the country.
        Economic Action Programs.--We strongly oppose elimination of
    funding for Economic Action Programs. Local communities utilize these
    funds to build their capacity to and contribute to sustainable forest
    management. Through EAP, Communities are able to assist with fuels
    reduction and other forest health projects and utilize the byproducts
    of this work.
        National Forest System.--Because of rising stand densities and
    mortality rates, the NFS lands are increasingly at risk of fire,
    insect, and outbreaks, and invasive species. There is a need for active
    and continuous forest management as current management levels are not
    adequate to address forest health issues and provide the multiple uses
    for which these lands were established. There is a need for revision
    and clarification of the laws and regulations that govern national
    forest management in light of the changing public values,
    administrative agendas, court decisions, and federal environmental laws
    that have shifted the emphasis of land management. Without adjustments,
    we fear we will continue to see delays and increasing costs for the
    land management agencies. SAF will continue to work with Congress and
    the Administration to address these issues.
        One such example of the increasing cost and delay in land
    management is the timber sale component of the Forest Products Program.
    The budget documents indicate timber sales can take up to 8 years to
    complete. This is unacceptable. Timber harvesting is a legitimate use
    of national forests and BLM public lands, as the multiple-use mandates
    make clear. Current harvesting levels are insufficient to maintain
    forest health, to meet the goals for hazardous fuel reduction to reduce
    wildfire and the risk of insect and disease outbreaks in the nation's
    forests and provide economic and community benefits.
        Adequate funding for land management planning is also necessary to
    ensure the Agency continues with the revision schedule for forest
    plans. With 39 plans in progress, and another 52 plans that will need
    revision in the coming years, the Agency cannot afford backlogs in
    planning.
        Expedited Consultation.--Without additional funds for the Forest
    Service and the Bureau of Land Management to support consultation
    required under the Endangered Species Act with the Fish and Wildlife
    Service, the land management agencies will be unable to do much needed
    work in a timely manner, such as fuels reduction and insect and disease
    mitigation activities.
        Wildland Fire Management--Congress, the Administration, the Western
    Governors, the State Foresters, the SAF and numerous others have
    expressed strong support for the National Fire Plan, and its four
    goals: improve fire prevention and suppression, reduce hazardous fuels,
    restore fire-adapted ecosystems, and promote community assistance.
    However, the proposed budget does not reflect this support,
    particularly with the elimination of funds for Rehabilitation and
    Restoration as well as the minimal increase in funding for preparedness
    and hazardous fuel activities. Funding for the National Fire Plan needs
    to be a sustained effort that will enable the nation as a whole to
    develop a long-term solution.
        Rehabilitation and Restoration.--In the proposed budget, this
    account was eliminated. The funds allocated to rehabilitation and
    restorations were placed in suppression accounts, which can be utilized
    for Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation activities. Other less
    immediate fire-related rehabilitation and restoration projects,
    normally funded by the Rehabilitation and Restoration account, will be
    prioritized within relevant programs along with other non-fire projects
    to ensure accomplishment of the highest priority projects given limited
    funding. While this rationale is consistent with the philosophy of
    local forest management, we do not believe this is consistent with the
    goals of the National Fire Plan. This funding allocation requires
    managers to make tradeoffs, when clearly; Congress, the Administration,
    and others who support the National Fire Plan believe fire-related
    rehabilitation and restoration activities should be a priority. If
    however, this is the direction that Congress chooses, the funds
    previously allocated for rehabilitation and restoration, should be re-
    allocated to the relevant program accounts (i.e. Vegetation Management,
    wildlife management, etc.) were the project funding would actually come
    from under this proposed strategy. The funds should not be allocated to
    suppression, which does not fund these non-emergency projects.
        Capital Improvement and Maintenance.--The proposal to fund the
    deferred maintenance projects through the facilities, roads, and trails
    line items, is somewhat unclear. The deferred maintenance backlog
    within the Forest Service is unacceptable, the Agency should work to
    address this problem, not ignore it. If funding for this deferred
    maintenance is to come from the other line items, there should be
    increases in those items to pay for those projects. We encourage the
    Agency to adopt a prioritization system for these projects and forward
    with implementation.
        National Forest Foundation.--The National Forest Foundation
    continues to provide outstanding leadership in natural resource
    management, providing valuable programs and services to the Agency and
    the public. We encourage you to increase funding for the NFF.
        Bureau of Land Management.--The BLM manages a total of 262 million
    acres of public lands, 55 million of which are forested lands. There is
    a significant disconnect between the number of acres of forest land the
    BLM manages and the number of forest management experts that are
    employed by the BLM. Congress should appropriate increases in funding
    to address this disconnect, especially in light of the additional
    authority granted under under the Stewardship Contracting provisions.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Tumbledown Conservation Alliance

        Thank you for the opportunity to offer this testimony. I am writing
    on behalf of the Tumbledown Conservation Alliance (TCA). TCA is a
    nonprofit organization in Maine that is dedicated to land conservation
    efforts in the Mt. Blue/Tumbledown Mountain region of western Maine. I
    am writing specifically in regards to current land protection efforts
    that are underway for Tumbledown Mountain.
        TCA hopes that the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies
    (Committee on Appropriations) will support $3 million in fiscal year
    2004 funding from the Forest Legacy program to go towards the
    protection of Tumbledown Mountain. A lot of progress has been made to
    date on this effort with the recent protection of 11,600 acres of land
    on and adjacent to the Tumbledown Mountain range.
        The Tumbledown Mountain range is one of the most popular hiking
    areas in the State. The parcels under consideration are essential for
    protection of the range and all of its popular trails. The $3 million
    in fiscal year 2004 Forest Legacy funding would allow the State of
    Maine to complete the protection of Tumbledown and would be used to
    permanently protect important timberland, trailhead areas, wildlife
    habitat, and trails. The President's fiscal year 2004 budget includes a
    request for Forest Legacy funding for Tumbledown Mountain and we hope
    that Congress and the Appropriations Committees will do the same. This
    effort to complete the protection of Tumbledown is part of a larger
    effort by the State of Maine, non-profit organizations, residents and
    visitors to conserve over 30,000 acres in the Mt. Blue/Tumbledown
    Mountain region of Maine.
        The Tumbledown Conservation Alliance requests that you support $3
    million for the fiscal year 2004 Forest Legacy Program for Tumbledown
    Mountain. Thank you for your consideration.

                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Wildlife Management Institute

        The Wildlife Management Institute (WMI) is submitting its comments
    on the U.S. Forest Service's (FS) proposed budget for fiscal 2004. WMI
    is a scientific, educational non-profit organization that is staffed by
    professional wildlife biologists and is committed to the sustainable
    management of wildlife populations and habitats throughout North
    America. For 92-years we have worked closely with the FS to identify
    wildlife conservation needs and resource management solutions. Our
    following comments support a majority of the Administration's budget
    requests but includes recommendations for a $25 million increase for
    the National Fire Plan's restoration and rehabilitation account and a
    $19 million increase for the Forest Service's research and development
    program.

                             NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM

        Overall, WMI supports the Administration's proposed budget for the
    National Forest System: $134.8 million for wildlife and fish habitat
    management and $192.6 million for vegetation and watershed management.
    This proposal represents essentially flat level spending for the FS,
    which is definitely appropriate at a time when our nation is in war. It
    is important to note, however, that at least $65 million is needed to
    address documented needs for wildlife and fish habitat improvements.
    The Forest Service has succeeded in using partnership dollars to chip
    away at deferred conservation projects, but wildlife and fish habitat
    management on national forests and grasslands should not depend only on
    the assistance of generous partners. In fiscal 2002 alone, over $5.8
    million in FS dollars leveraged almost $13.3 million (includes in-kind
    contributions) to complete approximately 719 forest and grassland
    projects. WMI encourages your subcommittee to expand the wildlife and
    fish habitat management account to the degree that current
    circumstances allow.
        Similarly, the vegetation and watershed management account needs an
    additional $49.4 million to restore and conserve a variety of
    ecosystems, including aspen, sagebrush, early successional forests,
    prairies/grasslands and old growth forests. Proactive habitat
    management benefits not only wild animals and the recreational users
    that depend on them, but can simultaneously meet the goals of the
    President's Healthy Forest Initiative (HFI) and National Fire Plan
    (NFP). Therefore, WMI requests that the biological and ecological needs
    of wildlife and fish serve as one of the primary factors that guide the
    implementation of the HFI and NFP.
        Lastly, the spread of non-native, invasive plants is a major
    problem among all rangelands, grasslands and forests. Invasive species
    thrive in disturbed environments, such as land areas that have been
    burned or used for road construction. Since fiscal 2001, substantially
    fewer National Forest System acres have been treated to control or
    eradicate invasive plants. Using vegetation and watershed management
    funds, nearly 144,000 acres were treated in fiscal 2001 but only
    100,570 acres were planned for treatment in fiscal 2003 and 75,331
    acres are planned for treatment in fiscal 2004. Because the annual
    economic cost of invasive plants for farmers, livestock ranchers and
    wildlife and fish agencies is estimated at $38 million, WMI urges your
    subcommittee to direct the FS to increase its focus on invasive species
    management and to treat at least 25,000 more acres in fiscal 2004. We
    believe the FS can realize this goal by integrating invasive species
    management into the objectives of the wildlife and fish habitat
    management program. Deferring this action results in significantly
    escalated costs in outlying years.

                           STATE AND PRIVATE FORESTRY

        WMI applauds the Administration for significantly increasing the
    funding accounts for Forest Legacy ($91 million total request) and
    requesting $25 million for the Forest Land Enhancement Program (FLEP;
    previously known as the Stewardship Incentives Program and Forestry
    Incentives Program). Forest Legacy projects use conservation easements
    to protect non-industrial private forests that are at risk for
    conversion to other uses. Private forests provide valuable habitat to
    wildlife and approximately 300,000 acres are currently enrolled in the
    program. However, the FS has identified 1.7 million private forest land
    acres for protection. Thus, WMI asks your subcommittee to endorse the
    Administration's $91 million request for Forest Legacy and to promote
    similar spending increases in the future as well.

                               NATIONAL FIRE PLAN

        WMI is deeply troubled by the Administration's proposal to zero out
    the NFP's restoration and rehabilitation account. In fiscal 2001, this
    account received $141.7 million, which decreased to $62.7 million in
    fiscal 2002 to $0 in fiscal 2004. The restoration and management of
    burned lands is a multi-year project and should not be funded solely by
    the National Forest System's accounts for wildlife and fish management
    and vegetation and watershed management, as proposed by the
    Administration. Since 2000, catastrophic wildfires have occurred on
    19.2 million acres of forests and rangelands and the FS is preparing
    for another season of intense wildfires. WMI urges your subcommittee to
    appropriate at least $25 million for the restoration and rehabilitation
    account. Additionally, the FS must be directed to prepare realistic
    fire suppression budgets to ensure the agency does not have to borrow
    money form National Forest System accounts to combat future wildfires.
    Failure to adequately fund these programs will result in both near- and
    long-term excessive costs to taxpayers.

                            RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

        The Administration proposes flat level spending for research and
    development activities concerning wildlife and fish habitat ($18.164
    million and $8.572 million, respectively) and watersheds ($18.477
    million). WMI encourages your subcommittee to at least support these
    funding requests. However, please note that the Forest Service's
    wildlife and fish research units have identified a $19 million funding
    need for research questions concerning the HFI and invasive species.
    For example, it is unclear how certain mammals, such as bats and forest
    carnivores, for which research funding is lacking, will respond to the
    removal of small diameter timber (need is $1.5 million). Also,
    landscape level research is needed to fully assess the impacts of HFI
    activities (need is $1 million). As for invasive species research, it
    remains unclear how non-native plants and animals impact native fish
    and wildlife populations and how native wildlife and fish populations
    respond to invasions of non-native organisms (need is $2.5 million).
    WMI asks your subcommittee to address these additional research needs
    to the best of your ability.
        In closing, WMI remains concerned by the Forest Service's
    transition to the Budget Formulation and Executing System. This budget
    structure relies upon broad performance measurements (e.g., acres of
    improved terrestrial habitat and number of products provided for
    information and education). This approach makes it impossible for FS
    partners to track services provided or benefits received among specific
    programs. The agency's new accounting process further exacerbates this
    problem because it groups work activities for wildlife, fish and listed
    species under one budget line item. To ensure FS projects are
    transparent and accessible for public review, WMI urges your
    subcommittee to direct the FS to use more specific budget line items
    when explaining how requested and appropriated dollars will be spent.
        Thank you for reviewing our comments, and we hope to work with you
    throughout the appropriations process. If you or your staff would like
    to discuss our recommendations further, please contact me or Terry
    Riley, Director of Conservation, at (202) 371-1808.

                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of the Wildlife Society

        The Wildlife Society appreciates the opportunity to submit
    testimony concerning the fiscal year 2004 budgets for the Natural
    Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Farm Service Agency (FSA),
    Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), and Cooperative State
    Research, Education and Extension Services (CSREES). The Wildlife
    Society is the association of almost 9,000 professional wildlife
    biologists and managers dedicated to sound wildlife stewardship through
    science and education. The Wildlife Society is committed to
    strengthening all federal programs that benefit wildlife and their
    habitats on agricultural and other private land.

                     NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE

        Farm Bill Technical Assistance.--We applaud Congress for passing
    the 2002 Farm Bill, which authorizes the U.S. Department of Agriculture
    to work with third party Technical Service Providers to build a solid
    network of certified professionals that can assist NRCS in delivering
    assistance to producers. However, NRCS recognizes that training will be
    needed to effectively prepare Technical Service Providers to assist
    producers and landowners. The Wildlife Society recommends that Congress
    provide NRCS with adequate funds to recruit land grant universities and
    colleges, the USDA Extension System, and professional societies to help
    train sufficient Technical Service Providers.
        Monitoring and Evaluation.--Monitoring Farm Bill conservation
    programs and evaluating their progress toward achieving Congressionally
    established objectives for soil, water, and wildlife will enable NRCS
    to ensure successful program implementation. Changes to agricultural
    policy in the 2002 Farm Bill, such as higher funding authorizations and
    expanded acreage enrollment caps, necessitate the establishment of an
    accountability system that continuously assesses the effectiveness of
    conservation programs and policies. The Wildlife Society recommends
    dedicating mandatory funding to the monitoring and evaluation of Farm
    Bill conservation programs at the $10 million level approved in the
    Farm Bill Statement of Managers. We propose using a competitive grants
    process to fund a consortium of non-USDA organizations (non-
    governmental organizations, universities, and state organizations) for
    the purpose of identifying cost-saving practices, program improvements,
    and future funding requirements and determining the environmental and
    economic value of conservation expenditures.
        Wetland Reserve Program (WRP), Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program
    (WHIP).--We would like to express our gratitude for your continued
    support of WRP and for authorizing WHIP in 2003. WRP is a valuable
    program designed to assist farmers and ranchers protect and restore
    wetland habitat. WHIP is a voluntary program that provides technical
    and financial support to farmers and ranchers to create high quality
    wildlife habitat. The Wildlife Society supports funding WRP at $250
    million in fiscal year 2004. We are concerned that the Administration's
    request for WHIP, $42 million for 2004, is well below the 2002 Farm
    Bill's authorized amount of $275 million. The Wildlife Society
    recommends funding WHIP at $275 million in 2004.

                              FARM SERVICE AGENCY

        Staff Years.--FSA requires an adequate budget to implement the Farm
    Bill conservation programs under its administration. The Wildlife
    Society is concerned that the staffing level of 16,701 FTE proposed by
    the Administration in 2004 is too low to address the demonstrated need
    of agricultural producers. The Wildlife Society recommends that the
    budget include sufficient personnel funding to maintain the 2003
    requested level of 19,337 FTE.
        Grassland Reserve Program (GRP).--We believe the GRP will be
    valuable in aiding landowners in their grassland restoration efforts.
    The Wildlife Society supports the Administration's 2004 request of $85
    million for GRP.
        Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).--CRP is popular with
    landowners, and has resulted in significant wildlife and habitat
    benefits on agricultural land. Current demand for the program is on the
    rise, as is demand for technical assistance associated with
    implementation of CRP. The Wildlife Society recommends maintaining CRP
    enrollment at 39.2 million acres as finalized in the 2002 Farm Bill.
        Forest Land Enhancement Program (FLEP).--The Forest Land
    Enhancement Program was created through the 2002 Farm Bill to provide
    financial, technical, educational, and related assistance to promote
    sustainable management of non-industrial private forestlands. The
    program is authorized at $100 million for 2002-2007, to be distributed
    through state forestry agencies. The Wildlife Society asks that
    Congress appropriate at least $20 million to FLEP in 2004 to ensure
    that private forestlands continue to provide sustainable forest
    products and protect the health of our water, air, and wildlife.

                   ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE

        Wildlife Services.--Wildlife Services (WS), a unit of APHIS, is
    responsible for controlling wildlife damage to agriculture,
    aquaculture, forest, range and other natural resources, for controlling
    wildlife-borne diseases, and for controlling wildlife at airports. Its
    activities are based on the principles of wildlife management and
    integrated damage management, and are carried out cooperatively with
    State fish and wildlife agencies.
        The Wildlife Society is concerned about the proposed $1.5 million
    decrease in funding for Methods Development for 2004. Many current
    wildlife control tools such as traps, snares and wildlife toxicants are
    becoming less acceptable to the public and are being prohibited in many
    states as the result of public referenda. The only credible way to
    identify and perfect new methods is through research. However, WS
    funding is only adequate to cover maintenance and operating costs and
    no funding is being provided for the development of new innovative
    wildlife damage management methods. The Wildlife Society requests a $5
    million increase for Methods Development to adequately continue non-
    lethal methods research and address the increased operating and
    maintenance costs.
        Veterinary Services.--Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) is a serious
    problem plaguing our Nation's deer and elk. The spread of CWD is
    draining already diminished federal and state agency budgets and is
    hurting local economies that depends on revenues from recreational
    hunting. The Wildlife Society supports the Administration's request of
    $14.9 million for the research, monitoring, and control of CWD.

          COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION AND EXTENSION SERVICES

        Renewable Resources Extension Act.--The Wildlife Society was
    pleased that Congress appropriated $423,000 above the Administration's
    request for the Renewable Resources Extension Act (RREA) in 2003. RREA
    provides an expanded, comprehensive extension program for forest and
    rangeland renewable resources. The need for these programs is greater
    now than ever due to fragmentation of ownerships, urbanization, the
    number and diversity of landowners needing assistance, and the
    increasing social concern for land use and its effect on soil, water,
    air, and wildlife.
        It is important to note that RREA was reauthorized in the 2002 Farm
    Bill at $30 million annually through 2007. Though RREA is proven to be
    effective at leveraging cooperative state and local funding, it has
    never been fully funded in the annual appropriations process. In fact,
    the fiscal year 2004 request for RREA falls back to the 2002 funding
    level, $4.093 million, which is insufficient for assisting private
    landowners who own and manage most of the nation's natural resources.
    An increase to at least $15 million would enable CSREES to expand its
    capability to assist more private landowners in improving management of
    private land while increasing farm revenue. Therefore The Wildlife
    Society recommends that the Renewable Resources Extension Act be funded
    at a minimum of $15 million in fiscal year 2004.
        McIntire-Stennis.--The McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry
    program funds state efforts in forestry research to increase the
    efficiency of forestry practices, and to extend the benefits that come
    from forest and related rangelands. McIntire-Stennis calls for close
    coordination between state colleges and universities and the Federal
    Government, and is essential for providing research background for
    other Acts, such as RREA. The Administration's fiscal year 2004 request
    for McIntire-Stennis is $21.884 million, in essence level with 2002 and
    2003. The Wildlife Society recommends that funding for McIntire-Stennis
    Cooperative Forestry be increased to $30 million.
        National Research Initiative.--National Research Initiative
    Competitive Grants (NRI) are open to academic institutions, federal
    agencies, and private organizations to fund research on improving
    agricultural practices, particularly production systems that are
    sustainable both environmentally and economically, and to develop
    methods for protecting natural resources and wildlife. Innovative grant
    programs such as NRI help broaden approaches to land management, such
    as integrating timber and wildlife management on private lands. The
    Wildlife Society supports the Administration's 2004 request of $200
    million for National Research Initiative Competitive Grants, and
    requests Congressional approval.
        Thank you for considering the views of wildlife professionals. We
    look forward to working with you and your staff to ensure adequate
    funding for wildlife conservation.
                                     ______

                              DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

               Prepared Statement of the Alliance to Save Energy
        My name is David Nemtzow, President of the Alliance to Save Energy,
    a bi-partisan, non-profit coalition of business, government,
    environmental, and consumer leaders committed to promoting energy
    efficiency worldwide to achieve a healthier economy, a cleaner
    environment and energy security. I am writing to request, generally,
    that funding for the energy efficiency programs of the U.S. Department
    of Energy be increased, and that the Buildings Technologies, and
    Industrial Technologies programs be restored to their fiscal year 2002
    levels--$9.8 million, and $41.3 million respectively. Specifically, our
    top priority recommendations, totaling $8.0 million, are set forth
    below.
        The Alliance was founded in 1977 by Senators Charles Percy (R-IL)
    and Hubert Humphrey (D-MN). The current Chair is Senator Byron Dorgan,
    and Vice-Chairs are Senators: Susan Collins; Jeff Bingaman; James
    Jeffords and Representative Ed Markey. Seventy-six companies and
    organizations currently belong to the Alliance.
        The Alliance has a long history of researching and evaluating
    federal energy efficiency programs. 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.
        I appreciate this opportunity to comment on the fiscal year 2004
    budget for energy-efficiency programs at the Department of Energy.

                THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2004 BUDGET REQUEST

        We have two general concerns regarding the fiscal year 2004
    request.
        First, it proposes reductions of roughly 4 and 2 percent from
    fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003 appropriations, respectively.
    Given the current volatility in energy prices, the continuing economic
    slowdown, and the insecurity of the nation's energy systems and
    supplies, we believe that now is not the time to be cutting back on
    investments in energy efficiency--the nation's cheapest, quickest, and
    cleanest energy resource.
        Second, the fiscal year 2004 request proposes cutting existing and
    successful programs in order to pay for increases for Weatherization
    Assistance and the fuel cell programs. The Alliance strongly supports
    both of these recommendations. We have serious concerns, however, that
    while the Administration is proposing $674 billion in tax cuts as a
    part of an economic stimulus plan there are decreases in other programs
    that have demonstrated their ability to create jobs and stimulate the
    economy.
        In 2001, the National Research Council found that for 17 DOE energy
    efficiency programs they analyzed, there was a return of $20 to the
    economy for every dollar invested. These rates-of-return compare
    favorably with most investment opportunities including the stimulus
    effect anticipated from tax reductions. In a time of recession and
    high, volatile energy prices, we should be substantially increasing our
    investment in these successful programs instead of using them to fund
    other initiatives.
        By our calculation, the fiscal year 2004 budget request would
    reduce funding for non-fuel cell, nonweatherization programs by more
    than 20 percent as compared to fiscal year 2002. That includes programs
    with proven cost-effectiveness such as: Lighting and Appliance
    Standards, Energy Star, the Federal Energy Management Program, Windows
    R&D, support for state adoption of building energy codes and other
    programs that have reduced national energy demand, cut energy costs for
    consumers, and created jobs through the commercialization of new
    technologies and products. We urge that funding for the Buildings and
    Industrial Technologies accounts be restored to their fiscal year 2002
    levels.
        For example, the appliance standards program has been acknowledged
    by DOE to have reduced national peak electric demand by 2.5 percent.
    That is a huge accomplishment, achieved at a federal cost of less than
    $10 million per year. Equally large savings remain available assuming
    continued funding support. In fact, even the existing limitations on
    appropriations have caused DOE to fall years--sometimes up to ten
    years--behind on setting standards for products that could be providing
    savings for consumers and the economy. Moreover, Congress is poised to
    enact legislation that would substantially increase the number of
    rulemakings that DOE would be required to undertake. What is the logic
    of cutting this program?
        Another program that was praised by the National Research Council
    is the Industries of the Future Program (IOF). IOF has historically
    worked in consultation with energy intensive industries to assess
    research needs and focus on the greatest value added for government R&D
    efforts. DOE seems to have largely abandoned this approach in the 2004
    budget, cutting chemical, forest and paper products industries, and
    other program areas by more than 50 percent. In addition, the
    Administration has zeroed out efforts to continue similar successes in
    the buildings sector, eliminating its roadmap programs for lighting and
    windows. The justification for eliminating these programs appears to be
    that, if they are worth doing, then industry will fund it. Several
    analyses of government R&D efforts have shown that this does not hold
    true (Galvin, Yergin).

                             NEW MONEY IS NECESSARY

        We have now had two gasoline and two natural gas price spikes in
    three years. Our energy prices and supplies continue their instability,
    costing consumers dearly to fill their gas tanks and heat their homes,
    and sending shocks through the economy. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is
    the wrong approach to national energy policy. The President's fiscal
    year 2004 cuts in energy efficiency are the wrong approach. We agree
    that new energy efficiency research objectives need to be met, but
    funding should be increased to do so instead of cutting back on other
    equally important objectives.

                                    HYDROGEN

        Hydrogen has potential to replace oil as the fuel to power our
    transportation system, but there are major technological problems to be
    solved. We cannot predict whether those hurdles will be overcome by the
    time those born this year will become drivers, as anticipated by the
    President in his State of the Union speech, or whether it will take
    much longer. Research and development, by its very nature, is
    uncertain. It is often compared to a financial investment portfolio.
    Diversity, and balancing risk are key considerations in developing an
    effective investment, or R&D, strategy. No one knows for certain
    whether large-scale use of hydrogen for transportation will ever become
    practical, let alone in the next 16 years.
        Just one of the critical questions which has not yet been answered
    is; how to make the hydrogen? Currently, the best way to make hydrogen
    is from natural gas. But natural gas is currently used to heat 55
    percent of American homes and is expected to fuel nearly all new
    domestic electric generation capacity added during the next decade.
    Surely, the addition of powering our extensive transportation system
    from natural gas will invalidate current assumptions about the future
    price and supply of natural gas--a commodity already undergoing
    tremendous price volatility.
        Accordingly, we should not curtail work on increasing the
    efficiency with which our building and industrial sectors use natural
    gas, or DOE's work on improving hybrid technology and other
    transportation fuel efficiency technologies simply because hydrogen has
    the potential to be a long-term solution to transportation efficiency.
    Such a strategy does not properly balance the risks of failure with the
    likelihood of success.

                        ANOMALIES IN THE BUDGET REQUEST

        The Alliance is confounded by certain reductions in the President's
    budget request between fiscal years 2003 and 2004.
        For fiscal year 2003, DOE requested $6.2 million for the Energy
    Star program. That figure was supported in both the House and Senate
    Interior Appropriations bills passed last year--though reduced to $4.2
    million by the Conference Committee under the stringent caps of the
    Omnibus legislation. The fiscal year 2004 request is for $3.7 million,
    a 14 percent cut from fiscal year 2003 actual appropriations and a 40
    percent cut from the fiscal year 2003 request. Why does Energy Star, a
    program which produces $75 in savings for every dollar spent, and which
    received glowing support in the National Energy Plan, merit such less
    consideration this year than last?
        Another drastic change occurred in the request for the Federal
    Energy Management Program. For fiscal year 2003, the President
    requested $27.9 million for this very successful effort to save energy
    in the federal government, the world's single largest energy user. FEMP
    has played a central role in the federal government's success in
    reducing energy use by 21 percent from 1985 to 2000. Nevertheless, the
    fiscal year 2004 request is $19.9 million. Again, there is no
    indication of why FEMP has been targeted for such significant
    reduction.

                            PROGRAM MANAGEMENT FUNDS

        Since the reorganization of EERE last year, the budget request
    includes the new Program Management account, to be funded at $76.66
    million in fiscal year 2004.
        Previously, each of the energy-use sector programs had its own
    program management account to cover salaries and administrative costs.
    Now, these funds are consolidated in the Office of the Assistant
    Secretary to be disbursed at their discretion. While, the Alliance has
    no objection to discretion, such discretion need not preclude
    transparency. We believe that there should be greater disclosure
    regarding the intended allocation of these funds so that Congress and
    the public will have a clear view and understanding of the total budget
    that is recommended for each major program area. In fact, we remain
    confused about the fiscal year 2004 funding levels for some programs
    because it is uncertain how much of these ``program management'' funds
    they will be receiving.

                              EERE REORGANIZATION

        Last year, our testimony presented several questions about the
    reorganization at EERE. After a year of experience, it is time to ask
    them again.
      --Does the reorganization itself create 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

        Generally, the Alliance to Save Energy recommends that the
    activities under the Building Technologies and Industrial Technologies
    sectors be restored to fiscal year 2002 levels. Specifically, the
    Alliance recommends the following fiscal year 2004 funding levels:
      --Lighting and Appliance Standards (under Equipment, Materials and
            Tools)--plus $2.0 million over the request, to $11.0 million;
      --Federal Energy Management Program--plus $2.0 million, to $22.0
            million;
      --Energy Star--plus $2.0 million, to $5.7 million;
      --Industrial Best Practices (under Industries of the Future,
            crosscutting)--at the requested level of $8.24 million;
      --Window Technologies (under Building Envelop R&D)--plus $1.0 million
            to $4.5 million; and
      --State Building Codes (under State Energy Program, Building Tech.
            Assist.)--plus $1.0 million, to $2.8 million.
        Other programs deserving of increased funding are: Thermal
    Insulation and Building Materials; Clean Cities; Industrial Assessment
    Centers; Industries of the Future--Specific; Building America; and
    Sensors and Control Technologies.
        Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for offering the Alliance to Save
    Energy the opportunity to submit its views, and for your support in
    past years for energy efficiency. We hope that you share our commitment
    to energy efficiency and to the economic, environmental, and security
    benefits it offers the nation.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Allison Transmission Division of General
                            Motors, Indianapolis, IN

                                    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 increase the Department of Energy's 2004 budget for
    the Hybrid and Electric Propulsion Program as shown in the table at the
    end of this testimony. The Department of Energy should be instructed to
    ``use these additional funds for the acceleration of Heavy Duty Hybrid
    Development, without stipulation of vehicle fuel type, architecture or
    configuration, to enable the development of solutions that best meet
    the needs of the trucking industry''.

                                   BACKGROUND

        Our goals are to develop HD Hybrid propulsion products, overcome
    the technical barriers that inhibit the technology and stimulate market
    demand for these products. In essence, we are attempting to create a
    new, globally competitive industrial base in the United States that
    will significantly benefit the Transportation sector. Our approach is
    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, SUV's and Combat
    Vehicles, 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 and are
    perceived to 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 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 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. Furthermore, 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 Americans 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 up 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 2004 compliant engines reduce fuel economy as much as
    10 percent. Considering the trucking industry's razor thin margins, the
    cost increase driven by 10 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 does this because of its advanced computer
    control system and its inherent power management capability. 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 the automakers to more fully integrate their
    vehicles and meet emissions regulations, improve fuel economy and offer
    higher quality, more competitive products. 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.
        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, the Japanese
    trucking industry is already moving forward with HD Hybrid, spearheaded
    by a Government wide METI initiative

                     HOW HD TRUCKS DIFFER FROM LD VEHICLES

        This subject is worth discussing to address the common 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 vehicles 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)..  8,500 to 80,000 lbs.  Up to 8,500 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...........  Up to 1,000,000       150,000 miles
                                   miles.
    Purchase price (not incl.     $40,000 to $150,000.  $12,000 to $40,000
     bus).
    Market volume (annual)......  800,000.............  18,000,000
    Number of configuration       Millions............  A few thousand
     variants.
    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.........  Vehicle level
    Certification responsibility  Engine manufacturer.  Vehicle manufacturer
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        These factors have caused HD Truck and LD Vehicle markets and
    industries to behave very differently. Their markets, products,
    business models, revenue streams and regulatory environments 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 are
    complimentary, but they leverage each other only at the most basic
    level.
        How HD Trucks differ from Military (Combat) Vehicles.--Likewise, HD
    Trucks are significantly different than Combat vehicles. Arguments have
    been made that investments the DOD is making in hybrid electric for
    programs such as Future Combat System (FCS) should yield technology
    that is transferable to HD Trucks. As with hybrid technology developed
    for cars, military hybrid technology is complimentary, but only
    transferable at the basic level. Applied technologies are still unique
    for HD Trucks. A summary of characteristics that differ between Combat
    Vehicles and HD Trucks aids in understanding this concept and is shown
    below.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Heavy duty (HD)
           Characteristic                trucks          FCS combat vehicles
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Duty cycle..................  Continuous daily      Intermittent duty
                                   operation.
    Annual mileage..............  20,000 to 250,000     600 to 2,000 miles
                                   miles.
    Expected lifetime...........  Up to 1,000,000       40,000 miles
                                   miles.
    Purchase price (not incl.     $40,000 to $150,000.  $500,000 to
     bus).                                               $6,000,000
    Market volume (annual)......  800,000.............  1,000
    Number of configuration       Millions............  Less than 100
     variants.
    Who buys it.................  The fleet manager...  The Army
    Who drives it...............  A hired driver......  A Soldier
    Buyers priority.............  Reliability, Low      Performance
                                   ownership cost.
    Emissions certification.....  Engine only.........  Not Required
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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 due to the economic factors discussed above the trucking
    industry cannot afford 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 2004 budget for the Hybrid and Electric
    Propulsion Program as shown in the table below. The Department of
    Energy should be instructed to ``use these additional funds for the
    acceleration of Heavy Duty Hybrid Development, without stipulation of
    vehicle fuel type, architecture or configuration, to enable the
    development of solutions that best meet the needs of the trucking
    industry''.

                                                [In thousands of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Fiscal year     Fiscal year
                                                                           2004            21CT
                Hybrid and electric propulsion line item                President's     partnership    21CT plus-up
                                                                          request         request
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Energy Storage..................................................          28,700          32,700           4,000
    Advanced Power Electronics......................................          13,690          17,690           4,000
    Subsystem Integration and Development...........................           7,173          11,173           4,000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Our technology priorities are Power Management Technology, Building
    the Component Supplier Base, Engine & Aftertreatment Integration,
    Electric Machines and Drive Units, Component & System Reliability
    Growth and Component & System Modeling & Simulation. The first two
    priorities map in to the Energy Storage and Advanced Power Electronics
    line items. The remaining four priorities map into the Subsystem
    Integration and Development line item.

                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the American Gas Association

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of the
    American Gas Association (AGA), comprising 191 natural gas distribution
    companies across North America, serving 60 million homes and businesses
    in all 50 states, we offer this testimony related to the US Department
    of Energy's (DOE) fiscal year 2004 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 2004 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. 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 2004 budget, compared with
    $9.1 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 $15.9 million
    increase over the current level is discussed below. EERE's fiscal year
    2004 DER request is virtually unchanged from fiscal year 2003 at the
    level of $58.8 million and AGA respectfully requests an increase of $10
    million for a total of $68.8 million. The purpose of the amendment
    request is discussed below.
        AGA's 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 highlights 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 Partnership and
    the National Accounts Energy Alliance.
        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
    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 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 $9.1 million for fiscal year 2003 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 gas 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
    $15.9 million in fiscal year 2004.
        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 among 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 sets aside industry funds to
    compliment federal research expenditures on natural gas infrastructure.

     DISTRIBUTED ENERGY RESOURCES--NATIONAL ACCOUNTS ENERGY ALLIANCE (NAEA)

        Efforts to test and deploy technologies being developed under the
    DER program in EERE are significantly under-funded. Private sector
    interest in these technologies is compelling. 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 increases in power
    quality and reliability. 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.
        Few of the potential benefits from the Department's research
    investments will be realized if these technologies are not adequately
    tested and if initial deployment is not targeted to commercial
    applications with large potential for replication. The National
    Accounts Energy Alliance (NAEA) started in fiscal year 2002 and was
    envisioned as a four-year cost-shared initiative aimed at developing
    highly-efficient, technology driven, new construction and retrofit
    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
    NAEA. NAEA's members comprise the nation's largest energy providers
    (electric and natural gas) as well as almost two dozen end-users such
    as McDonalds, Wal-Mart Stores, TJ Maxx, the Great Atlantic & Pacific
    Tea Com (A&P).
        The nation's electric grid faces many technology challenges ranging
    from generation shortfalls to transmission and distribution
    constraints. The utilization of distributed energy resources (DER) is
    widely considered to be the cheapest, cleanest and most obtainable
    near-term solution to many of these challenges. DER systems can be
    sited where the power is needed and can be utilized with energy
    efficiency ratings exceeding 80 percent (compared to 29 percent
    efficiency for the electric grid) where waste heat is recaptured and
    reused. DOE has spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the years
    developing DER technologies but many technical, regulatory and
    institutional barriers remain. This is especially true for
    incorporation into new construction or retrofits of large commercial
    end-users. NAEA was created to address these barriers squarely by
    working with large commercial entities, at the headquarters-level, to
    develop new and standardized construction models incorporating advanced
    DER systems. Typically, all of these construction efforts are based on
    a central construction model, with a handful of geographic-based
    options. Additionally, a missing ingredient to DOE's past deployment
    programs was 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.
        At its inception NAEA focused on retail, supermarket and food
    service industries. In fiscal year 2003 and beyond, NAEA will expand
    its membership to include a broader segment of the healthcare, high-
    tech and telecommunications, hotel, and targeted manufacturing
    industries. This program illustrates the commitment of the natural gas
    industry and its partners to deploy the research being conducted under
    the DER technology areas.
        We respectfully request that the Subcommittee add $10 million to
    the DER budget for consortiums such as the National Accounts Energy
    Alliance to conduct technology verification tests and build
    partnerships of key stakeholders for the rapid deployment of
    distributed energy technologies.

                                   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 and improving energy efficiency, quality, and reliability.
    And, the infrastructure research partnership between DOE and the
    natural gas industry 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 American Iron and Steel Institute

                      INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF REQUEST

        Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony this
    year. Our testimony concerns fiscal year 2004 funding for the Office of
    Industrial Technologies (OIT)-Steel within the Department of Energy.
    This line item includes the highly successful, highly leveraged
    Technology Roadmap Program (TRP), which has nearly 60 industrial
    participants.
        It is because of this extensive leveraging (steel companies have
    cooperated for decades and are highly skilled at collaborative research
    and tech transfer to the plant floor), that seemingly small amounts of
    funding yield very significant results. Our research programs with DOE
    are fundamental to overcoming technical barriers to the future success
    of the steel industry. We believe that a strong, competitive and
    innovative steel industry is a critical component of national security
    and is also strategic for our country's energy security (e.g.,
    transmission towers and pipelines). We ask you to keep these points in
    mind as you consider our request. And we ask you also to look at the
    results our programs have achieved thus far.
        The present budget mark of $3.4 million for all steel programs will
    satisfy Technology Roadmap funding requirements for current tasks ($2.2
    million in 2004), but such a drastic cut (the fiscal year 2003 budget
    is $10 million) will prohibit completion of other valuable steel
    projects and render useless the investments already made in them.
    Second, new opportunities for potential breakthrough technologies will
    not be pursued. Third, the steel industry recently committed to a 10
    percent reduction in energy utilization per ton by 2012 as part of the
    President's Business Challenge/Climate Vision Program. If passed, the
    proposed 66 percent cut in steel R & D funding will certainly reduce
    our ability to develop and deploy technology needed to achieve that
    goal. We urge the subcommittee to fund OIT-Steel at a level of $10
    million in order that programs under contract are completed (so their
    benefits are realized) and new opportunities can be pursued. We would
    also direct the subcommittee's attention to the specific funding of TRP
    at $2.2 million (of the $10 million requested) in fiscal year 2004. We
    believe the track record of steel industry research undertaken by AISI
    and DOE is excellent, as evidenced by the results, some of which are
    described below. Another metric of the value of this work is that
    widespread industrial participation and funding remained, even through
    periods of severe steel company financial distress. There is every
    reason to believe that continued funding will lead to additional
    important advances, such as those described below.

                   TECHNOLOGY ROADMAP PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS

        The Technology Roadmap Program began under the Steel and Aluminum
    Energy Conservation and Technology Competitiveness Act, also known as
    the Metals Initiative. This legislation authorized DOE to fund projects
    with the goals of energy-efficiency, increased competitiveness of U.S.
    industry, and environmental improvement. All of these goals are being
    achieved. For example, the Technology Roadmap Program has provided key
    technologies enabling the stunning energy and environmental
    achievements of the steel industry's Ultra Light Steel Auto Body--
    Advanced Vehicle Concept (ULSAB-AVC). ULSAB-AVC has developed complete
    designs for safe, steel intensive compact and mid-size sedans that will
    achieve 52 miles per gallon (mpg) using gasoline, or 68 mpg if equipped
    with a diesel engine. To appreciate the impact of this accomplishment,
    if one million ULSAB-AVC vehicles replaced an equivalent number of mid-
    size sedans operating at the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard of
    27.5 miles per gallon, and were each driven 10,000 miles per year, the
    annual savings our country would realize are estimated at:
    Annual Reduced fuel consumption--171 million gallons
    Annual Cost savings at $1.75/gallon--$300 million
    Annual CO2 reductions--2.1 million tons
        It should be noted that all of the savings above are not a result
    of lightweighting-they are a function of the steel intensive design
    that includes drivetrain and design advances. Further, since
    approximately 16 million new vehicles enter service in the United
    States annually, the energy savings that can be realized if ULSAB-AVC
    technology is universally applied is enormous, approximately 0.3
    quadrillion BTU, or nearly 20 percent of the entire energy consumed by
    the steel industry in a year (1.8 quadrillion BTU). And, based on
    comprehensive cost modeling, all this can be accomplished at no cost
    penalty to the consumer--that is why these technologies are already
    appearing in cars on the road today. This is clearly the type of pre-
    competitive research appropriate for government partnering-developing
    the technologies that lead to breakthroughs that serve the public good,
    reduce our dependence on foreign oil and significantly reduce
    greenhouse gases. The following is a brief list of TRP projects whose
    results are incorporated in the ULSAB-AVC designs:
      --TRP 9732--Study of Deformation Behavior of Light Weight Steel
            Structures Under Impact Loading (prediction of crash
            performance of advanced high strength steels and advanced
            materials processing).
      --TRP 9756--Cold Work Embrittlement of Interstitial Free Steels
            (predicting embrittlement of automotive steels).
      --TRP 9934--Development of Appropriate Resistance Spot Welding
            Practices for Transformation Hardened Steels (optimizing
            materials joining process for advanced high strength steels).
      --TRP 9807--Reducing the Variability of HSLA Sheet Steels (developing
            practices for consistent properties of advance high strength
            steels).
      --TRP 9904--Constitutive Behavior of High Strength Multiphase Steels
            Under High Strain Rate Deformation Conditions (modeling and
            developing the processing routes to produce advanced high
            strength steels).
      --TRP 0012--Characterization of Formability for New Generation of
            Advanced High Strength Steels (characterizing the key
            properties of next generation steels).
      --TRP 0015--Quantitative Measurement of Steel Phase Transformation
            (characterizing the key properties of advanced bar steels).
      --TRP 0038--Characterization of Fatigue and Crash Performance
            (generate fatigue, tensile and component test data at high
            strain rates for direct input for automotive engineering and
            design).
      --TRP 0101--Inclusion Optimization for Next Generation Steel Products
            (developing processes to'' engineer'' imperfections in the
            microstructure of sheet steels so that they enhance properties
            and steel performance).
      --TRP 0106--Laser Assisted Arc Welding of Advanced High Strength
            Steels (developing advanced joining methods for use of advance
            high strength steels).
      --TRP 0114--Development of Appropriate Resistance Spot Welding
            Practices for Advanced High Strength Steels (Resistance spot
            welding is a ``gateway technology'' for the implementation of
            advanced high strength steels into vehicle production.).
        The above Technology Roadmap Program R&D is part of the continuous
    process of advancing the science of materials. It helps the automobile
    and steel industries achieve their goals of bringing safe, affordable,
    energy efficient, environmentally desirable vehicles to the public. It
    advances the president's goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
        In addition, other TRP projects have made similar contributions to
    energy-efficiency, environmental leadership and steel industry
    competitiveness:
        1. New thermally-efficient steel stud designs for residential and
    light commercial applications resulting in energy savings of 2.5
    percent of current consumption (0.03 quad) may be achieved based on 25
    percent of new homes using this technology.
        2. A recent study by the Florida Solar Energy Center found that
    metal roofing can save Florida homeowners 23 percent in cooling costs
    over conventional gray shingle roofs.
        3. Steels used in electrical applications result in more energy
    efficient motors. The electrical properties of Cold Rolled Motor
    Lamination (CRML) steels continue to improve. Only a few years ago the
    best CRML material available had core loss values of 2.0 watts/pound.
    CRML steel is now being produced with core loss properties less than
    1.7 watts/pound. This 15 percent energy efficiency improvement means
    that electrical devices made from this material, such as florescent
    light ballasts, transformers, and motors, can be made more efficient.
    These savings are being realized in the home, commercial, and
    industrial application of these products.
        4. Advanced steels for bearing applications have a direct impact on
    the energy efficiency of equipment. Developments in steel processes in
    recent decades have not only greatly improved productivity and lowered
    cost, they have led to significant quality improvements through the
    reduction of the population of harmful inclusions.
        5. Process modeling--In addition to the benefits of the application
    of fundamental sciences to understand complex relationships, the
    application of predictive models allows development work to be done
    without disrupting the process line until the verification and
    implementation stages are reached. This minimizes development costs and
    fine tunes where and when capital is invested. The Hot Strip Mill Model
    developed under TRP and now in commercial use, is an excellent example.
        Funding for TRP projects currently under contract should be
    continued in fiscal year 2004 so they can continue to achieve the
    excellent returns described above. In addition, funds should also be
    provided in fiscal year 2004 so that a new group of TRP projects may be
    started to continue to advance yield improvement, materials science and
    our industry goal of increasing energy-efficiency by 10 percent by
    2012. Your support helps us deliver these benefits to the American
    people sooner rather than later and ensures the success of an industry
    critical to our national security.
        Please feel free to contact me at 202-452-7206 or
    lkavanagh@steel.org if you require any additional information.

                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the American Public Power Association

        The American Public Power Association (APPA) is the national
    service organization representing the interests of over 2,000 municipal
    and other state and locally owned utilities throughout the United
    States (all but Hawaii). Collectively, public power utilities deliver
    electricity to one of every seven electric consumers (about 40 million
    people), serving some of the nation's largest cities. However, the vast
    majority of APPA's members serve communities with populations of 10,000
    people or less.
        We appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement outlining
    our fiscal year 2004 funding priorities within jurisdiction of the
    Interior and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

                   DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY: ENERGY CONSERVATION

        APPA is disappointed in the Administration's fiscal year 2004
    request of $876 million for the Department of Energy's (DOE) energy
    conservation programs. We are confident that Congress's prioritization
    of these programs in its ultimate allocation for fiscal year 2003 of
    $892 million highlighted the importance of these programs to the
    Administration. We believe that DOE's energy conservation programs
    should be level-funded at minimum, and encourage the subcommittee to
    continue last year's commitment of at least $892 million.

                                   FREEDOMCAR

        APPA has supported the Partnership for a New Generation Vehicle in
    the past and supports the Administration's request of $158 million for
    the new FreedomCAR program. APPA believes that the availability of fuel
    cell technology for transportation is critical for cities and states
    that must achieve mandatory federal air quality standards. We
    appreciate the Administration's new emphasis on refocusing research and
    development toward the achievement of cost-effective fuel cell
    vehicles. The fuel cell vehicle is virtually pollution-free and highly
    efficient. One of APPA's member utilities, the Sacramento Municipal
    Utilities District (SMUD) has done extensive research into this field
    and have found that even a 10 percent market penetration could reduce
    regulated air pollutants by more than a million tons a year and
    emissions of carbon dioxide by 60 million tons a year.

     BUILDING TECHNOLOGY ASSISTANCE & WEATHERIZATION AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL
                                   ACTIVITIES

        APPA supports the Administration's fiscal year 2004 request of
    $52.6 million for helping to increase the efficiency of commercial and
    residential buildings. APPA is particularly supportive of the emphasis
    on weatherization assistance as part of the President's National Energy
    Policy and encourages the Subcommittee to provide the $288 million
    requested by the Administration for this important program. The
    weatherization assistance program helps more than 100,000 residents
    annually, and is especially critical for the working poor, elderly and
    disabled. This program has been particularly effective at helping low
    income citizens afford their energy bills while at the same time
    reducing energy usage.

                       STATE ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM

        APPA supports Congress's prioritization of the State Energy
    Conservation Program and urges the Subcommittee to at least level-fund
    the program at $38 million for fiscal year 2004. State energy offices
    work on nearly every energy efficiency issue and have been extremely
    successful in identifying the efficiency needs of local communities,
    businesses and consumers and providing support for meeting those needs.
    The State Energy Conservation Program offers the ideal combination of
    state-level implementation with federal support.

                   COMMUNITY ENERGY PROGRAM--REBUILD AMERICA

        APPA is concerned that the Administration's request of $9 million
    for fiscal year 2004 for the Rebuild America program is a significant
    cut from the fiscal year 2003 request of $20 million. The program
    partners with states and communities interested in using energy
    efficiency to help address a wide range of community priorities, but
    primarily facilitating improvements to commercial buildings. As part of
    the local and state governmental structure, APPA's member utilities are
    uniquely suited to participate in these types of partnerships and
    encourage continued support for this important program. We encourage
    Congress to level fund this program at last year's commitment.

                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Biomass Energy Research Association

        This testimony pertains to the fiscal year 2004 appropriation for
    the research, development, and deployment (RD&D) effort performed by
    the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDAFS) on forest
    biomass-based energy, fuels, and chemicals in its Biobased Products and
    Bioenergy Research (BPBR) program. The Biomass Energy Research
    Association (BERA) recommends that $22.0 million be appropriated for
    this high-priority RD&D in fiscal year 2004. Separate statements have
    been prepared for submission on other biomass energy RD&D performed by
    the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency and
    Renewable Energy (EERE) under the Energy and Water Development Bill,
    and by EERE's Office of Industrial Technologies under the Interior and
    Related Agencies Bill.
        BERA is a non-profit association based in Washington, DC. It was
    founded in 1982 by researchers and private organizations that are
    conducting biomass research. Our objectives are to promote education
    and research on the production of energy in all its forms from virgin
    and waste biomass that can be economically utilized by the public, and
    to serve as a source of information on biomass RD&D policies and
    programs. Please note that BERA does not solicit or accept federal
    funding for its efforts.
        On behalf of BERA's members, I would like to thank you, Mr.
    Chairman, for the opportunity to present our Board's position on the
    funding of forest biomass RD&D. Specifically, BERA's Board of Directors
    recommends that the appropriations for USDAFS' BPBR program in fiscal
    year 2004 be allocated as follows.
      --Continue the research program proposed by the USDAFS; $2,000,000
            was requested for fiscal year 2004.
      --Collect DOE's forest biomass research results obtained from
            laboratory and field projects and consolidate them with those
            of the USDAFS, $1,500,000.
      --Assess the technical value and economics of the consolidated
            results with industry participation, $2,000,000.
      --Develop an optimized, advanced RD&D plan with industry
            participation, $1,500,000.
      --Initiate the RD&D plan with industry participation and cost sharing
            of the scale-up projects, $15,000,000.
        BERA urges that this program be funded starting in fiscal year
    2004.

                                   BACKGROUND

        One of the original goals of the Bioenergy/Bioproducts Initiative,
    which was created as a result of ``The Biomass Research and Development
    Act of 2000,'' and Title IX of the Farm Bill, was to triple United
    States usage of bioenergy and biobased products. Although the timeframe
    has been extended up to 2015 or 2020, a strategic plan has been
    developed to reach this goal by the multi-agency Biomass Research and
    Development Board (BRDB) co-chaired by the Secretary of Energy and the
    Secretary of Agriculture.
        Substantial increases in biomass energy and fuel consumption are
    clearly needed because of what has recently happened to U.S. crude oil,
    natural gas, and electricity markets, our continually increasing
    dependence on imported oil, the renewed importance of achieving U.S.
    energy security, and the impacts of environmental issues. It is time to
    determine whether practical biomass energy systems can be developed
    that are capable of displacing much larger amounts of fossil fuels than
    they have in the past. The amount of fossil fuels displaced by biomass
    energy in 2000 was 1.55 million barrels of oil equivalent per day,
    approximately 79 percent of which was wood-based. The average amount of
    crude oil imported into the United States was 9.07 million barrels per
    day in 2000.
        In fiscal year 2002, DOE began to restructure EERE's biomass RD&D
    program. This process is continuing. The funds requested by DOE for
    biomass feedstocks are for infrastructure development only, such as for
    transportation and storage. The critical research to develop, plant,
    grow, and manage dedicated energy crops for conversion to cost-
    competitive energy and fuels has been terminated. DOE stated that other
    agencies or departments are better suited to handle this research, and
    that it is considered to be part of the USDA program. While DOE's
    feedstock production program has made significant research
    contributions over the last 25 years, BERA strongly endorses the idea
    that the USDA should assume responsibility for this program. The USDA
    has a long history in biomass production and is recognized worldwide
    for its accomplishments in developing advanced agricultural and forest
    biomass production methods. BERA recommends that research on woody
    biomass production for energy applications be continued by the USDAFS
    under the Interior and Related Agencies Bill. Woody feedstocks are
    essential for the production of much larger amounts of affordable
    fuels, electricity, and bioproducts than have been realized to date.
    BERA submitted testimony in support of this RD&D by USDAFS for fiscal
    year 2003, but funding was not provided.
        The expansion of the USDAFS' BPBR program recommended by BERA
    provides a considerably higher probability of significantly increasing
    the contribution of biomass to primary U.S. energy demand to help
    displace fossil fuel consumption. Indeed, the key to this eventuality
    is the development, demonstration, and deployment of technologies for
    producing low-cost forest biomass for conversion to economic supplies
    of energy and fuels. Forest biomass is the nation's and the world's
    largest reserve of renewable carbon resources. Without the availability
    of economically competitive forest biomass feedstocks, the probability
    of tripling or even doubling biomass energy consumption in the United
    States is doubtful.
        Ultimately, this program is expected to lead to commercial,
    sustainable energy plantations that are integrated with conversion
    processes supplied with both forest and waste biomass fuel and
    feedstocks. These biorefineries will be designed to yield multiple
    product slates that are sufficiently flexible to meet market conditions
    and demands.
        In the remaining paragraphs, I would like to elaborate on the high-
    priority forestry research that BERA strongly urges be continued or
    started.

                              BERA RECOMMENDATIONS

    Proposed USDAFS Research for Fiscal Year 2004
        The USDAFS requested an appropriation of $2,000,000 for its BPBR
    program to develop new and more economical technologies for the
    production, management, harvest, and utilization of woody materials for
    energy and high-valued products for fiscal year 2004. This work builds
    on the USDAFS' expertise on industrial wood recycling, wood chemistry,
    and wood-plastic composites; small-diameter timber harvesting and
    utilization; and experience in intensively managed silvicultural
    systems. The research is a natural complement to the woody feedstock
    production RD&D for energy and fuels by the USDAFS that BERA recommends
    be added to its overall program. BERA also recommends that some level
    of coordination of this research with the USDA work on fire hazard
    reduction for western forests be implemented to enhance the prospects
    for full use of biomass for energy across the country.

    Collection and Consolidation of DOE's Research and Field Project
            Results
        DOE has conducted an extensive forest biomass production program
    since the 1970's. This research included laboratory and field projects
    performed by academe, national laboratories, research institutes, and
    the private sector. The program emphasized the development and
    selection of special species, hybrids, and clones of trees, and
    advanced growth, management, and harvesting procedures for dedicated
    energy crops. Research on short-rotation tree growth and the screening
    of tree species in small-scale test plots was carried out in several
    areas of the country. Depending on the geographic location, woody
    species recommended as energy feedstocks from the test-plot results
    included hybrid poplars, willow, eucalyptus, black locust, and others.
    In collaboration with DOE, BERA recommends that the documented results
    of these efforts be collected and consolidated with those of the
    USDAFS. Furthermore, it is recommended that a plan be developed and
    implemented for preserving the large amount of improved woody crop
    clonal materials produced both by the USDAFS and the university
    collaborators of DOE.

    Assessment of the Consolidated Results With Industry
        BERA recommends that selected companies be invited to join with the
    USDAFS for the purpose of evaluating the consolidated data and
    information compiled by the USDAFS. The first objective of this
    assessment is to carefully analyze tree species in terms of their
    potential for sustained growth in energy plantations at maximum yields
    under acceptable growth conditions in different U.S. regions. The
    second objective is to update and perform comparative economic analyses
    of conceptual system designs to assist in the prioritization of each
    system. Presuming the industrial organizations that participate in this
    work are experienced in large-scale, commercial tree production, their
    inputs will be invaluable in performing the next phase of this program,
    which consists of producing an RD&D plan.

    Development of an Optimized, Advanced RD&D Plan With Industry
        The purpose of this phase of USDAFS' forest biomass program is to
    produce a 10-year, strategic RD&D plan that continues the research
    necessary to obtain the data and information needed for optimum energy
    plantation design, including environmental impacts, and that targets
    industry cost-shared field projects to demonstrate medium-scale,
    sustainable, forest biomass and residuals production in several
    geographic locations. It is important to include a schedule of
    milestones over the life of the RD&D.

    Initiation of the RD&D Plan With Industry
        Considerable progress has been made on the efficient production of
    short-rotation woody crop and multi-crop systems. In addition, research
    on tissue culture techniques and the application of genetic engineering
    methods to low-cost energy crop production have shown promise. This
    research should be continued to develop advanced biomass production
    methods that can meet the anticipated feedstock demand.
        BERA also recommends that industry cost-shared, scale-up projects
    of at least 1,000 acres in size be installed and operated in different
    regions of the country as a forerunner to commercial energy plantations
    in which dedicated energy crops are grown and harvested for use as
    biomass resources. The results of this work will provide sufficient
    operating and capital cost data to afford second generation economic
    data for larger modular systems and to perfect the design of
    sustainable energy plantations. The scale-up projects should be
    strategically located and should utilize the advanced woody biomass
    production methods developed in the research programs. Successful
    completion of this work will help biomass energy attain its potential
    by providing the data and information needed to implement the design,
    construction, and operation of practical forest biomass production
    methods for sustainable energy plantations that can supply low-cost
    feedstock for conversion to heat, steam, electric power, liquid and
    gaseous fuels, and chemicals.
        It is expected that during the first year of this program, fiscal
    year 2004, site studies can be completed to facilitate the selection of
    specific areas that are deemed suitable for energy plantation
    construction, and that installation on at least one site can be
    started. DOE should be involved in this program where appropriate so
    that their work on biomass infrastructure can be applied to program
    goals such as the design and operation of integrated biomass production
    and conversion systems.

                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of Bob Lawrence & Associates, Inc.

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Bob
    Lawrence, and I am President of Bob Lawrence & Associates, Inc., a
    consulting firm located in Alexandria, Virginia. With me today is Ms.
    Patrice Courtney, a Senior Associate with my firm. We are here today to
    request full funding for the Department of Energy's Weatherization and
    Intergovernmental Program (OWIP) within the Office of Energy Efficiency
    and Renewable Energy. Specifically, we request fiscal year 2004 OWIP
    funding of $375M of which $18.8M is required by the Rebuild program
    under the Gateway Deployment line item. For the Building Technologies
    program, we request a total of $63M, the same as the fiscal year 2002
    appropriated number. Cutbacks in the Building Technologies program have
    all but eliminated any outreach and education for this program.
    Outreach and education is essential for early adoption of evolving
    technologies and the maximization of national benefits.
        My firm and I have been involved in issues of Energy Efficiency and
    Renewable Energy since 1975, when this Subcommittee played an active
    and major role in helping to solve our country's first, major energy
    crisis. Ms. Courtney is responsible for communications regarding energy
    efficiency issues in both national and statewide forums, with a
    particular focus on New York State.
        Buildings account for one third of all energy used in our country,
    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 current efforts, overseas, remind us all too well that the U.S.
    economy remains significantly threatened by still-high oil prices.
    Energy efficiency has become an economic priority because it is key to
    reducing our vulnerability to high oil prices controlled by
    unpredictable foreign hands. Today, many U.S. states are deregulating
    electric utilities in an effort to lower electricity prices. These
    developments have important implications for energy efficiency in
    building technology.
        Our purpose today, Mr. Chairman, is to support the Weatherization
    and Intergovernmental Program (WIP), which has been uniquely successful
    in its campaign to help Americans save energy. For example, its Rebuild
    America program, for which $18.8 million is requested, continues to
    play an important role. Through Rebuild, completed energy efficiency
    renovations are saving communities nearly $131 million each year, along
    with an annual 9 trillion BTUs of energy. (That's the equivalent of
    8,200 oil tanker trucks in line for 113 miles.) This has resulted in
    savings of $1.5 billion in cumulative energy costs in participating
    communities. To date, Rebuild has generated $601 million in private
    sector investment, and resulted in more than 529 million square feet of
    renovated building space--an area equivalent to 16,000 schools. In
    addition, 569 million square feet in new projects are committed or
    under way. Every DOE dollar invested has produced $18.43 in annual
    community energy savings and $9.38 in private energy efficiency
    investments.
        The program has 500+ participating communities in 54 states and
    U.S. territories. State energy offices play an integral role in its
    implementation, working with individuals, businesses and institutions
    committed to improving the quality of life, building by building, via
    energy efficiency retrofits or new construction. Middle income and
    lower income Americans are direct beneficiaries of Rebuild America both
    through direct labor dollars and the overall, positive effect on the
    economy.
        Rebuild America is a working model for leveraging taxpayer dollars
    with private investment to produce significant energy cost savings. For
    example, Rebuild is actively working with more than 35 associations and
    trade groups in its Strategic Partners initiative, and with 140
    companies, including Johnson Controls, Siemens, TRANE, Sempra Energy
    Services and others, in its Business Partners project.
        One such strategic partnership proceeds from the Memorandum of
    Understanding between the DOE and the American Institute of Architects
    (AIA). This has resulted in a number of collaborative activities
    between Rebuild and the architecture community, such as the Solar
    Decathlon, a design competition that involves hundreds of architecture
    students, and a Rebuild-sponsored mentoring program in which Howard
    University architecture students are teaching middle school students
    about design issues, including energy efficiency and sustainability.
    Going forward, the AIA and Rebuild plan to select leading examples of
    buildings to demonstrate the metrics associated with environmental
    performance. For its part, the AIA will continue to support DOE program
    demonstration activities and participate in technology transfer
    activities included in High Performance Commercial Buildings Roadmap
    implementation, Solar Decathlon, Energy Smart Schools, and Labs21, and
    will disseminate the results.
        Energy Smart Schools (ESS) is a key Rebuild project, for good
    reasons. 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.
        Around the nation, a number of school districts are using Energy
    Smart School assistance. The College Station Independent School
    District in Texas, for example, used Rebuild's partnership system to
    team up with Texas A&M's Energy Systems Laboratory, and Texas Energy
    Engineering Services Inc., which audited the district's schools to
    determine needed energy retrofits. Rebuild helped the district locate
    5.6 percent financing that required up-front capital outlays. The loan
    will be repaid by 2009 with projected annual energy savings of
    $183,000. Ultimately, the school district financed $1.5 million of its
    capital improvements with help from Energy Smart Schools, for
    improvements that included new chillers, boilers and DX units; improved
    lighting; energy management system upgrades, and the launch of
    continuous building commissioning to ensure efficient operations and
    maintenance. This school district and many others are working to
    incorporate the Energy Smart Schools' high performance school design
    guidelines, which have been developed with recommendations that vary by
    climate, geography and energy mix.
        Here are some examples of other WIP programs and how they're saving
    energy and dollars:
        Residential Building Integration/Research and Development (formerly
    Building America).--$15.2 million is requested. Great strides have been
    made 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. This group is working
    to realize a 60 percent reduction in overall residential building
    energy use compared with the model International Energy Conservation
    Code of 2000. These activities also include the exciting work being
    done in the Zero Energy Buildings program. Additionally, the
    Residential Building Energy Codes group's work includes important new
    initiatives to develop new code compliance tools for residential
    construction to foster a ``whole buildings'' approach in new and
    existing buildings.
        In the area of Commercial Buildings Integration, $4.9 million is
    sought to continue its R&D. This will include guidance for four new
    building projects that will document improvements to the design process
    allowing up to 50 percent reduction in energy use. Using the Commercial
    Building roadmap, the group also is focusing on controls, indoor air
    quality, and technologies for the retrofit of existing buildings.
    Wireless sensors, whole building controls systems and retrofit
    technologies, and ventilation technologies will be key areas of
    investigation. The codes group seeks to continue its revisions to the
    IECC 2006 Edition/ASHRAE Standard 90.1 2004 to further promote energy
    efficient window assemblies. The objective is to simplify code
    compliance so that builders can use the advanced technologies developed
    by the High Performance Buildings effort, and to enable the cost-
    effective construction of Zero Energy Buildings.
        State and Community Programs.--The State Energy Program (SEP) is
    the only federally funded, state-based program administered by the DOE
    that provides resources directly to the states. WIP seeks to stay level
    at $38.7 million in fiscal year 2004 funding for the SEP. The SEP has
    become a strong foundation for success in reducing energy use in
    buildings, working at the community level. Rebuild America contributes
    greatly to the SEP's success, as it delivers technical support that
    states and localities require. Recent studies have documented that each
    $1 of SEP funding results in annual energy savings of 1.17 million
    source BTUs and annual cost savings of $7.23. Additionally, each $1 of
    SEP funding leverages $3.54 from non-federal sources, not including
    public benefit funds.
        WIP leads in the 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.
        In conclusion, it has been shown via audits and other analyses,
    that the DOE Buildings programs, however their names have changed over
    the years, have provided tens of billions of dollars in benefits to our
    country measured in more efficient energy use, less pollutant emission,
    and lower energy prices. Not measured in this dollar number is the
    significantly increased health of our citizens as a result of these
    benefits. This taxpayer investment pays tremendous dividends.
        During the 1980s, funding was drastically cut for energy-efficiency
    R&D. When the programs were revisited in the early 1990s, lost ground
    had to be regained. Research successes are now turning into
    commercially viable products. It is crucially important to cost share
    the field testing phase and to push new products through the R&D
    pipeline to market acceptance, particularly in the fragmented building
    industry.
        Mr. Chairman, the required annual investment in Energy Efficiency
    and Renewable Energy is less than one percent of what we invest in
    defense, but its purpose is no less important. It is an investment in
    our economy, our standard of living, and our very way of life.
         We thank you for your attention to this matter.

                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Biomass Energy Research Association

        This testimony pertains to the request for appropriations in fiscal
    year 2004 by the Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Energy
    Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), for mission-oriented biomass
    energy research, development, and deployment (RD&D) in the Industrial
    Technologies Program funded under the Interior and Related Agencies
    Bill. The Biomass Energy Research Association (BERA) recommends that
    $36.4 million be appropriated for these high-priority biomass programs
    in fiscal year 2004. Separate statements have been submitted in support
    of biomass RD&D performed by EERE under the Energy and Water
    Development Bill, and on forest biomass energy production by the U.S.
    Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDAFS) under the Interior
    and Related Agencies Bill.
        On behalf of BERA's members, I would like to thank you, Mr.
    Chairman, for the opportunity to present the recommendations of BERA's
    Board of Directors for the high-priority programs that we strongly urge
    be continued, restored, or started. BERA is a non-profit association
    based in Washington, DC. It was founded in 1982 by researchers and
    private organizations that are conducting biomass research. Our
    objectives are to promote education and research on the production of
    energy, fuels, and chemicals from virgin and waste biomass that can be
    economically utilized by the public, and to serve as a source of
    information on biomass RD&D policies and programs. BERA does not
    solicit or accept federal funding for its efforts.
        The specific programs and budgets that BERA recommends for fiscal
    year 2004 are:
      --Incorporation of the Bioenergy and Bioproducts Initiative (BBI)
            created as a result of ``The Biomass Research and Development
            Act of 2000'' and Title IX of the Farm Bill, into EERE's
            Industrial Technologies Program ($10,000,000), mainly for cost-
            shared scale-up projects.
      --Continuation of commodity organic chemicals-from-biomass RD&D
            started in fiscal year 1999 ($8,800,000).
      --Restoration of advanced black liquor gasification RD&D and its
            scale-up ($13,600,000). This program is aimed at developing two
            different processes, each of which has been cost-shared by
            industry; federal support has ended. Without continued federal
            support at this time, successful development in the existing
            facilities is highly unlikely. The technology is essential to
            enable the U.S. pulp and paper industry to reach energy self-
            sufficiency.
      --Continued development of advanced biomass technologies for the
            forest and paper products industries ($4,000,000).

               PROGRAM INTEGRATION, COORDINATION, AND MANAGEMENT

        For several years, BERA has urged that all biomass-related research
    funded by DOE should be coordinated and managed at DOE Headquarters so
    that the program managers are heavily involved in this activity. We are
    pleased to note that this process, which began in fiscal year 2002, has
    continued in fiscal year 2003. BERA congratulates DOE on the progress
    made in restructuring the program and its management. BERA also
    congratulates DOE and USDA for the new spirit of working together and
    coordinating the programs of each department to increase the usage of
    agricultural and forestry biomass for the production of much larger
    amounts of affordable fuels, electricity, and biomass-derived products
    than have been realized in the past. These efforts are expected to help
    facilitate the transition of waste and virgin biomass in the USA into
    major sources of renewable energy, fuels, and chemicals.
        BERA urges that the BBI be incorporated into the overall federal
    biomass research program. Without it, the time table for this
    transition will be stretched out for several decades and possibly never
    happen except to a very limited extent for niche markets. Large,
    strategically located, energy plantations are ultimately envisaged in
    which waste biomass acquisition and virgin biomass production systems
    are integrated with conversion systems and operated as analogs of
    petroleum refineries to afford flexible slates of multiple products
    from multiple feedstocks. Unfortunately, relatively large amounts of
    capital and inducements are required to get the private sector involved
    in developing even modest size projects in the field. So to help
    implement this program, BERA includes the BBI as a line-item in its
    annual testimony.
        BERA also continues to recommend that implementation of the BBI
    should include identification of each federal agency that provides
    funding related to biomass energy development, each agency's programs,
    and the expenditures by each agency. DOE and the USDA have initiated
    this process. This is an on-going activity that should be expanded to
    include other agencies and departments and help fine-tune the critical
    pathways to program goals. Continual analysis of the information
    compiled should enable the coordination of all federally funded biomass
    energy programs through the BRDB to facilitate new starts focused on
    high priority targets, and help to avoid duplication of efforts,
    unnecessary expenditures, and continuation of projects that have been
    completed or that do not target program goals. Full implementation of
    the BBI will enhance the value of the federal expenditures on biomass
    research to the country in many different ways.

                              BERA RECOMMENDATIONS

        BERA's project recommendations consist of a balanced program of
    mission-oriented RD&D on conversion research and technology transfer to
    the private sector. Advanced conversion processes and power generation
    technologies, alternative liquid transportation fuels, and hydrogen-
    from-biomass processes are emphasized. Biomass production RD&D for
    energy uses is ultimately expected to be done by the USDA.
        BERA continues to recommend that at least 50 percent of the federal
    funds appropriated for biomass research, excluding the funds for scale-
    up projects, are used to sustain a national biomass science and
    technology base via sub-contracts for industry and universities. While
    it is desirable for the national laboratories to coordinate this
    research, increased support for U.S. scientists and engineers in
    industry, academe, and research institutes that are unable to fund
    biomass research will encourage commercialization of emerging
    technologies and serious consideration of new ideas. It will also help
    to expand the professional development and expertise of researchers
    committed to the advancement of biomass technologies.
        To improve management and coordination of biomass research, EERE
    has consolidated most of its biomass RD&D under a single, integrated
    Biomass and Biorefinery Systems Program. As a result of the
    restructuring started in fiscal year 2002, a few major changes were
    made in biomass RD&D funded under the Interior and Related Agencies
    Bill in the Industrial Technologies Program (formerly the Office of
    Industrial Technologies). The two subcategories of biomass RD&D in this
    program are now called Advanced Biomass Technology: Products
    Development, and Systems Integration and Production.

    Bioenergy and Bioproducts Initiative (BBI)
        The original goal of the BBI created as a result of ``The Biomass
    Research and Development Act of 2000,'' and Title IX of the Farm Bill,
    was to triple the usage of bioenergy and biobased products. Congress
    has provided annual funding for the BBI since fiscal year 2000. A
    strategic plan has been developed by the multi-agency Biomass Research
    and Development Board (BRDB), co-chaired by the Secretaries of Energy
    and Agriculture, to achieve this goal. Its achievement is necessary
    because of environmental, energy security, and projected fuel supply
    issues, and our increasing dependence on imported oil. We must
    determine whether practical biomass systems capable of displacing much
    larger amounts of fossil fuels can be developed. The fossil fuel
    displaced by waste and virgin biomass in 2000 was 1.55 million BOE per
    day, approximately 79 percent of which was wood-based.
        BERA strongly urges that the BBI be added to the Industrial
    Technologies Program in fiscal year 2004 at the funding level
    recommended by BERA, and that the highest priority be given to
    development of this program component as a line item. BERA recommends
    that most of the funding for the BBI be used for scale-up.

    Advanced Biomass Technology: Products Development (Formerly Industries
            of the Future [Specific]).
        Organic Commodity Chemicals from Biomass (Formerly Agriculture
    Vision).--This program was started in fiscal year 1999. Projects were
    selected that used a variety of biomass feedstocks to produce
    industrial products such as coatings, lubricants, chemicals, plastics,
    and composite materials. The overall goal was to develop the
    technologies necessary to displace 10 percent of the fossil feedstocks
    with biomass for the production of organic commodity chemicals and
    chemical products. When the goal is fully implemented, it was projected
    to reduce fossil feedstock usage by 0.189 quad in 2010, and 0.545 quad
    in 2020. BERA indicated in previous statements that it is important to
    include the process energy displaced too. In 1999, for example, total
    fossil feedstock converted to chemicals was approximately 1.26 million
    BOE/day. Ten percent of this value is 126,000 BOE/day, while the
    corresponding process energy consumption was about 136,000 BOE/day, or
    a total of about 0.6 quad annually. The potential energy savings is
    evident.
        EERE reported last year that no new research solicitations would be
    issued in fiscal year 2003, and that the existing program would be
    integrated with the EERE-wide bioenergy and bioproducts solicitations
    that focus on biorefinery development. However, the existing university
    grants may be increased, and new solicitations may be issued in this
    area. Twelve active projects were scheduled to be continued. They
    focused on novel separations technology; the production of plastics,
    foams, adhesives, and coatings based on sugars and vegetable oils;
    lower cost and energy use in harvesting, pre-processing, and biomass
    storage; and the modification of crops to reduce the cost, processing
    requirements, and energy consumption in the use and conversion of the
    crops to products. It was expected that 2 projects will involve scale-
    up to pilot-scale demonstrations with industry, and 1 or 2 will involve
    commercialization projects on new biopolymers or solvents. Technology
    breakthroughs were expected that will improve plant composition for
    conversion to products, and provide novel, lower cost, less energy-
    intensive harvesting and storage technology.
        EERE requested a total of $8,808,000 for fiscal year 2004 to
    continue this research under the Interior and Related Agencies Bill.
    This consists of $3,304,000 for thermomochemical conversion products,
    $5,104,000 for bioconversion products, and $400,000 for technical
    management. The goals in fiscal year 2004 are to evaluate the existing
    portfolio of projects in fiscal year 2003, to select and continue those
    projects that are commercially promising with significant potential for
    energy savings, to complete validation at the pilot scale in
    partnership with industry of one new biobased product with long-term
    potential sales greater than 2 billion lb/yr for economic, technical,
    and product viability, and to increase product yields and energy
    efficiency in key chemical product chains by more than 30 percent.
        BERA believes that this effort is very worthwhile. Successful
    implementation of the commodity chemicals-from-biomass research is
    expected to result in many regional and national benefits because
    virtually all commodity organic chemicals and products--including
    plastics and petroleum- and natural gas-derived chemicals--can be
    manufactured from biomass. Focusing on reducing the energy intensity of
    established organic chemical commodities as well as on new products
    where appropriate has a high probability of commercial success and of
    displacing substantial amounts of fossil fuels.

    Systems Integration and Production
        Industrial Gasification (Formerly Industries of the Future
    [Crosscutting], Combustion and the gasification projects from the
    Forest and Paper Products Vision).--The largest part of this research,
    which started several years ago, was the industry cost-shared program
    to develop and commercialize the gasification of black liquor. In the
    appropriations request for fiscal year 2004, DOE states that funding
    for technology development and validation appear to be within
    industry's capability, so funding is not requested in view of the
    industry's ability to pursue further development without DOE support.
    While industry has provided all funding for a small-scale, black liquor
    gasification facility in Canada, there has been no such commitment from
    paper companies for projects in the United States. Therefore, BERA
    strongly urges that this program be continued with industry cost-
    sharing to the point where industry will assume all financial risks.
        There are several reasons that support BERA's position. Black
    liquor gasification provides a pathway to combined electric power
    generation and the recovery and recycling of chemicals for the pulp and
    paper industry at much higher efficiencies than the industry currently
    realizes from combustion methods. Presuming there is wide-spread
    acceptance of one or both of the two basic processes under
    development--high-temperature processing at the facility in North
    Carolina, and low-temperature processing at the facility in Virginia
    scheduled to be operational in the fall of 2003--adoption by the pulp
    and paper industry is projected to eliminate all power purchases and to
    make the industry energy self-sufficient. Twenty GW of renewable
    generating capacity, which is about twice the capacity of all biomass-
    fueled generating systems today, could be realized. Also, it is
    estimated that industry's use of this technology would reduce carbon
    emissions by more than 20 million tonnes each year. The pulp and paper
    industry currently purchases over 90 TWh of electricity annually.
        Finally, it is important to emphasize that the pulp and paper
    industry has been involved in cost-sharing these programs since they
    were started at DOE, and has a sizable investment in this RD&D to date.
    The benefits of their participation will probably be lost if the
    programs are zeroed-out at this time. According to discussions with
    industry representatives during review of this research by BERA, the
    industry is not expected to continue the work without DOE support
    because of its current economic position and the risks involved.
        Forest and Paper Products Vision.--Excluding the energy savings
    from black liquor gasification, EERE staff estimates this effort can
    reduce fossil energy usage by 0.080 quad in 2010, and 0.258 quad in
    2020. This basic assessment, along with economic analyses, when applied
    to development of this program, will help ensure its success. The
    program has significant matching funds from industry and continues to
    show significant value in addressing both national and industry
    priorities.
        The program for fiscal year 2003 was described as follows:
    Sustainable Forestry consists of approximately 8 projects on
    biotechnology, tree physiology, and sustainable soil productivity,
    including the continuation of studies to develop process models to
    predict the effect of forest management on growth and productivity on
    managed forests; Energy Performance consists of approximately 12
    projects on efficiency, heat recovery, wood and paper drying, deposit
    formation in boilers, and corrosion-resistant materials for black
    liquor gasifiers; Environmental Performance consists of approximately 7
    projects to develop advanced pollution prevention technologies, reduce
    pollution abatement costs, and demonstration of volatile organic
    compound emissions reductions at a forest products mill; Improved
    Capital Effectiveness consists of approximately 10 projects focused on
    system and process efficiency and materials of construction and
    fabrication; Recycling consists of approximately 7 projects to reduce
    energy use and fiber deterioration in recycling, improving separation
    technologies, expanding the use of recycled fibers, and optimizing
    drying processes; Sensors and Controls consists of 5 projects on the
    development of actuators and control devices, process and product
    measurement and modeling, data interpretation, and a wireless
    microwave-based moisture sensor in a wood-drying kiln.
        EERE has requested funding of $4,021,000 under the Interior and
    Related Agencies Bill for fiscal year 2004. One of the goals is to
    support voluntary efforts by the American Forest & Paper Association
    and other industry organizations to improve their energy efficiency and
    environmental performance through the industry's Agenda 2020. This
    activity will include cost-shared research. In addition, those
    activities with the highest long-term energy savings potential will be
    continued such as development of new paper dewatering techniques,
    advanced sustainable forestry projects, scale-up of solid waste
    recovery technology, and the selection of new projects that help
    improve energy efficiency and environmental performance that industry
    would not undertake without federal support.
        BERA recommends that this program be continued at the requested
    funding level.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the Bureau of Economic Geology, The University of
                                Texas at Austin

        Thank you for this opportunity to provide the Bureau of Economic
    Geology's perspective on fiscal year 2004 appropriations for the
    Department of Energy Fossil Energy Budget. The President's budget
    proposes deep cuts to the U.S. Department of Energy's Fossil Energy
    Research and Development, specifically the National Energy Technology
    Laboratory (NETL) and the National Petroleum Technology Office (NPTO)
    programs. I understand that the Oil Technology budget was reduced from
    $56.2 million in 2002 to $42.3 million in 2003 to $15.0 million in
    2004, and the Natural Gas Technology budget was kept level from $44.1
    million in 2002 to $47.3 million in 2003 and reduced to $26.6 million
    in 2004.
        These reductions come at a time when private sector spending on
    fossil energy research is at a several-decade low and falling,
    university enrollments in geosciences and petroleum engineering are at
    40-year lows, oil and natural gas demand represents 60 percent of all
    energy demand combined and is rising in percentage and absolute terms
    owing to increased overall energy demand, imports of oil and natural
    gas by percentage continue to rise and impact national security, and
    oil and gas resources that remain--although potentially abundant--will
    require new and advanced technologies. The time is critical for a
    changed model from the past, a model that includes increased Federal
    awareness of the changed nature of the private energy sector,
    leveraging of the very real opportunities for private-public
    partnerships, and public awareness of the economic and environmental
    benefits that will result from same.

       CONSUMPTION: FOSSIL ENERGY CONSUMPTION IS RISING AND THE TREND IS
                               TOWARD NATURAL GAS

        The past 20 years (1980-1999) have seen a steady and predictable
    decrease in the percentage of global energy consumption satisfied by
    oil (46 percent down to 40 percent) and coal (26 percent down to 22
    percent), and an associated increase in the percentage of global energy
    consumption satisfied by a combination of natural gas, nuclear, and
    other renewables (28 percent up to 38 percent). From 1980 to 1999 total
    global energy consumption increased by nearly 35 percent (from 282 to
    379 quads). During the same period, U.S. total energy consumption
    increased 23 percent (from 78 to 97 quads).
        In contrast to global consumption, which shows a trend away from
    coal and oil to natural gas, nuclear, and renewables, the U.S. energy
    consumption mix has remained flat for two decades to a point where
    today it is nearly identical to the global energy mix (coal 22 percent,
    oil 39 percent, and natural gas 23 percent). To maintain a flat oil and
    coal consumption curve, the United States bears the security risks
    associated with 60 percent and rising oil imports and the resultant air
    quality emissions from coal-fired electric plants. Importantly, fossil
    fuels account for 84 percent of global and U.S. energy consumption
    today. More importantly, for reasons including energy efficiency,
    environmental well-being, economic stability, health of the future
    energy workforce, supply distribution, mitigation of an oil crisis, and
    national security, U.S. energy policy and associated legislation should
    encourage what Jesse Ausubel describes as ``decarbonization''--the
    changing energy mix toward natural gas, nuclear, and other renewables.

    THE CHANGED FACE OF INDUSTRY: PERMANENT DECREASE IN PRIVATE TECHNOLOGY
                                  AND RESEARCH

        The oil and gas business is, and will remain, a technical one.
    Drilling and operational technologies have advanced to a point where
    virtually any land drilling location is technically feasible, ocean
    water depth is less and less a limiting factor, oil and gas fields can
    be developed using multilateral well bores from a single vertical well
    bore, downhole logging tools provide remarkable information about the
    rock-fluid system, seismic data have evolved to a point where some
    depositional systems lend themselves to direct hydrocarbon detection,
    all aided by the seemingly endless improvements in computer--speed,
    memory, disk, visualization--capabilities. These and other advancements
    have combined to improve efficiency across the oil and gas industry
    significantly. In fact, while manpower in the industry has decreased
    nearly 70 percent in the past two decades, global production of oil and
    natural gas has steadily increased.
        The oil and gas industry changed considerably in the last two
    decades. Historically, the lion's share of the research and development
    that resulted in the creation and application of advanced technology
    and enhanced efficiency was funded by the private sector. Private
    companies each had research--later to be renamed technology--labs, and
    they competed for the best intellectual talent from universities, and
    with each other to develop advancements that would provide
    differentiating competitive advantage and allow for more expeditious
    and economic discovery and development of oil and gas. Those days are
    gone, as are most of the research labs--Amoco, ARCO, Conoco, Texaco,
    Chevron, Marathon, Mobil, Phillips, and Unocal--and much of the R&D
    spending by petroleum companies--fallen over 100 percent in the past
    decade.
        Major companies and large independents can no longer afford to
    operate R&D facilities because the payout time for commercialization of
    research--commonly on the order of 3 to 10 years--far exceeds what the
    capital markets and commodity price cycles will bear. In order to meet
    the quarterly market demands, the private sector has had to focus every
    effort on reduced cycle time, replacement of reserves (largely through
    acquisition), quarterly return on investment, and profit.

    THE NEED FOR TECHNOLOGY: OIL AND NATURAL GAS WILL REQUIRE INCREASED R&T
                                 IN THE FUTURE

        Oil.--Oil represents a bridge to the natural gas and hydrogen
    future. Increased production of known reserves (reserve growth) via
    enhanced oil recovery (EOR) projects will continue to account for more
    U.S. oil than new discoveries.
        Efficient EOR requires advanced reservoir characterization and
    technology. These projects in the United States will be conducted
    largely by the independent producer, who does not have staff or
    resources for high-level R&D. Federal policy and investment in oil
    research, technology, and incentives should be directed almost
    exclusively toward the independent for EOR. Is this corporate welfare?
    No more than investing in clean coal technology, wind turbines, or fuel
    cells. It is simply a wise Federal investment in the U.S. energy
    future. An environmental benefit of EOR is that no new lands will be
    impacted.
        Natural Gas.--Natural gas (1) is an efficient fuel, (2) has
    significant environmental advantages over coal and oil, (3) is more
    broadly distributed across the globe, which, once the transportation
    networks are established, will provide long-term price, economic
    stability, and security benefits, and (4) will serve as feedstock for
    hydrogen in a hydrogen economy. The global resource potential of
    natural gas is very large. To date, natural gas has been produced
    largely in association with oil, called conventional gas. About one-
    third of U.S. annual production of natural gas comes from sources not
    associated with oil called unconventional gas, such as coalbed methane,
    shale gas, and basin-centered and tight gas. Other unconventional gas
    sources include subsalt, ultra deep (>15,000 ft), and gas hydrates.
    Combined with conventional gas, these unconventional sources represent
    the future of the global natural gas supply. Because their behavior and
    distribution are not as well understood, exploration and exploitation
    will require significant research and technology investment, both
    Federally and privately.

      A BETTER DIRECTION: A PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP WILL FACILITATE A
                               SMOOTH TRANSITION

        We have before us a remarkable opportunity for a public-private
    partnership that will lead the world into the natural gas economy. For
    the foreseeable future, a balance in energy sources is critical to
    satisfy global demand. Stalwarts such as oil, and to some degree coal,
    will remain prominent sources of global energy for at least the next
    several decades. But these are sunset sources of energy, and Federal
    technology investment should be couched accordingly. Dollars spent on
    new research initiatives in coal are dollars spent against natural
    global trends. National oil independence is highly unlikely, but energy
    independence is achievable with a balanced investment in a mix of
    energy sources.
        Oil and gas research programs across Federal agencies have been
    targeted for massive budget cuts each year for the past several years.
    The fiscal year 2004 DOE budget requested of Congress for research
    directed at major U.S. energy production and consumption represents 3
    percent of the total DOE budget. Of that 3 percent, only 2 percent is
    for oil, and 3 percent is for natural gas. The remainder of the 3
    percent is for coal (40 percent), renewables (39 percent), and nuclear
    (16 percent). Let me say that a different way: of the $23.4 billion DOE
    budget, only $26.6 million (0.1 percent) is for natural gas, and $15
    million (0.1 percent) is for oil. Oil and natural gas account for 65
    percent of the nation's energy supply but only 0.2 percent of the
    proposed fiscal year 2004 DOE budget for oil and gas research! Combine
    these essentially nonexistent Federal dollars with decreases in the
    private sector, and there appears to be no future for young people in
    the oil and gas energy field. University statistics reflect this, as
    U.S. geoscience and petroleum engineering enrollments are at a 35-year
    low.
        For the next several years, Federal investments must be redirected
    to focus on Federal-private-university partnerships that help bridge
    the gap to a natural gas economy, including (1) the continued
    production of coal with some ``clean coal'' research dollars redirected
    to natural gas, (2) continued renewable and nuclear energy research,
    (3) enhanced oil recovery research in support of independent producers
    ($150 million), and (4) research and technology across the upstream to
    downstream natural gas spectrum ($300 million).

                                     ______

                     Prepared Statement of Caterpillar Inc.

        Caterpillar Inc. appreciates the opportunity to present its
    comments for the record addressing the Department of Energy fiscal year
    2004 budget request for heavy-duty transportation R&D within the Office
    of FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies (FCVT.) 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. We are the
    leading worldwide supplier of heavy-duty off-road vehicles and diesel
    engines for medium and heavy-duty on-road trucks, competing globally
    primarily from a U.S. manufacturing base.
        Our longstanding partnership with the Department of Energy has
    resulted in the development of an R&D technology road map to assure
    that project goals are consistent with national priorities and are
    fiscally responsible. The building blocks for Caterpillar's innovative,
    fuel-efficient and clean Advanced Combustion Emissions Reduction
    Technology (ACERT) are the direct result of collaborative R&D efforts
    between our company and the DOE.
        As such, Caterpillar is concerned with the significant reductions
    in key line items in the fiscal year 2004 FreedomCAR and Vehicle
    Technologies Program budget submission. Caterpillar understands the
    need for the Department 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 into the next. Our comments will focus
    on six program areas that provide the collaboration and funding of
    these ``bridge technologies'' that are essential to improving the fuel
    efficiency and retaining the competitiveness of our nation's commercial
    transportation sector.
        Heavy Truck Engine.--The Heavy Truck Engine Program, with a fiscal
    year 2004 agency request of $7.0 million, is competitively bid and
    designed to respond to the impact on fuel efficiency of upcoming
    federal emissions standards. These emissions reductions targeted for
    model year 2007 and beyond could result in a five to ten percent fuel
    penalty for heavy-duty trucks, which currently consume 30 percent of
    on-road transportation fuel.
        The primary focus of this R&D 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 and 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 three years into this program, we have learned that
    the technical challenges are even greater than originally expected.
    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.
        Caterpillar strongly urges the subcommittee to provide fiscal year
    2004 funding for this line item at $13.5 million (fiscal year 2003
    actual was $12.5 million) to reflect the urgency of pulling forward
    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 $2.0 million decrease from fiscal year 2002 actual), 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, in its final year of funding, involves multiple industry teams
    comprised of heavy-duty engine and light-duty vehicle manufacturers,
    plus significant involvement of the DOE laboratories.
        Like the Heavy Truck Engine Program, the Light Truck 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. 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 light duty
    operating cycle. Light trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles spend
    the vast majority of 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 the duty cycle, aftertreatment and systems integration
    requirements. Caterpillar's strategy is to develop the fuel and air
    system technology that is the key enabler for HCCI combustion and work
    with light truck manufacturers to incorporate this technology into
    vehicles to dramatically reduce emissions of 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 subcommittee to increase the funding for this program to $15
    million, in line with the amount approved by Congress for fiscal year
    2003. We would also like to strongly suggest that this program be
    continued for 2 additional years to complete the work.
        Off-Highway Engine R&D.--According to the U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency, non-road 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. Tier 2 regulations began in
    2001, with Tier 3 regulations 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.
        In fiscal year 2003 Congress increased the funding level to $3.5
    million, earmarking the funds for emissions R&D, fuel cell R&D and
    locomotive R&D. However, DOE has terminated the program in fiscal year
    2004. Caterpillar strongly supports retaining the fiscal year 2003
    congressional funding level of $3.5 million with $2.0 million earmarked
    for high efficiency off-highway earthmoving equipment.
        Combustion and Emissions Control.--An important element of this
    comprehensive program, currently underway at Sandia Livermore, Lawrence
    Livermore and Los Alamos national laboratories, focuses on the need to
    understand fundamental combustion processes and 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.
        Caterpillar urges the subcommittee to reinstate program funding at
    the fiscal 2003 level of $23.5 million, allocated equally between
    light-duty (FreedomCAR) and heavy-duty (21CT) projects.
        Advanced Propulsion Materials.--New and improved materials are a
    necessary and key enabler for many engine system programs. With the
    recent breakthroughs in new, clean and efficient combustion regimes in
    our DOE programs, e.g. full and part mode HCCI, the development of new
    and improved materials is critically important. Along with the
    commitment to this breakthrough technology are the engine structural
    challenges in accommodating the much higher pressure rise rates HCCI
    creates. These are beyond the traditional design options with current
    materials. So along with the combustion development we also must
    advance the materials technology to assure a commercially viable
    breakthrough engine.
        The current fiscal year 2004 line item request for heavy-duty
    propulsion materials is $5.85 million. To meet our future goals, an
    additional $3 million could be very well utilized, to address HCCI
    structural needs and accelerate aftertreatment development in areas
    showing fresh promise. We urge the subcommittee to increase the Fiscal
    2004 funding level to $8.85 million.
        Fuels Technology Subprogram.--Two activities conducted within this
    subprogram have had the active participation and support of the heavy-
    duty diesel engine industry. Unfortunately, both programs have been
    terminated for fiscal year 2004. In the first instance, the Advanced
    Petroleum Based Fuels (APBF) activity for heavy-duty engines began with
    an evaluation of new fuel formulations and their impact on the two most
    promising types of future aftertreatment systems. The introduction of
    reliable aftertreatment devices with the most cost effective and
    compatible fuel for heavy-duty engines is critically important to
    meeting our goals of cleaner air and improved fuel efficiencies.
    Congress approved $8.2 million in fiscal year 2003 for the heavy-duty
    component of this program and we strongly urge Congress to fund the
    heavy-duty portion at that level again in fiscal year 2004.
        Another activity in this subprogram addresses Environmental
    Impacts. The data from the source apportionment and ambient ozone
    studies conducted by this subprogram are the only accurate measurements
    available and are critically important to identifying the role and
    contributions of mobile emissions to air quality. Despite the obvious
    importance of these activities, no other agency has been willing to
    fund this work. DOE has undertaken the effort because of the direct
    relationship between emissions reductions and reduced fuel efficiency.
    We urge Congress to reinstate funding for this subprogram at $2.0
    million in fiscal year 2004.
        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. Caterpillar supports
    this unique R&D collaborative effort and commends the Department of
    Energy for its leadership.Mr. Chairman, Caterpillar believes that the
    FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies Program effectively addresses 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 the California Government and Private Sector
                    Coalition for Operation Clean Air (OCA)

        On behalf of the California Government and Private Sector Coalition
    for Operation Clean Air's (OCA) Sustainable Incentive Program, we are
    pleased to submit this statement for the record in support of our
    fiscal year 2004 funding request of $7,000,000 for OCA as part of a
    Federal match for the $180 million already contributed by California
    State and local agencies and the private sector for incentive programs.
    This request consists of $5,000,000 from the Department of Energy (DOE)
    for bio mass incentives, and $2,000,000 from DOE for alternative fuels
    infrastructure funding.
        California's great San Joaquin Valley is in crisis. Home to 3.3
    million people, its 25,000 square miles may have the most unhealthy air
    in the Country. Even Los Angeles, long known as the smog capital of the
    nation; can boast better air quality by certain standards. While peak
    concentrations of air pollutants are still greater in Los Angeles; for
    the past four years, the San Joaquin Valley has exceeded Los Angeles in
    violations of the eight-hour federal health standard.
        A combination of geography, topography, meteorology, extreme
    population growth, urban sprawl and a NAFTA corridor with two major
    highways that produce 5 million big-rig miles per day driven by diesel
    powered trucks, have collided to produce an air basin which over
    300,000 people, nearly 10 percent of the population, suffers from
    chronic breathing disorders. In Fresno County, at the heart of the San
    Joaquin Valley, more than 16 percent of all children suffer from
    asthma, a rate substantially higher than any other place in California.
    The extreme summertime heat works to create smog even though smog-
    forming gases are less than half the amount in the Los Angeles basin.
    There is no prevailing wind to flush the natural geologic bathtub and,
    as a result, pollutants and particulates stagnate, accumulate and
    create unhealthy air.
        Degradation of human health is not the only consequence of poor
    quality air. Because the eight county air pollution control district is
    designated as a ``severe'' nonattainment area, a significant number of
    the Valley's businesses are required to obtain permits and comply with
    increasingly burdensome regulations imposed by federal and state law
    and the Air Pollution Control District, resulting in added cost in
    compliance, reporting and record keeping. At the same time, the area is
    burdened by unemployment rates of nearly 20 percent. Encouraging
    business expansion in or relocation to the San Joaquin Valley to combat
    unemployment is extremely difficult in the face of such regulatory
    burdens.
        In the fall of 2003 the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control
    District Board will decide whether to become the first District in the
    nation voluntarily to declare itself an ``extreme'' non-attainment
    area. That designation, if made, will defer until 2010 the date for
    attainment of federal standards of air quality, but will come at a cost
    of imposing permitting on thousands of more businesses and even further
    discouraging business expansion or relocation. Unemployment will
    certainly not be improved.
        The San Joaquin Valley is home to the most productive agricultural
    land in the world. Over 350 crops are produced commercially on 27,000
    farms that encompass more than 5 million irrigated acres. While the
    agricultural industry has made great strides at considerable expense to
    replace old diesel engines and manage fugitive dust and other
    emissions, farming cannot help but contribute to the problem. However,
    it is a $14 billion industry that forms the backbone of the Valley's
    economy.
        Industry alone is not the source of the Valley's poor air.
    Population growth faster than the rest of the state and nearly the rest
    of the nation, in an area without effective mass transit, where cheap
    land has led to a landscape of suburbia and sprawl, results in
    excessive over-reliance on the automobile. Trucking has increased
    dramatically with the increase in population. Other factors such as
    fireplace burning in the winter, open field agricultural burning
    because of lack of adequate alternatives, and wild fires resulting from
    lack of controlled burning in the nearby foothills and mountains all
    contribute to the problem.
        Despite the challenges listed above, much progress has been made.
    The State has spent nearly $80 million on improvement and compliance
    programs. Local government and private industry have spent over $100
    million on technology and compliance. As specific examples, over one
    half of the diesel operated irrigation pumps used by agriculture have
    been replaced with cleaner engines. The City of Tulare has converted
    its entire fleet of vehicles to natural gas as have several other
    private fleet operators. A $45 million federally financed comprehensive
    study of ozone and particulate matter is nearing completion. As a
    result, the number of one-hour EPA health standard exceedences has been
    reduced by 40 percent since 1989.
        But much more needs to be done. The District estimates that daily
    emissions must be reduced by 300 tons to achieve attainment. There is
    no single or short-term quick fix. The entire Valley is part of the
    problem and the entire Valley will need to be part of the solution.
        Operation Clean Air is a coalition of business, government, health
    care and environmental groups throughout the eight county San Joaquin
    Valley Air Pollution Control District and Mariposa County. Its goal is
    to clean the Valley's air and increase its economic prosperity. The
    coalition seeks to catalogue efforts that have produced positive
    effects and identify those strategies that could produce even greater
    effects if supported by sufficient resources. At the heart of its
    efforts will be an array of sustainable, voluntary practices and
    activities that can and will be undertaken by all of the residents of
    the San Joaquin Valley, both public and private, to improve air
    quality.
        This unique public-private partnership has invested considerable
    resources in this project to date, and will continue to do so, but
    federal funding is both imperative and justified to help address what
    is essentially an unfounded federal mandate.
        For fiscal year 2004, our Coalition is seeking funding of
    $2,000,000 from the Department of Energy (DOE) for the installation and
    operation of alternative fuels infrastructure throughout the San
    Joaquin Valley Air Basin. The alternative fuels infrastructure will
    allow for the accelerated introduction of alternatively fueled vehicles
    in municipal fleets, public school fleets, and private fleets. The
    widespread use of lower-emitting motor vehicles will provide
    significant improvement to air quality in the San Joaquin Valley while
    furthering the goals of the Department of Energy and the National
    Energy Policy Act. Development of alternative fuel infrastructure will
    augment the low-emission vehicle program by providing much needed
    compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquefied natural gas (CNG) fueling
    facilities.
        For fiscal year 2004, our Coalition is also seeking funding of
    $5,000,000 to provide financial incentives to reduce open field burning
    of residual agricultural materials by utilizing biomass-energy power
    plants to burn this material in a controlled environment. This process
    will result in multiple benefits to the San Joaquin Valley by reducing
    air pollution and producing electrical power from a renewable source.
        Thank you very much your consideration of our requests.

                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Center for Advanced Separation Technologies

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I represent the
    Center for Advanced Separation Technologies (CAST), which is a
    consortium of seven leading mining schools in the United States. I
    appreciate the opportunity to submit this testimony requesting your
    committee to add $4 million to the 2004 Fossil Energy Research and
    Development budget, U.S. Department of Energy, for Advanced Separations
    research. The research in advanced separation is an integral part of
    the Solid Fuels and Feedstocks Program of the Fossil Energy R&D.
        I am joined in this statement by my colleagues from the consortium:
    Richard J. Sweigard (University of Kentucky), Peter H. Knudsen (Montana
    Tech), Maurice C. Fuerstenau (University of Nevada-Reno), Ibrahim H.
    Gundiler (New Mexico Tech), Jan D. Miller (University of Utah) and
    Richard A. Bajura (West Virginia University).
        The U.S. mining industry produces approximately 40 percent of all
    solid wastes generated in the country. The generation of excessive
    waste can lead to the loss of valuable natural resources, environmental
    damage, and higher cost in raw materials production--including the coal
    that is used to generate 52 percent of the nation's electricity. A
    large part of the waste generated by the mining industry can be
    attributed to the inefficiencies of the various separation processes
    that are currently being used. Therefore, there is a need to develop
    advanced separation technologies that can be used by the U.S. mining
    industry. The Center for Advanced Separation Technologies (CAST) has
    been established to meet this need.

                                   BACKGROUND

        In 2001, the U.S. mining industry produced a total of $58 billion
    of raw materials, which consisted of $39 billion from minerals and $19
    billion from coal. The mineral processing industries increased the
    value of the minerals to $374 billion, while coal and uranium were used
    to produce 72 percent of the nation's electricity, whose dollar value
    was $194 billion. Thus, the U.S. mining industry contributed a total of
    $568 billion to the nation's economy, which accounted for 5.6 percent
    of its GDP. According to the 2002 Mineral Commodity Summary, major
    industries further increased the value of the processed mineral
    materials to $1,720 billion, which accounted for 17 percent of the GDP.
        Despite the important contributions that the U.S. mining industry
    is making to the nation's economy, the country has not been investing
    in technology development. This is particularly the case with the coal
    and minerals processing technologies, which are mostly concerned with
    separating one mineral (or coal) from another. In the absence of
    advanced separation technologies, companies resort to increasing
    throughput rather than improving separation efficiencies, which in turn
    causes increased waste generation. This approach may give higher rates
    of return on these companies' investments in the short term, but it
    entails a higher loss of valuable natural resources and greater
    environmental damages. Fine coal waste impoundments are a notable
    example. According to a recent NRC report, the U.S. coal industry is
    discarding 70 to 90 million tons of fine coal annually to 713
    impoundments, mostly in the Appalachian coal field.
        To address the need for the advanced separation technologies that
    can be used by the U.S. mining industry, the National Energy Technology
    Laboratory (NETL) issued a solicitation (DE-PS26-00FT40756) in 1999 for
    the creation of a knowledge base for solid-solid and solid-liquid
    separation technologies. Virginia Tech and West Virginia University
    jointly responded to this solicitation and proposed to establish the
    Center for Advanced Separation Technologies (CAST). The objective of
    the alliance was to conduct long-term, high-risk research, primarily
    for the U.S. coal industry.
        In 2002, NETL issued a second solicitation (DE-PS26-02NT41422-9)
    requesting proposals for developing crosscutting advanced separation
    technologies for both the U.S. coal and minerals industries. CAST
    responded to this solicitation as a consortium of seven universities:
    Montana Tech of the University of Montana, New Mexico Institute of
    Mining and Technology, University of Nevada-Reno, University of Utah,
    University of Kentucky, West Virginia University, and Virginia Tech.
    The proposed work addressed a broad spectrum of technological needs of
    the mining companies operating in different geographical locations of
    the United States. The proposal was selected for $8.8 million of
    funding for three years, which included $1.8 million for the first
    year, $3 million for the second year, and $4 million for the third
    year. This testimony is to present a progress report and a rationale
    for requesting the third year funding.

                                PROGRESS TO DATE

        During August 14-15, 2002, CAST organized a workshop in Charleston,
    West Virginia, to identify the technological needs of the U.S. mining
    industry. A large number of industry leaders participated and developed
    a 63-page roadmap for research. The document has recently been printed
    and distributed throughout the U.S. mining industry and is available at
    the CAST website (www.castconsort.org). Faculty members from the
    participating universities developed research proposals, which were
    reviewed by industry representatives in accordance with the priorities
    outlined in the roadmap, and the U.S. Department of Energy made the
    final selection in light of its policies and national needs.
        Solid-liquid separation (dewatering) was one of the research topics
    that were given the highest priority in the roadmap, which may be a
    reflection of the fact that many coal companies continue to discard
    ultrafine coal to impoundments mainly due to the difficulty in
    dewatering. CAST is currently developing several different fine coal
    dewatering processes, including the development of novel dewatering
    aids (chemicals), a hyperbaric centrifugal filter (HBF), and a
    hyperbaric horizontal belt filter (HBF). Several dewatering aids have
    been tested successfully in a small pilot-scale continuous operation.
    Tests conducted on fine coal recovered from a large impoundment in
    southern West Virginia showed that the use of novel dewatering aids can
    more than double the throughput of vacuum filtration, reduce the
    moisture content substantially, and improve the handleability of the
    processed coal. Based on these successful test results, Beard
    Technologies, Inc. of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, is planning to
    construct a 200-ton per hour recovery plant. The HCF and HBF are
    designed to create an optimum pressure drop across a filter cake and
    thereby achieve higher filtration rates and low cake moistures.
        In general, solid-solid and solid-liquid separation processes
    become more efficient with narrowly sized feeds. Separation becomes
    particularly difficult with feeds containing large amounts of ultrafine
    particles (or slimes). In this regard, the industry representatives who
    participated in the 2002 CAST workshop stressed the need to develop
    efficient methods of desliming coal. Two CAST member universities are
    jointly working on the project. It has also been shown that enhanced-
    gravity separators work substantially better when the feed coal is
    deslimed.
        In 2002, CAST took a major step forward by expanding the scope of
    its research beyond coal. The justification for this shift was that
    many of the unit operations used in the coal and mineral processing
    industries are common. Thus, a research investment in the improvement
    of a crosscutting technology such as flotation would be cost efficient.
    Furthermore, the cost of implementing the results of a crosscutting
    technology development is lower due to the larger customer base.
        The modern form of flotation technology was introduced to the
    mining industry nearly one hundred years ago. Yet, it was only recently
    that comprehensive flotation models were developed from first
    principles, which has made it possible to predict flotation performance
    on the basis of a broad spectrum of process parameters. CAST is further
    developing the models so that they can be used to predict flotation
    rates under more realistic conditions. Based on preliminary model
    predictions, a set of new flotation reagents has been developed, some
    of which are being used commercially for coal flotation in the United
    States and Australia.
        Beginning in 2002, CAST started research in the area of minerals
    processing as part of its mission to develop crosscutting technologies.
    An alternative to copper smelting has been sought for years for cost
    and environmental reasons. However, chalcopyrite is notoriously
    difficult to dissolve in acidic media due to the formation of an
    impermeable sulfur layer forming on the mineral surface. This problem
    has been overcome by adding finely divided solids that can support
    photo-catalytic reactions. CAST is also developing methods of
    optimizing heap leaching processes by conducting 3-D mineral exposure
    analysis, and of improving the separation of phosphate, potash, kaolin
    clay and trona in efficient and environmentally acceptable manner.

                                    PROPOSAL

        The research activities will follow the CAST Technology Roadmap,
    which identifies three generic research areas: (i) physical separation,
    (ii) chemical/biological separation, and (iii) environmental control.
    In physical separation, issues concerning size-size, solid-solid, and
    solid-liquid separations will be addressed. High priority research
    topics in these areas of research will include the development of
    efficient desliming methods, dewatering fine coal, extending the upper
    and lower particle size limits of flotation, and the densification of
    waste materials. In chemical/biological separation, methods of leaching
    refractory base metal sulfide ores will be developed. The
    photocatalytic technique that is currently under development can be an
    alternative method to the energy-intensive smelting process and can
    minimize pollution. Chemical and biological separation methods will be
    developed to process low-grade ores and to remove both organic and
    inorganic sulfur from coal. In environmental control, advanced methods
    for separating various contaminants from wastewater streams and soils
    will be developed. In general, the advanced separation technologies to
    be developed in the three generic areas of research identified above
    will be useful for increasing the efficiency of coal and mineral
    processing operations, which will result in the minimization of the
    wastes generated by the U.S. mining industry.
        To promote industrial participation, CAST will initiate the
    Cooperative Research Program, in which groups of companies will jointly
    fund projects of common interest to solve specific industrial problems
    using the wide-spectrum of expertise available at the Center. This
    program will serve as a vehicle for generating substantial cost-sharing
    funds.

                                   RATIONALE

        The U.S. mining industry is facing a difficult time due to high
    operating costs, stringent environmental regulations and a worldwide
    economic downturn. To cope with this situation, many companies are
    trying to survive by increasing their production capacity without due
    consideration of improving efficiency, which in turn causes greater
    waste generation and loss of valuable natural resources. It is,
    therefore, necessary to develop advanced separation technologies that
    can be used to increase recovery rates and hence minimize waste
    generation.
        The United States is by far the largest mining country of the world
    with $58 billion of raw materials produced in 2001. Australia is the
    distant second, with $17.5 billion in 2000. Yet, Australia has
    established a total of five centers of excellence in the area of
    minerals and coal processing research. In the United States, CAST is
    the only such center. The center is poised for success, as it is a
    consortium of seven universities with diverse expertise and its
    research activities are carried out in close consultation with a broad
    spectrum of U.S. mining companies.

                                    REQUEST

        Thanks to the support of your Committee, the proposal submitted by
    CAST to DOE has been selected for funding for three years. It is
    sincerely hoped that this testimony provides justification for
    requesting $4 million for the third year funding.

                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Coal Utilization Research Council (CURC)

                         SYNOPSIS OF CURC \1\ TESTIMONY
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The CURC is an ad-hoc group of electric utilities, coal
    producers, equipment suppliers, state government agencies, and
    universities. CURC members work together to promote coal utilization
    research and development and to commercialize new coal technologies.
    Our 40+ members share a common vision of the strategic importance for
    this country's continued utilization of coal in a cost-effective and
    environmentally acceptable manner.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Our testimony focuses upon the following three topics:
        1. The DOE-CURC-EPRI Clean Coal Technology Roadmap;
        2. A recommendation to increase funding for programs in the
    President's Clean Coal Research Initiative in the DOE Fossil Energy
    Budget to $347.65 million, which represents a $60.0 million increase
    over the Administration's requested $287.65 million for those programs
    in fiscal year 2004; and
        3. The Department of Energy's FutureGen Initiative.

                       THE CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY ROADMAP

        In collaboration with the fossil fuel experts at the Department of
    Energy (DOE), as well as the professional staff of the Electric Power
    Research Institute (EPRI), the CURC has drafted a clean coal technology
    roadmap. A copy of the technology roadmap is available upon request and
    can also be obtained on the CURC website at www.coal.org.
        The roadmap seeks to identify the critical technologies that must
    be successfully developed, as well as the timelines for when that
    development must take place, if the Nation is to have highly efficient
    (near 55 to 60 percent conversion to useful energy) coal energy
    production facilities available for commercial deployment by 2020.
    These same technologies will be capable of near zero emissions to the
    air or water and will be able to provide low cost, competitive
    electricity or other useful products to end use consumers. In addition,
    the roadmap seeks to define a technology development program for carbon
    management; that is, the prevention or capture and sequestration of
    carbon dioxide. In the event public policies are determined necessary
    for the capture/sequestration of CO2 at some future time,
    then it is important that we have technologies designed to safely and
    effectively address this matter.
        It is our intent to evaluate this and future year budget requests,
    to score the progress and direction of technology development conducted
    by the Department of Energy, and to advise the current and future
    Administrations as well as the Congress about coal-based technology
    issues by using the technology roadmap as a principal reference. We
    have utilized the roadmap as a ``tool'' by which to judge budget
    priorities for fiscal year 2004 and the progress or success of R&D
    endeavors. Further, and more importantly, we hope that the roadmap will
    become a ``tool'' to enable the Congress to ask whether certain
    research and development programs are necessary or whether funding
    should be augmented or terminated for those programs. The members of
    CURC are ready to assist the Congress in understanding the elements of
    the roadmap and how the document might be used to oversee the coal
    technology R&D programs of the DOE and others.

                                SPECIFIC FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE COAL R&D PROGRAM
                                                [In millions of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                        CURC  fiscal
                                                                        Administration  CURC  roadmap    year  2004
                            Technology program                            fiscal year     annual  R&D     proposed
                                                                         2004 request     budget \1\       budget
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Clean Coal Power Initiative.......................................          130.00         240.00         150.00
    IGCC/Gasification.................................................           51.00         106.00          62.00
    Pressurized fluidized bed (PFB)...................................  ..............          14.00          12.00
    Innovations for Existing Plants...................................           22.00          43.00          32.00
    Advanced turbines.................................................       \2\ 13.00      \2\ 15.00          23.00
    Carbon Sequestration..............................................           62.00          84.00          52.00
    Advanced research--Ultrasupercitical Materials Consortium.........            4.65           4.00           4.65
    Coal derived fuels & liquids......................................        \2\ 5.00      \2\ 13.00          12.00
                                                                       ---------------------------------------------
          Total.......................................................          287.65         519.00         347.65
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ This number is 80 percent of the total R&D amount required and represents the federal contribution. It is
      assumed that industry would provide the other 20 percent required to carry out the R&D. The annual budgets are
      based upon the CURC Roadmap through fiscal year 2010; the annual budgets from 2011-2020 are not reflected.
    \2\ Not specified for coal syngas R&D.

        Clean Coal Power Initiative.--CURC recommends that fiscal year 2004
    CCPI funding be appropriated at the fiscal year 2003 level ($150
    million) so that there will be sufficient funds for multiple, large-
    scale demonstration projects to be selected in the next program
    solicitation. In addition, because of the CCPI program's critical
    importance as well as the need to provide assurances to industry that
    the program will continue to be adequately funded, CURC recommends that
    the CCPI program be fully funded through advance appropriations.
        IGCC/Gasification.--The requested increase in funding from $44.7
    million in fiscal year 2003 to $51.0 million in fiscal year 2004 is
    insufficient to keep the development of promising IGCC systems on track
    and further funding is requested. Specifically, CURC supports the
    recommended budget levels for the H2/CO separation and other gas
    cleanup at $8 million and the gasification slipstream units at $9
    million. CURC recommends that an additional $3 million in funding be
    allocated to ceramic membrane and oxygen separation activities, for a
    total of $12 million, and recommends an additional $8 million be
    appropriated to fund hydrogen storage and materials management
    research. CURC also supports funding for the PSDF operation at $21
    million, but notes that this funding will simply maintain the program
    in its current state.
        There are a variety of other R&D activities to further IGCC
    technology that should be funded. These include: the application of
    IGCC systems on sub-bituminous and low-rank coals, coal-derived
    hydrogen, oxygen-blown transport gasifier, air separation membranes,
    advanced synthesis gas cleanup, solid oxide fuel cell element,
    combustion turbine burners, synthesis gas coolers, improved fuel feed
    systems, and high-temperature heat exchangers, and a number of other
    activities. (The CURC supports activities in these areas, although no
    specific funding levels are recommended.)
        Pressurized Fluidized Bed (PFB) Systems.--CURC recommends that DOE
    restore in fiscal year 2004 funding for coal combustion-based R&D at
    $12.0 million. Further, this program should be renamed ``Advanced
    Combustion Systems'' and focus on development of high efficiency,
    superior environmental performance, and CO2 sequestration
    technologies. The CURC recommends that the advanced combustion program
    should focus on the following areas: advanced combustion technologies
    able to capture and sequester CO2, including high efficiency
    oxygen combustion systems and chemical looping systems; hybrid power
    plant systems; ultra-supercritical steam cycles; and, continued funding
    for the Combustion Technologies University Alliance.
        Advanced Turbines.--The recommended increase in funding is
    specifically directed to research in high efficiency gas turbines
    configured for use of synthesis gas derived from coal. The increased
    funding will accelerate the development of critical component
    technologies that will allow advanced gas turbines (i.e., G and ATS (H)
    class gas turbines just now entering the market operating on natural
    gas) to operate in coal-based IGCC plants. Specifically, additional
    focus and R&D funding is needed in the following areas: syngas tolerant
    advanced gas turbine materials and coating systems; sensors and
    monitors for syngas applications; and ultra-low emission combustion
    systems for fuel flexible gas turbines.
        Innovations For Existing Plants.--CURC recommends an increase of
    $10 million in the fine particulate/air toxics budget in order to
    increase the number of full-scale field tests from 3 to 4 tests to 10,
    to allow tests with lignite, sub-bituminous, and low-Cl and high-Cl
    bituminous coals at various configurations. Additional funding also
    should be made available for the superclean systems budget to fully
    fund the solicitation due in the fall of 2003 to develop improved
    technology and materials for meeting increasingly stringent
    NOX requirements, or in the ``waste and water management''
    budget to address pressing clean water regulatory issues.
        Carbon Sequestration.--CURC recommends that the carbon
    sequestration program reduce its funding for the National Climate
    Change Technology Initiative (NCCTI) program by $10 million (the
    current Request is $13 million) in order to allocate funds to other
    coal-related programs in the Fossil Energy Budget. Funds for the NCCTI
    program should be considered of secondary importance to the immediate
    need to develop carbon separation and sequestration technologies that
    will be required to support the FutureGen Project. CURC recommends that
    the funds provided for carbon sequestration should focus on near-term
    proof of concept projects and provide out-year funding for
    demonstration of CO2 separation and sequestration
    technologies.
        Advanced Research--Ultra-Supercritical Materials Consortium.--CURC
    believes that the ultra-supercritical materials consortium should be
    funded at the level recommended in the fiscal year 2004 Budget request.
    The program, based on successful results will provide the materials and
    processing technologies to increase steam conditions, enabling
    attainment of higher generation efficiencies.
        Coal Derived Fuels And Liquids.--CURC recommends that funding for
    hydrogen fuel derived from coal is an activity more appropriately
    placed in the IGCC program. CURC recommends that funding for Coal
    Derived Fuels and Liquids be allocated at $12 million in total funding,
    with $8 million in funding for Transportation Fuels and Chemicals. Of
    the $8 million, $3 million should be allocated to complete present
    commitments to the Early Entrance Co-Production program, $1 million for
    advanced computational modeling work focused on polygeneration system
    designs (power, liquids, hydrogen, co-generation), and $4 million for
    work on reactor design, catalyst development, scale-up, and engineering
    and development. In addition, CURC recommends retaining an Advanced
    Fuels Research Program at $4 million in total funding, with $2 million
    focused on military applications of coal-based fuels to meet
    requirements for logistic fuels.

                         THE PROPOSED FUTUREGEN PROJECT

        In late February, Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham announced
    that the United States will lead a $1.0 billion public-private effort
    to construct the world's first pollution-free, fossil fuel power plant.
    The prototype power production facility, according to Secretary
    Abraham, will serve as a research platform to develop new technologies
    for electricity and hydrogen production, and for carbon capture and
    sequestration.
        First, the CURC supports this very important research project
    capable of testing and integrating a variety of cutting edge
    technologies.
        Second, FutureGen is estimated to cost at least $1.0 billion.
    Because it will be a research program, it is important to acknowledge
    that the government will be contributing at least 80 percent of the
    total funding required for the project.
        Third, the ten-year FutureGen project will require, at least, $800
    million in federal contributions. These funds must be made available
    from new funds and not acquired by stripping funding from other coal
    technology development programs. Specifically, the CURC would strongly
    oppose any plans to acquire funding by reducing announced funding for
    the President's Clean Coal Power Initiative. Further, funds should not
    be obtained simply by reducing or eliminating other important, on-going
    coal R&D and demonstration programs. These on-going programs are also
    instrumental in the development of clean coal technologies that have
    yet to be proven at commercial scale and will not be demonstrated in
    the FutureGen project. Examples of ongoing programs include innovations
    for existing plants, advanced combustion technologies, and carbon
    management programs.

                                   CONCLUSION

        The DOE-CURC-EPRI roadmap describes a variety of advanced coal-
    based energy systems that, if fully developed, will ensure cost-
    effective, efficient and environmentally acceptable uses of coal, as
    well as the timeframes for development of those technologies and the
    performance requirements of these systems. However, if critical
    components of a particular system are not developed in a timely manner,
    a promising technology may not materialize in the recommended
    timeframe. Importantly, to achieve timely technology development, the
    government's long-term commitment must be assured and funding of
    programs must be substantial. Technology is the key to assuring the
    long-term use of coal, and the Department of Energy's coal RD&D
    programs are vital to that technology development.

                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Coalition of Northeastern Governors

        The Coalition of Northeastern Governors (CONEG) is pleased to
    provide this testimony to the Senate Subcommittee on Interior and
    Related Agencies regarding fiscal year 2004 appropriations for the
    Energy Conservation programs of the U.S. Department of Energy. The
    Governors appreciate the Subcommittee's support for these programs, and
    recognize the difficult funding decisions which confront the
    Subcommittee this year. At a time of heightened attention to the
    security, reliability and efficiency of the nation's energy systems, we
    believe that modest federal investment in these programs provides
    substantial energy, economic and environmental returns to the nation.
    In recognition of 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 $74 million, and that funding for the Weatherization
    Assistance Program be increased to $288 million in fiscal year 2004.
    The Governors also request that funding for the Northeast Home Heating
    Oil Reserve be maintained at $6 million in fiscal year 2004.
        The Department of Energy's State Energy Program and Weatherization
    Assistance Program provide valuable opportunities for the states,
    industry, national laboratories and the U.S. Department of Energy to
    collaborate in moving energy efficiency and renewable energy research,
    technologies, practices and information to the public and into the
    marketplace. 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. As the nation
    moves to enhance the security of its energy infrastructure, the energy
    emergency preparedness activities long provided by state energy offices
    take on heightened significance. Increased SEP funding in fiscal year
    2004 will ensure that States can continue to rely upon state energy
    offices to serve as their essential energy emergency preparedness
    officials in providing this vital public security and safety function.
    As part of the nation's strategy for a balanced, reliable energy
    system, SEP also helps move energy efficiency and renewable energy
    technology into the marketplace. 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 an efficient
    federal investment, as they are leveraged by non-federal public and
    private sources. According to a study of the SEP done by the Oak Ridge
    National Laboratory at the request of U.S. Department of Energy, every
    dollar in SEP funding yields $3.54 in ``leveraged'' funding from the
    state and private sectors, and results in $7.23 in annual energy cost
    savings. This adds up to over $256 million in annual energy costs
    savings. These savings estimates do not capture the valuable public
    benefits, such as energy emergency planning and preparedness, provided
    by SEP. In short, the Oak Ridge report concludes that the SEP, with its
    impressive savings and emissions reductions, ratios of savings to
    funding and payback periods, offers effective operations and a
    substantial positive impact on the nation's energy situation.
        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.
        Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve.--The nation's heightened
    emphasis on energy security places renewed importance on the Northeast
    Home Heating Oil Reserve. The Northeast, with its reliance upon
    imported fuels for both residential and commercial heating, is
    particularly vulnerable to the effects of supply disruptions and price
    volatility. The Reserve provides an important buffer to ensure that the
    states will have prompt access to immediate supplies in the event of a
    supply emergency.
        In conclusion, we request that the Subcommittee increase funding
    for the State Energy Program to $74 million and for the Weatherization
    Assistance Program to $288 million; and that it maintain funding at the
    level of $6 million for the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve in
    fiscal year 2004. These programs have demonstrated their effectiveness
    in contributing to the nation's goals of environmentally sound energy
    management and improved economic productivity and energy security.
        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 Gasification Technologies Council

        The Gasification Technologies Council (GTC) submits this statement
    addressing fiscal year 2004 appropriations for the U.S. Department of
    Energy's (DOE) Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) R&D
    program, the High Efficiency Engines and Turbines R&D program, the Coal
    Derived Fuels and Liquids R&D program and the Clean Coal Power
    Initiative. Specific funding recommendations are listed below:
      --The IGCC R&D program for fiscal year 2004 should be funded at a $60
            million level, up from the $51 million requested.
      --The High Efficiency Engines and Turbines (HEET) program for R&D
            activities directed toward enabling advanced gas turbines to
            operate on gasification-based synthesis gas should be funded at
            a $24.5 million level, instead of the $13 million requested.
      --The Coal Derived Fuels and Liquids Program funding should be $12
            million, instead of the $5 million requested.
      --The Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) should be funded at a level
            of $150 million instead of the $130 million requested.
      --Any funding for the FutureGen program should come from new revenue
            sources and not transfers from any of the above programs.
           role of gasification in doe strategy, policies & programs
        Gasification related technologies are key elements in the DOE's
    strategy to bring extremely clean, highly efficient coal based power
    generation into the marketplace. More advanced and competitive
    technologies are fundamental to achieving this goal, as well as to the
    successful implementation of Vision 21 and the FutureGen pollution-free
    power plant. Continuing and robust IGCC R&D, HEET R&D, Coal Derived
    Fuels and Liquids R&D, and CCPI programs, together with tax incentives
    being proposed in the new energy legislation, are necessary to achieve
    the goal of state-of-the-art, competitive gasification-based
    technologies.
        Gasification-based power generation, as embodied in an Integrated
    Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power plant configuration, has
    inherently superior environmental benefits compared to combustion-based
    power generation:
      --Hydrogen Economy.--Gasification offers the most cost-effective
            means of producing hydrogen from coal. However, for our vast
            coal resources to become a viable alternative to natural gas as
            a source of hydrogen, gasification technology needs first to be
            established as a competitive means of generating power from
            coal through continued research, development and demonstration
            efforts.
      --Carbon Removal & Sequestration.--If CO2 removal from
            coal-based power generation becomes a regulatory requirement in
            the future, the impact on the cost of electricity will be
            significant. Because of its inherent characteristics,
            gasification based power production will enable the addition of
            CO2 removal at the lowest additional cost and thus
            support the ability of coal to remain a viable feedstock for
            power production if carbon capture and sequestration are
            required. The average additional capital cost to include
            CO2 capture in the design of a pulverized coal plant
            is expected to be more than twice the additional capital to add
            that capability to an IGCC plant. Furthermore, the associated
            decreases in capacity and efficiency of the pulverized coal
            plant are expected to be twice that of an IGCC plant. The R&D
            to confirm and extend IGCC performance in this regard is
            important to the goal of minimizing the impact on coal-based
            power cost, should CO2 capture become a requirement.
      --Mercury Emissions Reductions.--Volatile mercury removal from coal
            gasification-based synthesis gas is being practiced
            commercially today. In fact, a recent DOE-funded study
            concluded that the cost of 90 percent+ volatile mercury removal
            from a gasification-based plant would be but one-tenth of that
            from a combustion-based plant of comparable capacity.
      --Efficiency.--IGCC plants already are more efficient than combustion
            based plants because they enable the use of high efficiency gas
            turbines to generate power. Further improvements now being
            developed in the DOE IGCC R&D program focusing on discrete
            components of the IGCC system, including high efficiency gas
            turbines and ceramic air separation membranes among others,
            offer a future of additional efficiency improvements.
            Combustion-based technologies, faced with the need to add on
            energy intensive emissions control systems to meet more
            stringent air regulations, will likely see reduced efficiencies
            and generate additional solid wastes.
      --Criteria Pollutants.--IGCC reduces criteria pollutant emissions
            (SOX, NOX, CO and particulates) from
            coal-based power generation to levels that cannot be achieved
            by combustion-based technologies at comparable capital and
            operating costs, and comparable efficiency levels. An IGCC also
            generates far lower levels of solid wastes. DOE sponsored R&D
            in several key areas promises to widen further IGCC'S
            advantages in emissions reductions.

               THE IMPORTANCE OF ROBUST GASIFICATION R&D PROGRAMS

        The inherent technical benefits of gasification noted above cannot
    be fully realized on an accelerated schedule without a solid
    underpinning of research and development, both in the private sector
    and in joint public-private sector endeavors as embodied in the current
    DOE IGCC program in combination with a continuation of the CCPI.
        The managers of the DOE IGCC research program have been working
    closely with the gasification industry to define critical technology
    improvements that will enhance the performance and reduce the cost of
    IGCC to help stimulate future deployment of the technology. A recent
    study has shown that if the goals of the DOE fossil energy R&D program,
    including IGCC, are realized, by 2020 the use of IGCC could see a ten-
    fold increase over what otherwise would occur. This would increase coal
    use by ten percent, and reduce pressures on natural gas use for power
    generation, with no increase in criteria pollutants and with a decrease
    in mercury emissions from coal-based power generation. However, this
    analysis is premised on a successful DOE fossil R&D program, including
    the IGCC and HEET efforts.

                  WHY ADDITIONAL FUNDS ARE NEEDED FOR IGCC R&D

        Although the 2004 budget request for the IGCC R&D program appears
    higher than for the prior year, a number of combustion-related programs
    that had been partly funded by IGCC are now being entirely funded by
    the IGCC program area. This means that, if current IGCC programs are to
    be adequately funded, and important new efforts initiated, total
    appropriations for IGCC R&D should be increased from the requested
    level of $51 million to a minimum of $60 million.
        The DOE IGCC program office has made a concerted effort for the
    past several years to actively seek out industry views on critical
    gasification R&D requirements. The goal of this effort has been to make
    sure that limited public funds are directed toward projects that will
    be leveraged by private sector funds and that will have payoffs in
    introducing improved technologies into the marketplace. The increased
    funding being recommended will enable these joint public-private R&D
    efforts to continue.

    Recommended Fiscal Year 2004 IGCC R&D Appropriation.--$60 million
            why additional funds are needed for the heet r&d program
        Today's most advanced gas turbines, offering increased efficiency
    (with accompanying lower operating costs and reduced carbon emissions)
    have not yet been proven on combustion of syngas from coal-based IGCC
    systems. There is a distinct need for further R&D to develop advanced
    turbines for coal-derived syngas utilization and test them in full-
    scale demonstrations in coal gasification systems. This will be
    necessary in order to achieve the high efficiency levels necessary to
    meet the goal of developing by 2008 a 50 percent efficient coal-based
    IGCC plant at a cost of less than $1,000/kW with near zero emissions.

    Recommended HEET Fiscal Year 2004 Appropriation.--$24.5 million

     WHY ADDITIONAL FUNDS ARE NEEDED FOR COAL DERIVED FUELS AND LIQUIDS R&D

        Co-production of chemicals and fuels should be encouraged through
    ongoing financial support in the DOE fossil fuels R&D program.
        Coal derived fuels and liquids research are necessary to enable
    further development of ``polygeneration'' facilities which have the
    capability of producing not just electricity and steam, but also
    chemicals and fuels (both hydrogen and liquid fuels) as well. Such
    polygeneration facilities will ultimately improve the overall economics
    of building and operating gasificationbased power generation plants,
    thereby accelerating their deployment into the marketplace and bringing
    with them substantial environmental and efficiency advances.
        Additionally, although one national long term goal is a hydrogen
    fueled transportation fleet, it is also necessary to address
    intermediate term needs to improve performance and emissions
    characteristics of our current liquid fueled fleet of vehicles with
    coal-derived ``zero-sulfur'' liquid fuels that are co-produced in
    conjunction with an IGCC plant.
        The goal of diversifying the sources of transportation fuels to
    include coal-based fuels, which complements programs in Vision 21 and
    FutureGen, is also a consideration in supporting increasing funding for
    R&D for coal derived transportation fuels.

    Recommended Coal-Derived Liquids and Fuels Fiscal Year 2004
            Appropriation.--$12 million
                  why additional funds are needed for the ccpi
        GTC recommends that appropriations for the Clean Coal Power
    Initiative be maintained at no less than the $150 million of the prior
    year. This will signal to potential industrial investors in the program
    that the Congress continues to view the CCPI as a high priority with
    long term public policy support. This level of funding over extended
    years will provide sufficient funds for multiple, large-scale
    demonstration projects to be selected under the next, and future,
    program solicitation. Any reduction in CCPI funding from previous year
    levels will limit the number of otherwise worthy projects that can be
    funded and thereby limit the technical progress that can be made.

    Recommended CCPI Fiscal Year 2004 Appropriation.--$150 million
        the importance of adequate, balanced resources for gasification
        Going forward the DOE is embarked on an ambitious yet realistic
    program of gasification-based research, development and demonstration
    to accelerate the commercial introduction of coalbased IGCC power
    generation that will reduce emissions and power costs, while increasing
    use of the nation's coal resources. However, this will require a
    balanced program that does not short-change either important R&D needs
    or the CCPI demonstration program. As other new technology
    demonstration initiatives, such as the FutureGen program, are
    undertaken they must be adequately funded with additional resources and
    should not rely on transfers from ongoing R&D programs or the CCPI
    program, which are critical to the deployment of the technology
    improvements that will support large scale demonstration and
    commercialization of IGCC.

                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the General Electric Power Systems

        The following testimony is submitted on behalf of General Electric
    Power Systems (GE) for the benefit of the Committee during its
    consideration of the fiscal year 2004 budget requests for the
    Department of Energy's (DOE) Fossil Energy program.
        Continued technology advancements are key to realizing the
    potential for cleaner, more efficient power generation. In addition, by
    improving the U.S. technology base, government-private sector programs
    addressing these challenges will enhance the international
    competitiveness of U.S. industry. Several important DOE programs
    deserve the Committee's support.

                      VISION 21 FUEL CELL/TURBINE HYBRIDS

        The fiscal year 2004 budget request for the Vision 21 Hybrids line
    item within the Distributed Generation/Fuel Cells program contains a
    significant reduction below the fiscal year 2003 funding level. GE
    believes that adequate resources should be restored to this program in
    fiscal year 2004 to support technology development to realize cost
    competitive planar solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC)/gas turbine (GT) hybrid
    electric generation systems in the 1 MW to 10 MW size range.
        Planar SOFC/turbine hybrid systems have the unique potential to
    meet the nation's need for clean, high efficiency, cost effective power
    plants with the ability to use multiple fuels. Fuel cell systems offer
    significant emissions reductions compared to conventional, combustion
    based electrical production. In hybrid systems, efficiencies of 65
    percent are achievable, well above the current state of the art. These
    systems also will be able to use fuels of future importance to our
    nation: hydrogen, coal or biomass derived syngas, as well as natural
    gas. When fully developed, planar SOFC/GT hybrid systems in the 1MW to
    10 MW size range are projected to be cost-competitive with today's
    electricity generation technologies. Systems of this size will have
    important applications in meeting dispersed generation needs to
    overcome congestion on the bulk power grid.
        Hybrid fuel cell/turbine systems are fully in line with DOE's views
    for the powerplant of the future, as seen in both the Department's
    Vision 21 goals and its recently announced FutureGen program. DOE has
    described hybrid power modules as a ``key enabling technology'' for
    long-term Vision 21 systems. The Department has further noted that
    these modules are an important element of DOE's carbon management
    policy. Similarly, DOE's February 2003 description of the FutureGen
    initiative anticipates that electricity production in the prototype
    FutureGen plant will involve turbines, fuel cells or hybrid
    combinations of these technologies.
        Hybrid planar SOFC/GT technology development for cost effective
    systems in the 1 MW to 10MW size range is in its early stages. There
    are significant technology challenges in both the fuel cell and system
    design. There will also be unique gas turbine constraints and
    challenges to be overcome. Early system design, analysis, and modeling
    are required which will lead to identification of optimum system
    configurations. Demonstration test programs will then be required to
    validate component and system design, system integration and
    manufacturability.
        Additional funding in fiscal year 2004 for planar solid oxide fuel
    cell/gas turbine hybrids will complement and leverage the technology
    advancements of DOE's Solid-State Energy Conversion Alliance (SECA)
    program. The SECA program, in which GE is a participant, focuses on
    continued SOFC technology development and demonstration to improve
    performance and reduce costs. The technology development being
    performed under the SECA program forms a solid basis for the hybrid
    effort. However, development of planar SOFC fuel cells for hybrid power
    systems requires additional technology development, such as scale-up
    and pressurized operation, which goes beyond the technical scope of the
    SECA program.
        Successful development of cost effective planar SOFC/turbine hybrid
    electrical generation systems has significant implications for the
    United States in terms of reducing fossil fuel consumption, lowering
    emissions associated with power generation and easing of grid
    constraints. However, with so much uncertainty in the electricity
    industry today, industry alone is not in the position to assume the
    full burden of the technological risks inherent in advancing hybrid
    fuel cell/gas turbine technologies. The long term time frame for
    commercial development of this technology and the technical challenges
    to realize the benefits of cost effective commercial systems will
    require a collaborative effort between the government (DOE) and private
    industry.

                                      SECA

        GE supports full funding for SECA in the Innovative Systems
    Concepts line item of the Distributed Generation/Fuel Cells program. As
    noted above, GE is a participant in the SECA program. SECA is a broad
    collaboration among industry, government, universities and other
    research organizations that has as its ultimate objective the
    development of fuel cells for a variety of uses, which will lead to the
    significant cost reductions needed for this technology to be deployed
    widely. GE appreciates the Congress's support for the SECA program in
    the past, and encourages the Committee to provide sufficient resources
    again this year to assure that the important work of this program
    continues.

                      HIGH EFFICIENCY ENGINES AND TURBINES

        The Administration's fiscal year 2004 request for the High
    Efficiency Engines and Turbines (HEET) program, within the Central
    Systems program, should be increased by a total of $11.5 million. This
    program represents the Department's primary research effort focusing on
    gas turbines for electricity production. As DOE has explained in its
    budget submission, ``developing advanced turbines with fuel flexibility
    is critical as many of the advanced, coal-fired power generation
    technologies currently being developed or demonstrated will incorporate
    modified gas turbine systems.'' The importance of this technology
    requires that adequate resources be available.
        GE commends to the Committee's attention the testimony submitted by
    the Gas Turbine Association relative to the funding needs for HEET. In
    particular, GE encourages the Committee to increase funding for DOE
    NETL's Broad Based Financial Assistance solicitation (improving overall
    performance of turbines in integrated gasification combined cycle
    (IGCC) applications), to address combustion of hydrogen in turbines, to
    support the University Turbine Systems Research (UTSR) Program, and to
    assure that adequate emphasis is placed on reliability, availability
    and maintainability (RAM).
        RAM.--The HEET program needs to continue to support improvements in
    powerplant asset utilization (RAM) through development of advanced
    technologies for sensors, diagnostics, and condition monitoring.
    Continued partnering between government and industry will accelerate
    the pace of this work and speed the introduction and widespread
    deployment of new technology in the field. Economic benefits are
    realized 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,
    increasing the time between scheduled outages, and reducing emissions
    under both full and partial load conditions. Advances in asset
    utilization 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.
        HEET Program Accomplishments Will Support IGCC Focus.--GE believes
    that DOE's continued focus, vision and support for IGCC technology is
    warranted, and we support the fiscal year 2004 funding request for the
    IGCC program. Recent increases in the price of natural gas once again
    highlight the need for a robust, fuel-diverse energy infrastructure.
    Our electricity generation sector needs to continue to utilize abundant
    and indigenous fuels such as coal and renewables in order to reduce the
    stress on both natural gas resources and their distribution. IGCC
    boasts high potential for generating clean power under present and
    future environmental criteria. It has flexibility to process a wide
    variety of feedstocks--including coal, petroleum coke and biomass. IGCC
    is also the base from which low-CO2 power can grow.
        The HEET program will make important contributions towards
    realizing the full measure of IGCC's potential. GE, as the industry
    leader in IGCC gas turbine operation, has made significant investment
    in the development of fuel-flexible combustors and fuel systems. This
    has expanded the potential application range of gas turbines that are
    ready to support the broadening of gasification feedstock flexibility.
    However, to meet the aggressive emission and fuel flexibility goals of
    the HEET program, new combustion system technologies must be developed.
        Widespread commercial adoption of IGCC has been hampered by its
    high cost and complexity. Superb environmental performance and high
    efficiency are not, by themselves, sufficient to offset costs in a
    utility's technology decision process. GE, therefore, urges that all
    IGCC programs utilize an overall system perspective to identify areas
    for development that have the highest potential of meeting the
    challenging technical, cost, operability, and availability goals of the
    HEET program.
        Hydrogen.--Our nation's increasing focus on hydrogen as a future
    energy source was recently highlighted by the announcement of the
    President's hydrogen fuel initiative. While it is anticipated that
    initial demand for hydrogen will be met by natural gas, serious
    consideration must be given to the future impact on natural gas
    supplies. Economical sources of hydrogen will be needed to achieve a
    significant reduction of our reliance on imported oil. With continued
    escalation of domestic natural gas prices, GE believes that large scale
    coal-based IGCC could be a significant alternative source for hydrogen
    production. The synthetic gas produced from gasification combined with
    current process technologies for removal of carbon can provide a
    hydrogen-rich feedstock for either combustion in a gas turbine,
    chemical production, or use elsewhere in the coming ``hydrogen
    economy.''
        Funding under the HEET program should be provided for the
    development of gas turbine combustion technology for use with a high
    hydrogen fuel stream. GE has experience with gas turbines operating on
    fuel blends containing hydrogen, and has performed laboratory
    demonstration tests on high hydrogen content fuel. This experience
    highlighted the need for development of advanced combustion technology
    in order to drive down NOx emissions and enable advanced hydrogen
    generation processes. In addition, current strategies for effective
    integration of all major subsystems need to be revisited and redefined
    for use with hydrogen fuel.
        The United States has reached a critical point in time where
    development and demonstration is sorely needed for coal-based hydrogen
    production processes. DOE's FutureGen program promises to provide a
    platform to address this need. Technology research and development
    through the HEET program can serve as an important source of enabling
    technology for the FutureGen plant. With regard to the FutureGen
    initiative, GE recommends that the early involvement and participation
    of the providers of technology as key stakeholders be encouraged and
    sought.

                          CLEAN COAL POWER INITIATIVE

        GE also supports sustained funding for the Clean Coal Power
    Initiative. This program should provide a vital opportunity for the
    demonstration of IGCC technologies that hold the key to the
    environmentally acceptable use of coal for future power generation. The
    CCPI offers a unique opportunity to demonstrate these technologies on a
    commercial scale--a step that is vital to ultimate commercial
    acceptance of this technology. DOE's budget submission calls for a
    ``more focused'' second round solicitation for the CCPI, and we urge
    that IGCC be a major part of the focus of the CCPI going forward.

                           CERAMIC MATRIX COMPOSITES

        Finally, GE recommends that funding be provided for Ceramic Matrix
    Composite (CMC) crosscutting technology material development. CMCs
    offer greater than 2000F capability when compared to current metal plus
    coating technology. This increased capability provides potential
    benefits in power output, efficiency, emissions and part life depending
    on how the material is designed and utilized in product applications.
    Potential opportunities include both power generation (gas turbines)
    and industrial process heating (radiant burner) markets. CMCs could
    thus provide an enabling technology for all of the programs discussed
    above, as well as the Distributed Energy Resource Program (Industrial
    Gas Turbines and Microturbines) and Industry Of The Future (IOF)
    initiatives within the Energy Conservation budget account.

                                     ______

                       Prepared Statement of IBACOS, Inc.

        IBACOS (Integrated Building And Construction Solutions) urges the
    Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies to provide $16 million
    for the Department of Energy (DOE) fiscal year 2004 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 and
    trade associations include: North American Insulation Manufacturers
    Association (NAIMA) of Washington, DC; 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 teams, such as IBACOS, have the ability to research
            and develop new technologies and processes, as well as
            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 finding
    innovative new ways to increase the energy efficiency of the nation's
    housing stock, and are encouraging the diffusion of information to
    hundreds of builders through participation in research partnerships,
    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
    Star( program.

    The DOE helps develop and 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 and pursuing 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 performance,
    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, technology and process 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 one 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 ten 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
    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, Summerset at Frick Park 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 seven 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.
        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 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.
        We look forward to continuing to work with the DOE to research and
    develop the technology and process necessary to deliver higher
    performance homes to the U.S. market, as well build markets for more
    efficient equipment and technologies.
        We at IBACOS urge you to provide $16 million for the DOE fiscal
    year 2004 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 the National Association for State Community
                               Services Programs

        As Executive Director of the National Association for State
    Community Services Programs (NASCSP), I am pleased to submit testimony
    in support of the President's 2004 Budget request of $288.2 million for
    the Department of Energy's (DOE) Weatherization Assistance Program
    (WAP) and in support of $74 million for the DOE State Energy Programs
    (SEP). NASCSP is the member organization representing the states on
    issues related to the WAP and the Community Services Block Grant. The
    state offices represented by our organization would like to thank this
    Committee for its continued support of the WAP and SEP through the
    years. The $225 million in WAP funds provided by the Committee in 2003
    is expected to result in:
      --An additional 93,750 homes occupied by low-income families will
            receive energy efficiency services, thereby reducing the energy
            use and associated energy bills; and
      --Greenhouse gases and environmental pollutants will be significantly
            reduced due to the decrease in energy use by these newly
            weatherized homes; and
      --Nearly 16,000 full time, highly skilled, jobs being supported
            within the service delivery network and in related
            manufacturing and supplier businesses;
        The WAP is the largest residential energy conservation program in
    the nation and serves a vital function in helping low-income families
    reduce their energy use. Developed as a pilot project in 1975, the WAP
    was institutionalized in 1979 within DOE and is operated in all 50
    states, the District of Columbia, and on several Native American
    reservations. The funds are used to improve the energy efficiency of
    low-income dwellings using the most advanced technologies and testing
    protocols available in the housing industry. The energy conservation
    resulting from the efforts helps our country reduce its dependency on
    foreign oil and decreases the cost of energy for families in need. With
    lower energy bills, these families can increase their usable income and
    buy other essentials like food, shelter, clothing, medicine, 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 the Energy Information Administration's
    long-term energy prices outlook. Since the program's inception, more
    than 5,000,000 homes have been weatherized using federal, state,
    utility and other monies.
        As we all know, these are troubling times facing our nation--war,
    budget deficits, homeland security needs, and a slowed economic
    recovery. These times create added financial burdens for all Americans,
    but especially for those who live at or below the poverty line. Low-
    income families have always spent a disproportionate share of their
    income for energy needs than their middle-income counterparts. For
    example, a typical middle class family pays about 3 to 7 percent of
    their annual income for energy costs (heat, lights, air conditioning,
    appliances and hot water). Low-income families pay nearly the same
    dollar amount each year for energy but this amount represents a
    significantly higher percentage of their total household income (14 to
    20 percent). 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.
        When energy costs rise, like they have during the 2002-03 heating
    season, even a nominal increase can have a dramatic negative impact on
    low-income families. The expected increase in this year's energy costs
    may amount to an additional $200 for most families. For middle-income
    families, this increase will amount to less than one quarter of one
    percent of the total household income. For many low-income families;
    however, a $200 increase will result in a 3 to 5 percent increase and
    will require families to go without other important essentials like
    food, medicine, or clothing to meet this higher financial demand.
        These families need long-term solutions to help them reduce their
    energy use both now and in the future--resulting in lower energy bills.
    That is the primary mission of the Weatherization Assistance Program--
    ``To reduce heating and cooling costs for low-income families,
    particularly for the elderly, people with disabilities, and children,
    by improving the energy efficiency of their homes while ensuring their
    health and safety.''
        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 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 helping families move closer to
    economic self-sufficiency.
        In addition to direct energy savings from the work performed in the
    Program, the WAP also returns non-energy benefits. In a recent report
    published by Oak Ridge National Laboratory entitled Non Energy Benefits
    from the Weatherization Assistance Program: A Summary of Findings from
    the Recent Literature, it was reported that the WAP creates
    quantifiable benefits in several categories including: increased
    property value, reduced incidence of fire, reduced arrearages, federal
    taxes generated from employment, income generated from indirect
    employment, avoided costs of unemployment benefits, environmental
    externalities. Taken together, for every $1 invested in the program,
    Weatherization returns $3.66 in energy and non-energy impacts.
        The WAP has always served as a testing ground and provides a
    fertile field for the deployment of research conducted by national
    laboratories. For example, 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 (water heater replacement, lighting, motor efficiency) 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.
        One of the major outcomes of WAP field deployment is that the
    private sector eventually adopts these technologies. This pattern has
    been established through several 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 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 $288.2 million requested in the President's
            budget, nearly 20,000 full-time, above minimum wage jobs are
            created and supported in local communities and in related
            service and material industries.
      --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 $288.2
            million in the WAP could yield nearly $1.2 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.
        In 2001, the Administration earmarked the WAP as a ``Presidential
    Priority'' in its National Energy Policy Plan. President Bush committed
    $1.4 billion to be added to WAP over a ten-year period to help
    thousands of low-income families meet their energy needs while reducing
    their energy burden. Each year since then, the Administration has asked
    for higher appropriations levels in their budgets submitted to
    Congress. In response to these higher budget requests, this Committee
    did vote to increase the WAP in 2002 to $230 million--$40 million less
    than the President's request but an increase over 2001 levels. In 2003,
    the President requested $277.1 million for this Program and your
    Committee passed a bill that funded the WAP at $240 million.
    Unfortunately, the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2003 ended with a cut
    of $5 million for the Program from the 2002 level of $230 million (far
    below the President's request). Again in 2004, the President, in
    keeping with his commitment to WAP as a ``priority'' within his energy
    strategy, has asked Congress to appropriate $288.2 million for the
    Program. Our organization strongly supports the President's request and
    would respectfully request this Committee to provide the funding at the
    budget request level of $288.2 million to meet the President's priority
    for WAP.
        NASCSP is also concerned about the low level of funding proposed
    for the State Energy Programs (SEP) in 2004. 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
    funding has fallen steadily from a recent high in 1995 of $53 million
    to its fiscal year 2003 level of $45 million. The President's fiscal
    year 2004 request is a further cut to $38 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 $74 million for fiscal year 2004. This level would restore the
    program's recent funding cuts, enhance their ability to address energy
    emergency preparedness, and allow for inflationary impacts since 1995.
        By the evidence provided herein, this Committee can be assured that
    the increase in WAP and SEP funding will provide essential services to
    thousands of low-income families, resulting in greater energy savings,
    more economic investments, increased leveraging of other funds, and
    less reliance on high-cost, foreign oil--outcomes that will benefit the
    nation. NASCSP looks forward to working with Committee members in the
    future as we attempt to create energy self-sufficiency for millions of
    American families through these invaluable national programs.

                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Energy
                                   Officials

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, NASEO submits this
    testimony in support of funding for a variety of U.S. Department of
    Energy programs. Specifically, we are testifying in support of no less
    than $362.2 million in funding for the State Grant programs, including,
    the State Energy Program (SEP) ($74 million) and the Weatherization
    Assistance Program (WAP) ($288.2 million). This figure moves in the
    direction of President Bush's promise included in his campaign issue
    paper to double the Weatherization Assistance Program and the State
    Energy Program. This campaign promise would provide $76 million for SEP
    and $306 million for WAP. We also support an important program which
    has been a dramatic success, the State Energy Programs Special Projects
    (SEP Special Projects) account, which should receive at least level
    funding of $19 million. SEP Special Projects has set a standard for
    state-federal cooperation and matching funds to achieve critical
    federal and state energy goals. These programs are successful and have
    a strong record of delivering savings to low-income Americans,
    homeowners, businesses, and industry. We also support an increase of
    $600,000 for the Energy Information Administration's State Heating Oil
    and Propane Program in order to cover the added costs of doubling the
    frequency of information collection (to weekly), the addition of
    natural gas, and increasing the number of state participants.
    Generally, EIA funding is a critical piece of energy emergency
    preparedness and response. NASEO continues to support at least level
    funding for a variety of critical deployment programs, including
    Rebuild America, Energy Star, NICE3 and Industries of the Future.
    Proposed cuts in these programs are counter-productive and are
    detrimental to a balanced national energy policy. The states also
    strongly support increased funding for the State Technology Advancement
    Collaborative (STAC). The fiscal year 2003 conference report allocated
    $3 million for State Cooperative R, D, D&D initiatives and $5 million
    from the science initiative for this effort. We are moving forward as
    quickly as possible to implement this directive of the Subcommittee. It
    is a new area of cooperation. Our hope is that it will speed
    procurement sand dramatically improve multi-state/federal cooperation
    and coordination.
        Over the last year, both oil and gas prices have been rising in
    response to international events as well as very low domestic
    inventories. Even in the absence of the international situation, the
    United States may very well find itself in the grips of an energy
    crisis as summer approaches. In addition, we now have quantifiable
    evidence of the success of the SEP program, which we did not have in
    years past, which demonstrates the unparalleled savings and return on
    investment to the federal taxpayer of SEP.
        In January 2003, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) completed a
    study and concluded: ``The impressive savings and emissions reductions
    numbers, ratios of savings to funding, and payback periods . . .
    indicate that the State Energy Program is operating effectively and is
    having a substantial positive impact on the nation's energy
    situation.''
        The ORNL study found that $1 in SEP funding yields:
      --$7.23 in annual energy cost savings
      --1.17 million source MMBTUs saved
      --$3.54 in leveraged funding from the states and private sector
      --Annual energy savings of 41,358,478 BTUs
      --Annual cost savings of $256,422,600
        The annual cost-effective emissions reductions associated with the
    energy savings are equally significant: (1) Carbon--719,251.8 metric
    tons; (2) VOCs--127.2 metric tons; (3) NOX--5,739 metric
    tons; (4) PM10--144.8 metric tons; (5) SO2--7,655.7 metric
    tons; and (6) CO--968.7 metric tons
        It is important to note that the actual program benefits are even
    greater since the ORNL study quantifies the benefits of only 14 SEP
    program areas, representing about 60 percent of SEP funding. This means
    that the savings above are calculated on 100 percent of SEP funding but
    include only 60 percent of the results. Results not quantified include
    clean energy production activities such as demonstration of alternative
    fuels, development of wind energy resources, and geothermal activities.
    In addition, essential energy emergency preparedness and response
    activities are not quantified by the ORNL study (since the study
    focused only on energy efficiency activities).

                    EXAMPLES OF RECENT SEP-FUNDED ACTIVITIES

    North Dakota
        The North Dakota Energy Office has been at the forefront of a
    sustained effort to explore the economic viability of wind energy and
    to promote its development. The office has utilized State Energy
    Program (``SEP'') funding and other funds to forge several partnerships
    that have resulted in a high level of wind energy activity in the
    state, as well as other important state-based clean energy activities.
        The North Dakota Energy Office initiated a comprehensive, utility-
    sponsored statewide resource assessment of wind involving all seven of
    North Dakota's generation and transmission utilities. The office worked
    with local development corporations, DOE's Wind Powering America
    program, the Energy and Environmental Research Center in Grand Forks,
    North Dakota, and several others to create one of the best ongoing wind
    resource assessment programs in the country. In addition, the office is
    active in statewide landowner meetings in partnership with the
    grassroots organization ND SEED (Sustainable Energy for Economic
    Development) and EAPC Engineers/Architects of Grand Forks, along with
    other information dissemination efforts. Wind energy integration
    studies are ongoing.
        Wind energy is an important new industry to North Dakota. The state
    has a turbine blade manufacturer in Grand Forks, ND, a tower
    manufacturer in West Fargo, ND, and related engineering, development,
    and construction businesses, employing hundreds of people. With recent
    installations and announcements by Minnkota Power Cooperative, Montana-
    Dakota Utilities, and Basin Electric Power Cooperative, North Dakota
    will move from an installed capacity of .35 MW of wind generation to
    over 65 MW by the end of 2004, with more on the horizon.

    New Mexico
        The New Mexico Energy Office Wind Energy Program is making great
    strides in preparing the way for large-scale wind development. The SEP-
    supported program has completed an essential wind resource assessment
    and monitoring effort, which will aid industry in determining the
    feasibility and best locations for wind development. To date, six sites
    have been selected for intense monitoring and all appear to have
    significant commercial potential. In addition, the energy office has
    conducted necessary economic impact studies and other research that
    lays the groundwork for the private sector to commit substantial
    capital and add fuel diversity to the state's 99 percent fossil-fired
    generation fleet. The total $400,000 in SEP funds will garner nearly
    $90 million in state incentives for wind projects, and the state
    reports that over 200 MW of wind capacity is scheduled to go line by
    end of 2003. In addition, the success and data collected to date have
    been essential in aiding state decision makers as they considered a
    renewable portfolio standard, which will be effective later in 2003,
    with a goal of 10 percent renewable generation by 2011.

    Montana
        The Montana Energy Office completed a demonstration of biodiesel
    fuel in Yellowstone National Park in December 2002. The project
    addresses the problem of air pollution caused by millions of tourists
    who visit the park every year. Biodiesel is produced in Montana from
    rapeseed oil (ethyl esters) or potato residues generated by the food
    processing industry. The project documents performance and emissions
    reductions using EPA protocols from operating a conventional diesel
    engine on 100 percent biodiesel. The truck operated normally for
    121,000 miles and started well in cold weather. In fact, the only time
    it failed to start during the experiment was when the temperature was
    -37 on a day when many other vehicles also failed to start. Among
    other findings, the sweet odor of the exhaust did not attract bears,
    which was a concern for park rangers at the beginning of the
    experiment.

    Washington
        The Washington Energy Office established a telework program with
    funding from SEP a number of years ago. The program has grown more
    successful each year, with increasing private-sector cost share and the
    expansion of the program to Oregon, Arizona, and Texas. The program
    reduces vehicle miles traveled, saves energy, improves air quality,
    reduces traffic congestion, and enhances job opportunities. Following
    the events of 9/11/01, the states were able to use telework as a
    foundation for emergency management plans. The SEP-supported telework
    program has leveraged more than $1 million in funds to create a
    comprehensive package of telework tools including guidebooks, training
    kits, on-line training, case studies, and web sites. The program has
    aided organizations in 46 states and 12 countries in establishing
    programs. And the U.S. Office of Personnel Management lists Telework
    Collaborative training materials on its telework web site as suggested
    resources for Federal agencies. The multi-state results are impressive:
    State agency teleworkers in OR, WA, AZ, and TX drive 8.5 million fewer
    miles, saving 283,000 gallons of gasoline. (Note that substantially
    more savings are achieved by the program's private sector
    participants.) State agency teleworkers in OR, WA, AZ, and TX reduce
    2,300 tons CO2 annually.

    Florida
        The Florida Energy Office's Sensible Sustainable Technology Program
    promotes the use of alternative fuels and renewable energy technologies
    and reduces fossil fuel environmental impacts. The program demonstrates
    sensible sustainable technologies at schools, government buildings and
    state recreation facilities. These technologies include, for example,
    daylighting, geothermal heat pumps, solar dehumidification and solar
    security and street lighting. The results to date include energy
    savings of: (1) Daytime lighting loads--640,360 BTUs per lumen; (2)
    Dehumidification loads--642,940 BTUs per operating hour; (3) Combined
    savings from all projects reduced average Energy Users Index 31,977
    BTUs per square foot per year--$739,681; and (4) Fossil fuel savings--
    5,424 barrels of oil or 1,379 tons of coal. Emissions reductions have
    been 9,250,949 pounds of power plant emissions. The projects have also
    saved 6,405,386 gallons of water.

    Tennessee
        The Tennessee Energy Office's SEP--Energy Smart Schools activity
    reduces the energy dollars spent by schools and showcases the economic
    benefits of energy efficiency to school systems throughout Tennessee.
    The energy office assists schools with energy efficiency lighting
    retrofits, and aided in the delivery of $500,000 worth of lighting
    improvements in 12 schools in Fayette County. Energy savings have been
    1,687,930 kWh annually with annual cost savings of $108,000. The
    Project's lifetime economic benefit is $3,766,761--or $7.53 for each
    $1.00 expended under the project.

    Pennsylvania
        The Pennsylvania Energy Office used SEP to aid in implementing the
    Philadelphia Livable Neighborhood Project. The project empowers
    individuals to save energy by adopting environmentally sustainable
    practices, and worked with 50 EcoTeams (250 households) in low income,
    urban neighborhoods to achieve energy reductions through energy
    efficiency and conservation. The project resulted in the following
    energy savings: (1) Energy use reduced by 9 percent; (2) transportation
    fuel use reduced by 13 percent; (3) Per household--14,611,472 fewer
    BTUs used for transportation; (4) 117 gallons less transportation fuel
    used per household--equivalent to 105.2 gallons distillate #2 fuel oil;
    and (5) each of 91 households saved $195--Combined $17,745. Emissions
    reductions of CO2 has been 3,711 pounds. Funds leveraged
    include: (1) $30K SEP funds; (2) $100K City of Philadelphia; and (3)
    $63K PA Department of Environmental Protection, Growing Greener. Other
    savings included garbage reduced by 34 percent and water use reduced by
    27 percent and neighborhood revitalization should lead to business
    development.

    Ohio
        The Ohio Energy Office's Residential Batch Test Protocol program
    evaluates the energy efficiency of homes built to the ENERGYSTAR
    standard--key to ensuring the actual delivery of savings to homeowners.
    The testing supported by the program examined the feasibility of a
    sampling approach verifying that homes meet the ENERGYSTAR standard
    rather than more costly mass inspections. This important pilot
    addresses the need for large production builders to find a cost-
    effective means of assessing the efficiency performance of the ENERGY
    STAR homes they construct. The resulting homes, built to standard and
    affirmed by the batch test method, will deliver Ohioans an estimated
    total annual savings of over 3,670 million BTUs and savings to the
    homeowners that will exceed $7.5 million.

    Texas
        The Texas Energy Office's Loan Star program has long produced great
    success by reducing building energy consumption and taxpayers' energy
    costs through efficient operation of public buildings. For example, a
    recently announced energy efficiency loan to the El Paso Independent
    School District will save more than $60,000 per year in energy costs.
    The loan is in the amount of $444,075 and will be used to install high-
    efficiency lighting in schools throughout the district. The loan will
    pay for itself in about seven years, and El Paso will reap the savings
    from the lighting for many years thereafter.
        Since its inception in 1989, the Texas' program has distributed
    more than $163 million in loans to 142 public institutions. So far, the
    Texas Energy Office estimates that the program has saved Texas more
    than $123 million in energy costs, and savings grow every year. Over
    the next 20 years, Texas estimates that the program will save taxpayers
    $500 million. The Texas Comptroller said of the program, ``Energy
    conservation programs like LoanSTAR are important economic tools for
    Texans. When we encourage the efficient use of energy, we save tax
    dollars and help preserve our natural resources.''

    New York
        The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority's
    (NYSERDA) Flex Tech program continues to succeed by encouraging energy
    efficiency in commercial and industrial sectors, by providing cost-
    shared and objective engineering assistance to increase energy
    efficiency and productivity. With $750,000 per year of SEP funds the
    program provides technical information on energy improvements and
    implementation of energy efficiency. The SEP-funded portion saves
    70,000 barrels of oil equivalent per year, and the entire program saves
    the following: (1) 20,000 mWh of electricity per year = electricity use
    of more than 3,300 households; (2) 5,000 kW peak load reduction per
    year = one-third cost of NGCC plant; (3) 200,000 MMBtu of natural gas
    per year = 195 million cubic feet; and (4) 200,000 MMBtu of oil per
    year = 34,500 barrels of crude oil. Emissions reductions include: (1)
    CO2 30,000 tons per year; (2) NOX 40 tons per
    year; and (3) SO2 80 tons per year. SEP funds leverage $14
    million in capital improvements, $4 million per year of energy and
    operational savings and creates 130 jobs.

                                   CALIFORNIA

        The California Energy Commission, Building Energy Code Training
    initiative uses SEP and other funds to save energy through energy code
    training for large production builders, and improves compliance with
    California's Residential Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title
    24)--with the cooperation and support of California's homebuilders. The
    public-private partnership program provides training in quality energy-
    related construction practices (insulation, space conditioning,
    plumbing, etc.) To date, more than 400 builder companies and 3,000
    builder and local building department staff have participated. Before
    the program was implemented, new homes complied with the standards only
    15 percent of the time. Following training, participating builders were
    in compliance 77 percent of the time. The result is 125,000 new
    homeowners have directly benefited in the builder-supported program.
    Results include energy savings of: (1) more than 69 trillion Btus
    annually in energy efficiency or $600,000,000 in reduced electricity
    use, equivalent to nearly 1.7 million households; (2) over 6 years: 388
    trillion Btus or $3.3 billion annually for life of homes = electricity
    use of nearly 9.5 million households; (3) annual consumer savings over
    150 percent of one-time training costs; and (4) total savings =
    production of 2 ``peaker'' power plants. Emissions reductions include:
    (1) CO2--101,196 pounds; (2) -SO2--7,197 pounds;
    and (3) NOX--7,833 pounds.

                                   CONCLUSION

        In conclusion we would like to remind the Subcommittee of the
    successes that State Energy Offices deliver to the taxpayer in spite of
    the relatively small federal investment in the program. This modest
    federal investment, through the State Energy Program, is the type of
    success that state-federal energy partnerships can deliver. The states'
    success is based upon our ability to directly meet the needs of
    taxpayers, small business people, farmers, and industry. We are asking
    for $74 million in funding for SEP for fiscal year 2004; a small price
    to pay for success. As Congress and the Administration consider the
    development of a new energy policy, we understand the need to
    prioritize funding. We need to achieve a balance between demand side
    and supply side resources. The programs we discuss today can help us
    address our energy problems, both in the near-term and the long-term.

                                     ______

             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 one billion tons annually, and the vast majority of mined
    minerals including iron ore, copper, gold, silver, uranium lead, zinc,
    and phosphate. The purpose of this statement is to present the mining
    industry's views on fiscal year 2004 programs for the following
    agencies: Office of Fossil Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
    Renewable Energy, Energy Information Administration, and the U.S.
    Geological Survey.

                            OFFICE OF FOSSIL ENERGY

        National Mining Association strongly supports the Future Gen
    project recently announced by Secretary of Energy Abraham. The
    integration of coal gasification technology, combined cycle electricity
    generation, hydrogen production and carbon sequestration is an
    important step for our nation's energy future. Over the long term,
    domestic coal can continue to provide the basis for affordable
    electricity and become the basis for affordable hydrogen to use in
    transportation and other uses. When coupled with carbon sequestration,
    America can move rapidly toward energy independence with near zero to
    zero emissions. Although the Department of Energy's (DOE) fiscal year
    2004 budget does not specifically incorporate this project we
    understand that DOE will use unspent dollars from the Clean Coal
    program to help with start up costs. NMA supports reprogramming these
    unspent dollars in this way, but oppose taking dollars that are already
    budgeted for important ongoing research for this program. The results
    of much of the ongoing research in all the coal programs will
    ultimately be used as part of the Future Gen project and should not be
    shortchanged now. As announced, Future Gen will require funding
    participation from the public and private sector. NMA members are
    currently evaluating opportunities to participate in a core group of
    industrial interests that will help fund the private-sector share of
    the project.
        NMA supports the DOE Clean Coal Power Initiative's (CCPI) requested
    level funding of $130 million to continue with the government-industry
    partnerships that demonstrate innovations to allow coal-fueled power
    plants to operate more efficiently and with improved environmental
    performance. We understand that this will be combined with funding from
    the fiscal year 2005 budget into a solicitation so that larger projects
    can be undertaken.
        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. If funding for central system research and for
    the fuels program is reduced, as proposed by the DOE budget, it will be
    more difficult for these technologies to be developed in the time frame
    required. Many of these programs will be used to support Future Gen. We
    support the overall increase in funds for the total coal program (an
    increase over fiscal year 2003 levels) but note that the request is
    still below fiscal year 2002 spending levels. We urge the Congress to
    increase the budget to fiscal year 2002 levels with the increase
    designated for the central systems and fuels programs.
        In particular, NMA supports the increase in research funds
    allocated to the Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle program. We
    understand that much of this increase is due to the fact that the
    dollars previously dedicated to research on Pressurized Fluidized Bed
    Combustion have been transferred to this account. We would support an
    additional increase to this account so that there are sufficient funds
    to cover technology development in both areas. NMA recommends that the
    funding for turbine research be increased from the proposed $13 million
    to at least $20 million. The current budget request is enough to
    maintain existing research, but is insufficient to begin new research
    in this area that is important to coal and 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. This program is important
    to support the President's long term hydrogen initiative. 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 2004 is
    critical if Vision 21 technologies are to be demonstrated by 2015. NMA
    supports funding at, or above, the requests for Vision 21.
        Carbon Capture and Sequestration technologies promise to offer an
    alternative to emitting carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. They are also
    an important part of the President's Future Gen initiative. 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 $62 million as a vital part of any climate
    change initiative.
        Coal Research and Development, Fuels Research.--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. The funding for the entire
    solid fuels program has been reduced to $5 million with support for
    solid-liquid separations eliminated entirely. NMA supports restoring
    $4.0 million for advanced separation research and increasing the entire
    solid fuels budget to $15 million.
        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 continue to provide strong
    support for research on mining at the academic institutions. We are
    very pleased to see an increase in direct funding for University coal
    research that will nearly double the fiscal year 2002 spending levels.
    Mining engineering departments continue to consolidate and some are
    closing, due to lack of funding. Thus, diminishing the national
    capability to develop fundamental sciences to improve mining practices,
    and impairing the ability of the universities to train future
    generations of mining engineers. The $5 million requested for
    University research, with the increase dedicated to projects that focus
    on mercury control technologies, is important to support our
    educational system.

                OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

        The Mining Industry of the Future Program.--The 58 percent funding
    reduction proposed by the Administration's budget must be rejected and
    funding levels restored to at least the $5.6 million dollar level
    appropriated for fiscal year 2003. The proposed cut to $2.35 million
    would mean that several of the projects already underway would have to
    be halted in mid-stream. No new research projects starts would be
    possible. 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 the
    program was begun in 1999, 132 proposals totaling nearly $150 million
    have been received--at 50 percent, DOE's cost share would be nearly $75
    million. Clearly there is a need for mining research that is not being
    satisfied as only a portion of these projects could be funded. Of the
    total projects started to date, industry's cost share is just over 55
    percent, or about $36 million.
        In early 2003 five new processing projects led by universities and
    industry were selected from 21 new proposals, bringing the total active
    projects funded to date to 33. Of these, 10 have been concluded or will
    be completed this summer. As these projects wrap-up, the program had
    hoped to get several other R&D-related activities underway. A mining
    and exploration solicitation was issued early in 2003, with the goal of
    selecting new projects by the end of the year. We expect that many of
    the proposals will be in the area of mine safety. If the proposed cuts
    stand, this solicitation can not go forward.
        NMA has incorporated the Mining Industry of the Future program into
    its Mining Climate Action Plan (MICAP) developed in response to the
    Administration's request to industry to voluntarily reduce greenhouse
    gas emissions. The proposed cuts would jeopardize the NMA's efforts in
    this climate plan.

                    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. 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--was bad last year and continues to deteriorate in terms of
    quality, completeness and accuracy. Although the EIA has made
    significant strides in improving their data on coal production, the
    data on the vital electric utility sector continues to be late,
    incomplete and nearly unusable. Consistency in data collection--even on
    a month-to-month basis--is nonexistent. There is no consistency in
    reporting data. For example, the Monthly Energy Review has two
    completely different and seemingly unrelated sets of numbers for coal
    consumption and stocks at utilities. EIA should put the matter of the
    electric utility data base at the top of its priority list.
    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 again
    include directions to the EIA to take immediate 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 information 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
    industry, academia and nongovernmental organizations. NMA opposes the
    proposed $8.1 million reduction of funding for the Mineral Resource
    Program in the fiscal year 2004 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 purpose--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.

                                     ______

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

        Chairman Burns, Ranking Member Dorgan, and Members of the
    Subcommittee: We appreciate the opportunity to offer testimony
    regarding the programs of the Office of Fossil Energy and the Office of
    Energy Efficiency in the Department of Energy. We recommend continued
    strong support for coal programs and restored funding for critical
    elements of the Fossil Energy and Energy Efficiency programs which were
    reduced in the budget proposal advanced by the Administration. Comments
    on specific programs are offered below.

                             FOSSIL ENERGY PROGRAMS

        From an overall perspective, we believe that funding recommended
    for fossil energy research and development is far below the amount
    needed to implement technologies which meet our energy needs, are
    environmentally friendly, and promote our energy security. We urge the
    Subcommittee to find additional funds to support the overall program at
    levels at least as high as the Subcommittee approved for fiscal year
    2002.
        Clean Coal Power Initiative.--Funding for the Clean Coal Power
    Initiative needs to be in excess of $150 million if we are to achieve
    the Administration's ten year goal of providing $2 billion in support
    of demonstrating clean coal technologies. Reducing the fiscal year 2004
    appropriation by $20 million compared to fiscal year 2003 because of
    unspent funds remaining from previous years is detrimental to the
    objectives of this program. Significant investments are made by power
    companies to propose projects which place them at high risk should out-
    year funds not be available. We need to know that continued funding
    would be assured and that funds are available in each competition to
    accommodate the large-scale projects necessary to prove new clean coal
    technology at commercial scales.
        Fuels Program.--Funding for the fuels research program in fiscal
    year 2004 has been allocated exclusively to initiate programs for
    hydrogen production from coal. While we applaud the initiation of the
    hydrogen program, we are deeply concerned regarding the proposed cuts
    for research directed toward liquid transportation fuels from coal.
    With automobiles numbering in excess of 200 million and large fleets of
    trucks, aircraft, and marine vessels, we continue to need advanced
    research to develop clean burning fuels for the private, commercial,
    and military transportation sectors. In addition to environmentally
    friendly fuels, we also must increase our energy security and decrease
    our dependence on imported petroleum products. Continued funding is
    also recommended for solid fuels and feedstocks research to improve the
    quality of coal products while reducing the environmental impacts of
    their extraction and use.
        We make the following requests regarding programs in transportation
    fuels and chemicals currently being supported by the Subcommittee:
      --Early Entrance Co-Production Program: Funding for the EECP program
            should be continued at a level of $3 million in fiscal year
            2004 to complete research initiated on the WMPI and Texaco
            projects.
      --Work in Ultra Clean fuels should be continued to complete projects
            such as the ICRC/Syntroleum program. This program involves
            developing a small-footprint gas-to-liquids plant with
            demonstrations in Alaska and Washington, D.C. An additional
            investment of $4 million is requested to complete this project
            and harvest the benefits from the $19 million in federal funds
            invested thus far and which were also matched by a similar
            investment from the private sector.
      --Funding should be restored to continue the C-1Chemistry program in
            fiscal year 2004 at the current level of $2 million. Additional
            funding of $2 million is recommended to initiate advanced
            research into liquid fuels for military applications.
      --Under the China-United States Bilateral Agreement, we have an
            opportunity to study the design, construction, operation, and
            environmental and economic impacts of a large coal-based liquid
            fuels production facility. We recommend the addition of $0.5
            million to the international component of the Fossil Energy
            program to conduct this study. The plant operators in China
            will provide significant cost sharing with additional cost
            sharing from the United States side.
        We note that the FutureGen project proposed by the Administration
    has the essential elements to produce liquid fuels, not just hydrogen,
    and urge the Subcommittee to recommend that DOE focus on liquid fuels
    production along with demonstrating advanced coal gasification,
    hydrogen production and carbon sequestration technologies under this
    initiative. We further recommend that Fossil Energy be encouraged to
    develop coal-based programs funded under the Department of Defense to
    address the needs of the military for advanced fuels which meet
    logistical requirements.
        We make the following requests regarding programs in solid fuels
    and feedstocks currently being supported by the Subcommittee:
      --Funding for the Center for Advanced Separations Technology [CAST]
            should be increased to $4 million to meet mortgages for the
            current program of research supported by the National Energy
            Technology Laboratory. According to the 2002 Mineral Commodity
            Summary, the mining industry contributes 5.6 percent of the
            Gross Domestic Product of the United States and the major
            industries further increase the value of these minerals to a
            total of 17 percent of the GDP.
      --We recommend that funds also be found to initiate programs targeted
            toward developing advanced mining technologies and training
            future miners in view of the importance of this activity to our
            economic development.
      --Funding for the coal extraction program should be continued at a
            level of $1.5 million in fiscal year 2004. In addition, funding
            for the Consortium for Premium Carbon Products from Coal should
            be continued at a level of $1 million. Both of these programs
            focus on producing useful carbon products from coal, a need
            which is more critical since many of the traditional sources of
            carbon feedstocks are unavailable due to the loss of coking
            ovens associated with steel manufacturing and the need to find
            alternative carbon sources other than imported petroleum.
        Focus Area for Computational Energy Science.--This program develops
    models and dynamic simulations of advanced energy plants to improve the
    speed and reduce the costs of developing advanced systems. The modeling
    results are applicable to a wide variety of fossil energy technologies
    such as fuel cells, advanced turbines, combustion systems, FutureGen,
    and chemical reactors. We request that the funding for this program be
    restored to the level of $5 million which the Subcommittee supported in
    fiscal year 2002.
        High Temperature Electrochemistry Center.--The High Temperature
    Electrochemistry Center [HiTEC] serves as a primary technology
    underpinning for Fossil Energy's Advanced Energy Conversion Concepts,
    such as FutureGen. HiTEC develops technologies which can resolve
    technology barriers standing in the way of developing the power
    generation systems of the future. This center is supported in the Other
    Power Systems/Distributed Generation Systems element of the Fossil
    Energy program and has been recommended for funding at $10 million by
    the Administration for fiscal year 2004. We request that an additional
    $2 million be added for a total of $12 million to expand the scope of
    this program to include other university participants.
        Innovations for Existing Plants.--Waste management issues
    associated with coal combustion and gasification byproducts require
    continued research to maximize recycle use of coal utilization
    byproducts for various market applications and to facilitate technology
    transfer. We recommend that funding for this line item be increased to
    $3 million [vs. $2,475 Administration request] to provide at least $1
    million for research on the utilization of combustion byproducts.
        Oil and Gas Programs.--The regional Resource Centers funded under
    the Petroleum Technology Transfer Council [PTTC] program provide
    technology and training to many small oil and gas companies throughout
    the nation. The expertise in these centers contributes to important
    programs such as regional carbon sequestration. We recommend that the
    PTTC program be continued in fiscal year 2004 at a level of $3 million.
    We also recommend continuation of the PUMP program.

                           ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS

        Industries of the Future.--We are concerned that the fiscal year
    2004 Administration budget request has significantly reduced funding
    for the Industries of the Future program by about 30 percent compared
    to fiscal year 2003. Of particular concern is the drastic reduction in
    funding for the Industries of the Future (Specific) Program. We have
    found that the IOF (Specific) programs enable the energy intensive
    industries to rally together in focal programs which build strong
    partnerships. The proposed cut will severely curtail the Mining IOF
    program. We request that the Industry of the Future (Specific) program
    be restored to the fiscal year 2003 level of $52.3 million.
        FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies Program.--As with the Fossil
    Energy programs, we are concerned about the focused investment in
    hydrogen research for fiscal year 2004 at the expense of research in
    traditional liquid fuels. Our nation will use liquid fuels into the
    foreseeable future as we develop hydrogen technologies. It is important
    that we continue investments in liquid fuels. The present budget
    request from the Administration has essentially deleted funding for
    these areas. We should continue work toward developing non-petroleum
    based fuels using feedstocks such as coal. We request that the
    Subcommittee restore funding for Fuels Technology programs to the
    fiscal year 2002 level of $24.65 million. We have a particular interest
    in the following:
      --Non-Petroleum Based Fuels and Lubricants: We request funding for
            continuing the programs of the National Research Center for
            Alternative Fuels, Engines and Emissions at a level of $2
            million in fiscal year 2004.
      --Automotive Lightweight Materials: We request funding for continuing
            the Metal Matrix Composites program at a level of $1 million in
            fiscal year 2004.
      --Fueling Infrastructure: There are over 130,000 natural gas vehicles
            and over 300,000 compressed natural gas cylinders in use.
            Detailed visual inspection must be performed every three years
            or 36,000 miles. There are few certified inspectors, and no
            widely available program to train such individuals. We request
            funding of $1 million to continue an initiative begun in fiscal
            year 2003 to develop a Natural Gas Vehicle Compressed Natural
            Gas Cylinder Safety Inspection and Certification Training
            program under the leadership of the National Alternative Fuels
            Training Consortium [NAFTC]. The NAFTC is an organization of 22
            institutions which provide training in alternative fuel vehicle
            safety and maintenance. These programs will also be applicable
            to storing hydrogen fuels.
                                closing comments
        Thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony on these important
    programs. We appreciate the support of the Subcommittee.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Petroleum Technology Transfer Council

     PROGRAM SUPPORT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, OFFICE OF FOSSIL ENERGY
                        OIL AND NATURAL GAS R&D PROGRAM

        In support of the Department of Energy (DOE) R&D program, this
    letter is to provide background on the Petroleum Technology Transfer
    Council (PTTC) and focus on the need for the continued research
    required in the United States today. Independents continue to drill 85
    percent of the wells in the United States. The 7,000 Independents with
    an average of 12 employees lack the resources, time and money to pursue
    research or spend valuable resources looking for technology related
    information. As with the Agriculture Extension Program, PTTC focuses on
    bringing practical information to producers in a form they can readily
    apply. This provides critical adult education to those out there in the
    field developing new oil and gas reserves. Both programs seek to make
    America stronger through the education of available technology.
        PTTC is a national not-for-profit organization directed by industry
    representatives, primarily independent producers. PTTC was established
    in 1994 to disseminate technology ideas that were proven yet not widely
    accepted across the country to enhance domestic production of oil and
    natural gas. The PTTC program is a cost sharing arrangement with
    Federal funding by DOE, Office of Fossil Energy, through a grant from
    the National Petroleum Technology Office (NPTO) and Strategic Center
    for Natural Gas (SCNG) within the National Energy Technology Lab
    (NETL). Several state governments, universities, state geological
    surveys, and industry provide matching 50:50 cost-share and fully
    participate in the program.
        For U.S. independent oil and natural gas producers, obtaining
    access to cost-effective exploration and production (E&P) technologies
    is an act of survival. With limited technical staffs, independents need
    field-tested and proven, cost-effective solutions to their E&P
    problems. The Petroleum Technology Transfer Council (PTTC) enables
    independents to make timely, informed technology decisions--through
    targeted connections to potential solutions--in its five program lines:
      --Exploration
      --Drilling and Completion
      --Operations and Production
      --Reservoir Management
      --Environmental Concerns
        PTTC functions as the ``Bridge to Solutions'' for independents by
    helping them identify and clarify problems, by educating them about
    options for solutions and opportunities, and by connecting them with
    technology providers. In each of these areas, PTTC disseminates
    information and makes connections via a network of regional resource
    centers at universities and state geological surveys with strong oil
    and gas expertise. The PTTC organization has 13 regional and satellite
    offices in addition to a national office to implement the transfer of
    information.
        Smaller companies and independents play an expanding role as
    primary operators in domestic production of oil and gas due to major
    producers withdrawing from onshore activity. To address the shifting
    production environment, PTTC's most important products and services
    include:
      --Low-cost regional workshops that provide real-world solutions
            targeted to specific constraints
      --Regional resource centers with technical referral assistance to
            service companies/consultants and demonstrations of exploration
            and production software
      --An award-winning national website linked to PTTC's 13 regional and
            satellite websites and other technical resources
      --Publications and information products including newsletters,
            technical reports, databases, and case studies
        --National Quarterly Newsletter distributed electronically and
                hard-copy form
        --Petroleum Technology Digest ``Case Studies'' published in World
                Oil
        --Tech Connections published in American Oil and Gas Reporter

    Technology Transfer Programs Showing Results
        In nearly 10 years of transferring results to thousands of industry
    people, PTTC has achieved its original goals--and gained the widespread
    credibility within the upstream petroleum industry that is vital to
    success. PTTC programs disseminate cost-effective technological
    solutions addressing a wide range of problems--exploration, drilling
    and completion, operations and production, reservoir and development,
    as well as environmental compliance.
        Following are the most important accomplishments in expanding
    industry awareness and technology usage at the national and regional
    level:
      --Technology workshops.--PTTC held approximately 150 workshops last
            year and plans to hold just as many this year. Cumulatively,
            more than 37,000 individuals, the vast majority from industry,
            have attended PTTC workshops since inception. To leverage
            limited resources, most PTTC events are held with other
            organizations such as professional societies and state/regional
            producers associations.
      --Workshops with DOE.--PTTC has sponsored many workshops to transfer
            the results of DOE programs to independents, including the
            Technologies for Independents Program. In upcoming events, PTTC
            actively looks for opportunities to highlight DOE-funded
            project results in its regional workshop programs.
      --Regional resource centers.--Independents contact their local PTTC
            resource center for a variety of services: (1) access to
            information/data resources, (2) expert response to inquiries,
            (3) demonstration and training for E&P software, (4)
            information products, (5) help with understanding technological
            problems and opportunities, (6) access to special purpose
            databases, and (7) other outreach efforts.
      --E&P Software Training.--PTTC is well respected in producing quality
            training on software packages that reduce risk and keep
            marginal well producing for longer periods, thereby gaining
            more of recoverable hydrocarbons. The courses offered are
            filled to capacity on a regular basis, which indicates the need
            is there and relevance is confirmed.
      --Internet websites.--With a national website plus 13 regional and
            satellite sites, PTTC's electronic network is a key delivery
            system for oil and gas information, data, case studies,
            calendars of events, and technical summaries. Industry usage is
            increasing as the on-line technical content and search
            capabilities grow.
      --Newsletters.--The 16-page, quarterly national newsletter, PTTC
            Network News, reaches over 16,000 readers (approximately 65
            percent are independent E&P companies). Regional newsletters
            also inform thousands of local producers about technology
            transfer activities and the results of DOE technical programs.
      --Case Studies/Reports.--PTTC has developed many producer-vendor case
            studies and are releasing new Petroleum Technology Digest case
            studies in the World Oil publication on a monthly basis that
            reaches over 38,000 readers. These success stories from
            companies that have successfully applied a technology are
            popular at showing other producers what is working, thereby
            reducing risk of application for others and increasing
            widespread usage of solid ideas.
      --Region-Specific Products.--Several regions have developed products
            specific to local needs, such as the Louisiana Desktop Well
            Reference on CD-ROM, which provides lease and production data.
            The West Coast Region is developing templates to assist
            operators reduce produced water production with the
            participation of the state of California. This has broad appeal
            for the entire country. There are many similar examples in
            other regions.
        Many DOE programs are designed to encourage environmentally
    responsible domestic production from marginal fields operated primarily
    by independent producers. Participation in the form of cost share from
    industry, state budgets and academia provides substantial leverage for
    these programs. But the reality is that federal budgets are under
    strain and even programs with attractive benefits are under great
    scrutiny.
        R&D programs by major producing companies have been significantly
    downsized. The service sector is shouldering more of the R&D
    responsibility but stock market investors force companies to focus on
    short-term results. Investment in the domestic energy sector is
    severely challenged. All factors combine to create an environment where
    technologies appropriate for mature U.S. reservoirs receive inadequate
    resources for development or adaptation. In this environment, there is
    a role for federal funding.
        The federal government balances short-term and long-term objectives
    in providing reliable and affordable energy to consumers across the
    country. In the short term, DOE-supported R&D is making an impact in
    reducing risks for smaller independent operators and many would like
    that work to continue. These projects would not be possible today
    without participation from DOE.
        The role for government in long-term, high-risk R&D investments is
    to ensure new technologies directed at more unconventional resources
    continue to enter the pipeline to commercialization so they are
    available in the future. These projects have significant potential for
    leveraging developing technologies in other industries for application
    in the energy industry. Leveraging extends scarce resources and speeds
    commercialization. Adequate funding is essential to stimulate the
    continued flow of technology into the industry.
        The Petroleum Technology Transfer Council (PTTC) appreciates this
    opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of the fiscal year 2004
    appropriations for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). PTTC strongly
    supports Congressional funding for DOE Fossil Energy's Oil and Natural
    Gas Program at a level consistent with the importance of oil and
    natural gas production to the domestic economy. This level, which
    should be equal or higher than fiscal year 2002-fiscal year 2003
    funding levels, is far above the level requested in the
    Administration's budget. Continued strong funding is needed for DOE to
    fulfill its role in securing domestic oil and natural gas production.

                                     ______

                     Prepared Statement of Plug Power Inc.

        Plug Power urges the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies
    to, at the least, support the President's request of $77.5 million for
    the PEM fuel cell program in the Department of Energy's Energy
    Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office.
        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. As President Bush emphasized during his
    State of the Union Address, 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 2002. 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 component 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. We are pleased that the
    Department of Energy recognizes these synergies and has reorganized
    into a more comprehensive program.
        Where the fuel cell stack is concerned, this means critical
    research on both stack and fuel processor involve 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 5000
    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

        Plug Power is enthusiastic about the President's commitment to
    hydrogen and fuel cell technology made evident by his State of the
    Union Address and budget increase. 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 President's
    request for an additional $20 Million for the PEM fuel cell program in
    the Department of Energy's Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
    Office.

                                     ______

                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 budget level of $7,000,000 for the
    Window's Technologies Program at DOE including $2.5 million for
    electrochromics R&D, engineering and systems integration in fiscal year
    2004 Interior Appropriations.
                      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.

     THE 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.
        In summary, SAGE Electrochromics, Inc. urges the Subcommittee to
    include $7,000,000 for the Window's Technologies Program at DOE
    including $2.5 million for electrochromics R&D, engineering and systems
    integration in fiscal year 2004 Interior Appropriations. 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 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
    2004 DOE Fossil Energy R&D budget for Interior Appropriations:
        High Efficiency Engines and Turbines (HEET).--$24 million: to
    increase university-led research, strengthen advanced materials and
    advanced combustion research.
        Vision 21 Hybrids--Distributed Generation.--$16.5 million: to
    accelerate commercial applications by completing on-going fuel cell and
    hybrid system technology development.
        Innovative Systems Concepts--Distributed Generation.--$43 million
    to fully-fund on-going research for next generation, high power density
    stationary power fuel cell systems (SECA).
        Sequestration R&D.--$62 million: supporting the Administration's
    request.
      --The United States has placed a high priority on developing cleaner
            more efficient electric power generation technologies;
      --The Administration's 2004 budget proposal correctly recognizes the
            need for continued investments in fossil fuel 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 but today's technologies are
            unlikely to meet these standards without additional R&D
            investments;
      --The Administration is addressing the need for advanced energy
            technologies through initiatives like the Clean Coal Power
            Initiative and FutureGen, as well as the Freedom Car and
            Freedom Fuels proposals. Implicit in all of these initiatives
            is the need to employ our extensive technology capabilities to
            utilize coal, our most abundant, dependable and least expensive
            energy source. As we move to develop emerging coal technologies
            like integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) and other
            stationary fuel cell hybrid turbine applications, advanced gas
            turbines and stationary fuel cells are certain to play key
            roles in the U.S. generation supply mix;
      --The National Research Council's recent report on DOE's Vision 21
            program recommended that ``additional commitments should be
            made to develop, design and test large scale turbine and fuel
            cell power systems that can function successfully on both
            synthesis gas (syngas) and hydrogen: ``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 stationary fuel cell
            technologies'';
      --The Administration has correctly recognized the need for continued
            R&D funding support for the cost shared, industry--DOE gas
            turbine program. This program has been refocused and renamed
            the High Efficiency Engines and Turbines (HEET) program but
            funding has remained essentially flat for several years while
            the need and program goals have increased;
      --The Administration also continued its R&D investment in stationary
            fuel cell applications but with the focus now on fuel cell
            transportation applications, the stationary fuel cell program
            funding needs have suffered. The proposed 2004 funding level
            for stationary applications for example is $16 million less
            than fiscal year 2003. This is despite the widespread
            recognition that the development of stationary fuel cell
            applications is necessary before their success in the
            transportation sector is possible. Successful commercialization
            of stationary fuel cells should provide key technology building
            blocks that will be required for the transportation programs to
            reach the aggressive goals which have been established;
      --As a result, the Administration's stationary fuel cell and turbine
            program funding commitments fall significantly short of the
            funding needed for these two key technologies if the United
            States is to achieve the Administration's laudable
            commercialization objectives.
        Under the Fuel and Power Systems/Turbines budget line, Siemens
    Westinghouse Power Corp. recommends a 2004 funding level for DOE's
    refocused HEET program of $24 million. While this level is well above
    the Administration's recommendation of $13 million, it is conservative
    when compared to DOE--Stakeholder estimates that the program should be
    funded at the $240 million (i.e. $40 million a year) level over six
    years if we are to achieve the cost reductions necessary for widespread
    market penetration of high-efficiency coal plants.
        Under Distributed Generation/Vision 21 Hybrids we recommend a
    funding level of $16.5 million (of which $11.5 million is for continued
    development of the existing tubular SOFC program). This recommended
    increase is up significantly from the Administration's request of $5.0
    million in order to continue to achieve cost reduction goals necessary
    for commercial market penetration. Past funding shortfalls have
    resulted in the stationary fuel cell R&D program failing behind in its
    commitments and the $16.5 million funding level should enable DOE to
    continue progress toward the aggressive cost reduction targets mandated
    under the Vision 21 program.
        Under the Distributed Generation--Innovative Systems Concepts
    budget line, we also recommend that funding be increased to $43 million
    for fiscal year 2004. This increase is necessary just to maintain DOE's
    previous program contract commitments. 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

        The Department of Energy, in cooperation with industry, 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 with significantly lower emissions. At the same time,
    natural gas turbine based generation technology can also be deployed
    with investment costs that are also among the lowest now available in
    the marketplace.
        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. It has also committed itself to development of the hydrogen
    economy through the FutureGen, FreedomCar and FreedomFuel programs. We
    can also expect that the FutureGen initiative 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
    Cycle (IGCC). IGCC holds the potential of using the United States' vast
    reserves of cheap and abundant coal in ways that are substantially
    cleaner, more efficient and which will be able to sequester
    CO2.
        While the Administration has recognized the important role of the
    gas turbine in preserving future U.S. coal markets by including funding
    for the HEET program in its 2004 DOE R&D budget proposal, the level is
    significantly below the level required to develop critical advanced
    materials, sensors, and combustion technologies. In order to develop an
    advanced turbine suitable for use in advanced generation technologies
    such as IGCC and fuel cell hybrids that operate on natural gas or
    synthetic gas from coal, we recommend that the funding level be
    increased to $24 million. At this level we can continue the needed
    natural gas R&D and accelerate the R&D needed for synthetic coal gas
    applications. Our recommendation reflects the technology needs
    identified by DOE and others and is also consistent with the view that
    the program is an integral and key component of the NEP, the CCPI and
    FutureGen. This increased level of funding will also permit adequate
    support for the Cooperative University Gas Turbine Technology Research
    Program. This program has played a key role in encouraging pre-
    competitive basic science program participation by the university
    community and has been a major source of graduate level recruitment for
    the power generation industry.
        Unfortunately, today's advanced gas turbines that use technologies
    developed under DOE's Advanced Turbine Systems program will require
    major technology advances if they are to play the key roles envisions
    by the Administration's initiatives because;
        (1) Today's turbine technologies cannot use the coal-derived
    synthetic fuel gas or high hydrogen content gas produced by
    gasification technology and essential to the Department of Energy's
    FutureGen initiative;
        (2) We do not have the materials available that will permit today's
    machines to operate at the much higher operating temperatures that will
    be required and thus advanced materials such as ceramics will be
    needed;
        (3) We do not have the integrated diagnostic equipment, such as on-
    board sensors, to permit the higher levels of reliability needed in
    integrated systems. Thus without significant additional research and
    development in combustion science, advanced real time sensors and
    diagnostics and advanced materials we run the very real risk that other
    advanced technology components could be ready for deployment, but lack
    the key component, the advanced gas turbine.
        Without the research and development investments recommended above,
    the ability of the energy industry to meet the future needs of the
    economy with minimal environmental impact, could be jeopardized. With
    the successful resolution of these and similar technology questions,
    the United States will be able to increase its national energy
    security, lower consumer cost and reduce emissions.

                                   FUEL CELLS

        Stationary fuel cell technology has advanced rapidly in recent
    years and is increasingly seen as the stepping stone to more distant
    transportation applications. In particular, fuel cell stationary power
    applications are now a technological reality although their costs
    currently limit their application to niche markets where the high costs
    can be justified.
        The Siemens Westinghouse Pittsburgh-based tubular solid oxide fuel
    cell (SOFC) technology is at a critical pre-commercialization stage
    with continued pre-commercial demonstrations for product development
    required to assure commercial viability. The current focus on cost
    reduction efforts also enables a competitive technology which is
    crucial to the development of high volume manufacturing for
    commercialization. While the SOFC program has resulted in impressive
    cost reductions, additional work on advanced cell manufacturing,
    manufacturing assembly and fabrication technologies is critical to
    achieve the mandated DOE cost reduction targets. 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 high efficiency fuel cell/
    mircroturbine hybrid, But continued federal support is critical to
    achieving the program's milestones and commitments. To achieve these
    additional cost reductions we recommend a fiscal year 2004 funding
    level for the Vision 21 Hybrids budget line of $16.5 million.
        While the Vision 21 solid oxide fuel cell program is now nearing
    completion, a next generation of fuel cells is also 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 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 $23.5
    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 at least $43 million in order to achieve the cost
    reductions necessary to achieve market penetration in the time frames
    currently proposed by the program. Even at the $43 million funding
    level, the program would only meet existing SECA contract commitments.

                               SEQUESTRATION R&D

        The Siemens Westinghouse Power Corporation supports the
    Administration's request for $62 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. Support for this and other advanced
    sequestration technology applications can benefit from the
    Administration's FutureGen initiative.

                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of the Southern Company

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Southern Company
    operates the Power Systems Development Facility (PSDF) in Wilsonville,
    AL on behalf of the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) National Energy
    Technology Laboratory (NETL) and several industrial participants.\1\
    The PSDF was conceived as the premier advanced coal power generation
    research and development facility in the world and it has fulfilled
    this expectation. I would like to thank this subcommittee for its past
    support for the PSDF and request its continued support. This statement
    is in support of a $13 million increase in DOE's Coal and Power Systems
    budget for the PSDF. The current budget requests $21 million for the
    PSDF in fiscal year 2004; however, $34M is needed to conduct the
    research needed to support the success of FutureGen--The Pollution Free
    Power Plant of the Future--recently proposed by President Bush. The
    major accomplishments at the PSDF to-date and the future test program
    planned by DOE and the PSDF's industrial participants are summarized
    below.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Current participants include Southern Company, EPRI, Kellogg
    Brown and Root, Siemens Westinghouse Power Corporation, Peabody Energy,
    and the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company. Foster
    Wheeler Corporation is a major past participant and Air Products and
    Chemicals, Praxair, Inc., and Pall Corporation 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);
    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).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        A key feature of the PSDF is its 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 an order of magnitude
    below the cost of commercial scale testing. Capable of operating at
    pilot to near-demonstration scales, the PSDF is large enough to give
    industry real-life data, yet small enough to be cost-effective and
    adaptable to a variety of technology research needs.
        In addition, Southern Company supports the overall $60 million
    increase in the President's Coal Research Initiative within DOE's
    Fossil Energy R&D program for fiscal year 2004 recommended by the Coal
    Utilization Research Council (CURC \2\). The goals of the Technology
    Roadmap developed and supported by DOE, the Electric Power Research
    Institute (EPRI) and the CURC are achievable with funding at this
    increased level.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ CURC has over 40 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.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Roadmap identifies the technical, economic, and environmental
    performance that advanced clean coal technologies can achieve over the
    next 20 years and is included in CURC's testimony presented before this
    committee. CURC believes that over this time period coal-fired power
    generation efficiency can be increased to over 50 percent (compared to
    the current fleet average of 32 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 $6.6 billion is needed and over the
    following decade approximately $3.5 billion is needed--a total of $10.1
    billion. About half of these funds will come from industry and half
    from the Federal government. This is a $5 billion Federal investment
    over the next 20 years that can be reasonably projected to return at
    least $300 billion in benefits to U.S. consumers by 2050. EPRI recently
    used the modern financial technique called ``Real Options'' to estimate
    the value of advanced coal research and development.\3\ 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. But, for these benefits to be realized the critically
    important R&D outlined in the Technology Roadmap must be conducted.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ EPRI Report No. 1006954, ``Market-based Valuation of Coal
    Generation and Coal R&D in the U.S. Electric Sector,'' May 2002.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    SUMMARY

        The United States has always been a leader in energy research.
    Given the concerns for homeland security, adequate funding for fossil
    energy research and development programs will provide this country with
    secure and reliable energy while reducing our dependence on foreign
    energy supplies. 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 Technology Roadmap
    beginning with this year's request of $60 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
    PSDF. The fiscal year 2004 funding for the PSDF needs to increase to
    $34 million to support construction of new technologies that are
    critical to the success of President Bush's FutureGen program.

                              PSDF ACCOMPLISHMENTS

        The PSDF has developed testing and technology transfer
    relationships with over 50 vendors to ensure that test results and
    improvements developed at the PSDF are incorporated into future plants
    by the systems suppliers. Major subsystems tested and some highlights
    of the test program at the PSDF include:
        Transport Reactor.--The Transport Reactor has been operated
    successfully as a pressurized combustor and as a gasifier in both
    oxygen- and air-blown modes and, as a result has exceeded its primary
    purpose of generating gases for downstream testing. It is now projected
    to be the lowest capital cost coal power generation option while also
    providing the lowest cost of electricity with excellent environmental
    performance.
        Advanced Particulate Control.--Two advanced particulate removal
    devices and 28 different filter elements types have been tested to
    clean the product gases, and material property testing is routinely
    conducted to assess their suitability under long-term operation. The
    material requirements have been shared with vendors to aid their filter
    development programs.
        Filter Safe Guard Device.--To further enhance reliability and
    protect downstream components, a ``safe guard'' device was successfully
    developed that reliably and completely seals off the filter element
    upon filter element failure, thus preventing damage to the combustion
    turbine.
        Coal Feed and Ash Removal Subsystems.--The key to pressurized
    operation is reliable operation of the feed system to the pressurized
    reactor and ash removal system from the reactor and filter vessel.
    Modifications developed at the PSDF and shared with the equipment
    supplier allows the equipment to perform in a commercially acceptable
    manner.
        Syngas Cooler Testing.--Syngas cooling is of considerable
    importance to the gasification industry. Ferrules made of several
    different materials were tested at the inlet of the gas cooler and one
    ceramic material has been shown to perform well in this application.
        Instrumentation.--Several instrumentation vendors have worked with
    the PSDF to develop and test their instruments under realistic
    combustion and gasification conditions.
        Highly Experienced Staff.--In addition to this physical
    infrastructure, a highly experienced staff has been created that has a
    demonstrated ability to solve complex technical problems and rapidly
    move new technologies to commercial applications.

                            PSDF FUTURE TEST PROGRAM

        Future testing at the PSDF is intended to support FutureGen, the
    previously described Technology Roadmap, and the DOE Vision 21 coal
    initiative, which aims to eliminate all the environmental issues that
    present barriers to the continued use of coal. This includes major
    reductions in emissions of SO2, CO2,
    NOX, particulates, and trace elements (including mercury),
    as well as reductions in solid waste disposal and water consumption.
    The focus will remain on the commercialization of these new
    technologies as well as those currently under development at the PSDF.
    Assuming adequate funding the new five-year program at the PSDF is
    planned to include the following activities.
        Oxygen-Blown Transport Gasifier.--Continue the development of the
    oxygen-blown Transport Gasifier to further optimize its performance,
    explore feedstock flexibility and provide syngas for testing of Vision
    21 technologies and FutureGen.
        Air Separation Membranes.--Test advanced air separation membrane
    modules provided by Praxair and Air Products to evaluate membrane
    performance and system integration issues.
        Advanced Synthesis Gas Cleanup.--Test new advanced synthesis gas
    cleanup systems for hydrogen sulfide, hydrochloric acid, ammonia, and
    mercury removal to near-zero levels.
        Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Element Test Skid.--Test a solid oxide fuel
    cell to evaluate performance on coal-derived synthesis gas and identify
    integration issues. Combustion Turbine Burner: Integrate the existing
    3.8 MW combustion turbine with a new synthesis gas burner developed by
    SWPC.
        H2/CO2 Separation Technologies.--Integrate
    and test advanced H2/CO2 separation technologies
    to assess performance on coal-derived synthesis gas.
        Synthesis Gas Cooler.--Test alternative designs that are less
    complex, have lower capital cost, and offer better control of the
    synthesis gas exit temperature.
        Cooler for Char Removal from Gasifier.--Alternatives to current
    screw cooler technology have been developed and will be evaluated and
    tested to improve reliability and availability. New Particulate Control
    Device (PCD) Internals: Evaluate alternative filter internal designs
    from several vendors.
        High-Temperature Valves for Char Removal from the PCD.--Original
    design requirements dictated high temperature char depressurization.
    Developments since startup allow substantially reduced char temperature
    prior to depressurization. Several higher reliability moderate
    temperature valves are available that need to be tested.
        Improved Fuel Feed Systems.--Alternatives to conventional lock
    hopper feed systems have been identified and will be evaluated. The
    results will be applicable to all dry-feed gasifiers.
        High-Temperature Heat Exchangers.--The PSDF has been identified as
    a suitable location for testing of high-temperature heat exchangers
    that can be used in both advanced combustion and IGCC technologies.
        Sensors.--Several vendors have begun testing their sensors for a
    variety of functions, including control of temperature and coal feed
    rate; detection of gaseous species, tar, and dust at low
    concentrations; and detection and continuous measurement of hazardous
    air pollutants.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Teachers' Retirement System, State of
                                   California

        Department of Energy.--Elk Hills School Lands Fund: $59 million for
    sixth annual installment of Elk Hills compensation
        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 5 fiscal
    years (fiscal years 1999-2003), Congress has appropriated the funds
    necessary to pay the $36 million installment of compensation due for
    that year.
        Congress should appropriate for fiscal year 2004 the $59 million
    due as the sixth annual installment payment of compensation under the
    settlement that Congress directed the Administration to achieve.
        The Elk Hills appropriation has the broad bipartisan support of the
    California Congressional delegation. Senator Feinstein is the lead
    Senate sponsor. On the House side, the California House delegation has
    sent a letter signed by the entire delegation to the Chairman of the
    House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee strongly supporting the $59
    million appropriation for fiscal year 2004.

                                   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 school lands owned by
    the State 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 years 2004-2005).

                      THE MONEY IS THERE TO PAY THE STATE

        The funds necessary to compensate the State have been collected
    from the sales proceeds remitted by the private purchaser of Elk Hills
    and are now being held in the Elk Hills School Lands Fund for the
    express purpose of compensating the State.
        Congress has appropriated the funds necessary for each of the
    previous five annual installments of Elk Hills compensation.

     THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2004 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE SIXTH ANNUAL
                     INSTALLMENT OF ELK HILLS COMPENSATION

        Following payment of the fifth installment of Elk Hills
    compensation for fiscal year 2003 (funds having been appropriated for
    payment on October 1, 2003), the State is owed approximately $144
    million under the Settlement Agreement between the Federal Government
    and the State. The exact final amount of compensation is subject to
    finalization of the respective equity interests of the Federal
    Government and Chevron, the co-owners of the Elk Hills field prior to
    the sale. In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, the
    Administration as part of the fiscal year 2000 budget held back $26
    million from the State's share of the Elk Hills sales proceeds
    deposited in the Elk Hills School Lands Fund, to provide for any
    potential downward adjustment in the Federal Government's equity
    interest. This equity determination process still is being completed,
    some 6 years after the sale. The State is entitled to return of this
    $26 million ``hold-back'' if the final equity determination leaves the
    Federal Government's equity interest unchanged. (If the Federal
    Government's share is increased, the State is entitled to return of the
    holdback as well as 9 percent of the increase.)
        The balance of the Elk Hills School Lands Fund currently stands at
    $118 million, after subtracting this $26 million ``hold-back''. Under
    the terms of the Settlement Agreement, for the sixth installment of Elk
    Hills compensation due for fiscal year 2004 the State is entitled to
    half of the balance of the Elk Hills School Lands Fund that remains
    after the holdback. Thus, the State is entitled to $59 million for the
    sixth installment. (The remainder of the State's 9 percent share of the
    Elk Hills sales proceeds is due in the subsequent, seventh annual
    installment.)
        For fiscal year 2004, the Administration has requested an
    appropriation of $36 million as ``a placeholder for half of the
    estimated balance for years six and seven as required by the settlement
    agreement until final equity finalization [sic.] is complete.''
    (February 2003 Budget Highlights for the Department of Energy Fiscal
    Year 2004 Congressional Budget Request, at p. 98). See Budget of the
    United States Government--Fiscal Year 2004, Appendix, at p. 383-384.
    The Administration's budget request in effect calls for a second
    ``hold-back'' that is contrary to the terms of the Settlement
    Agreement.
        The State respectfully requests appropriation of the full $59
    million that it is due for fiscal year 2004 as the sixth installment of
    compensation under the terms of its Settlement Agreement with the
    Federal Government.

                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the United States Advanced Ceramics Association
        The United States Advanced Ceramics Association (USACA) is 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 United States
    Senate Appropriations Committee, Interior Subcommittee with our
    industry's statement regarding the fiscal year 2004 Department of
    Energy (DOE) budget request for FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies,
    Distributed Energy and Electricity Reliability, Industrial
    Technologies, and Coal Research Initiatives in the Office of Energy
    Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) and the Office of Fossil Energy
    (FE).
        USACA Recommends increased Funding for:
      --$41.7 million.--Materials technologies (freedomcar and vehicle
            technologies), increase of $2.1M
      --$23.0 million.--Turbines (coal research, central systems), increase
            of $10M
      --$43.0 million.--Fuel cells (distributed generation systems, SECA),
            increase of $19.5M
      --$16.5 million.--Fuel cells (distributed generation systems, vision
            21 hybrids), increase of $11.5M
        USACA Supports the Administration's Request for:
      --$10.7 million.--Heavy vehicle systems (freedomcar and vehicle
            technologies)
      --$37.1 million.--Advanced combustion engines (freedomcar and vehicle
            technologies)
      --$31.9 million.--Distributed generation technology development
            (distributed energy and electricity reliability)
      --$12.7 million.--Industrial materials for the future (industrial
            technologies)
      --$12.0 million.--Materials (coal research initiative, advanced
            research program)
        USACA has a long-standing commitment to promoting the use of
    advanced ceramics as the foundation for a new generation of high-
    efficiency and high-performance products for surface transportation,
    aerospace, defense, energy, and industrial applications. In order to
    maintain U.S. competitiveness in key areas, increased focus of programs
    in advanced materials is needed, with joint programs and continuation
    of the interagency coordination committee recommended for promoting
    transfer of knowledge at reduced cost.
        USACA supports Department of Energy (DOE) programs in distributed
    power generation, hydrogen, fuel cells, vehicle technologies,
    industrial technologies and coal research, which will lead our country
    on a path to energy independence and infrastructure assurance.

                      FREEDOMCAR AND VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES

        USACA supports an increase over the budget request from $39.6M to
    $41.7M in this program to provide full funding for the High Temperature
    Materials Laboratory (HTML). This funding increase for the HTML from
    $4.0M to $6.1M, representing a $0.5M increase over fiscal year 2003,
    would support necessary research and development of advanced
    structural, propulsion, and catalyst materials for heavy vehicle and
    automotive applications which may enable significant fuel cell cost
    reductions. Under Materials Technologies, USACA supports the
    administration request for Propulsion Materials Technology ($8.9M) and
    Lightweight Materials Technology ($26.8M).
        High Temperature Materials Lab (HTML) [EE0703].--Over the past 15
    to 20 years, the DOE Oak Ridge National Laboratory High Temperature
    Materials Lab, in conjunction with scientists in the ORNL Metals and
    Ceramics Division, have been at the forefront of advanced materials
    R&D. The HTML, through its collaborative programs with industry,
    national labs and universities has, in our opinion, done the most of
    any government program in expanding the state of the art of advanced
    materials. The U.S. ceramics industry enjoys a technological leadership
    position in part due to these programs. Materials technology, as a
    direct result of ORNL programs, such as Ceramic Technology Project, and
    HTML, now has the potential to be successfully incorporated in power,
    transportation and industrial technologies, as well as other commercial
    and military applications.
        We wish to emphasize the importance of the High Temperature
    Materials Laboratory, which through its research staff, user center,
    and fellowship programs, has provided cost-effective but critical
    support for materials development in energy intensive markets. The
    world-class materials research facilities at HTML have 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.

                 DISTRIBUTED ENERGY AND ELECTRICITY RELIABILITY

        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 DOE EERE 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. Further efficiency improvements are possible utilizing
    advanced materials concepts in technologies such as fuel cell hybrid
    systems. Solid oxide fuel cell systems, in particular, will be
    dependent on advanced ceramics to realize extraordinary power
    generation efficiencies utilizing high temperature fuel cell/
    microturbine hybrids. In addition, advanced materials may provide
    solutions to improve catalysts and hydrogen storage performance.
        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.
    USACA believes the above funding levels are necessary if our nation
    intends to realize the public benefits envisioned in our national
    energy policy.
        DOE showed exceptional initiative and foresight in identifying the
    opportunity for advanced high temperature materials to improve
    efficiency in turbines, microturbines, and fuel cells. We would like to
    work with DOE to include greater opportunities for advanced materials
    research and development in these important programs. The United States
    is committed to reducing reliance on imported oil. Therefore a diverse
    energy infrastructure is needed. Program goals in the areas of
    turbines, microturbines, and fuel cells all seek to contribute to a
    diverse domestic energy portfolio. Research and development in advanced
    materials is necessary in order to improve performance, reduce weight,
    extend equipment life, decrease emissions, increase specific power, and
    decrease fuel use.

                      INDUSTRIAL MATERIALS FOR THE FUTURE

        The Office of Industrial Technologies (OIT) Industries of the
    Future (IOF) process has shown that improved materials are a
    crosscutting need of many industries and one of the keys to cleaner,
    more energy-efficient and productive manufacturing. The mission of the
    DOE Industrial Materials for the Future Program is to lead a national
    effort to research, design, engineer, and test new and improved
    materials, as well as more profitable uses of existing materials for
    the Industries of the Future (IOF). Through this program, significant
    advances have been made in a broad range of advanced materials
    including ceramics and ceramic matrix composites, in addition to
    advances made in materials for the Industries of the Future. These same
    materials have in many cases supported development efforts in gas
    turbines, fuel cells, reciprocating engines, and vehicle technologies.
    While the successful application of ceramic materials to industrial
    applications continues to be limited by their high cost, continued
    support of the Industrial Materials for the Future program is requested
    to insure that price-performance targets are ultimately met.

     COAL RESEARCH INITIATIVES--HIGH EFFICIENCY ENGINES, TURBINES AND FUEL
                                     CELLS

        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 $23.0 Million federal
    contribution to the HEET program in fiscal year 2004 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. Added funding is required beyond the
    Administration's request to fund an Advanced Materials Initiative, with
    advanced ceramics components likely to be the key enabling technology
    needed to meet NEP goals. 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 2004 federal funding ($23 million) to
    facilitate a government/industry partnership that successfully allows
    new HEET technologies to mature in a timely manner.
        Fuel cells hold the potential for clean, efficient energy
    production for both transportation and stationary power applications.
    While the Administration has recognized their potential and increased
    funding focused on transportation applications, near term electric
    power generation fuel cell programs have seen decreases in research
    funding. USACA recommends increasing overall fuel cell funding to $43
    million. Added funding is needed to fully-fund on-going research for
    next generation, high power density stationary power fuel cell systems
    (SECA), with advanced ceramics research critical to their success. DOE
    has identified turbine-fuel cell hybrid systems as a key enabling
    technology for Vision21 Power Systems. USACA recommends increasing
    Vision21 fuel cell hybrids funding to $16 million. Added funding will
    accelerate integration of fuel cell and turbine systems and meeting
    existing obligations to industry cost-shared programs.
        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 Vision21 coal-fired hybrid power system.

                                PUBLIC BENEFITS

        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. Distributed generation technologies such
    as microturbines and fuel cells greatly increases energy security.
    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.
        For further information, please contact Karen Miller, Executive
    Director, the United States Advanced Ceramics Association (USACA) at
    202-293-6253, or by E-mail at kmiller@ttcorp.com.
                                 usaca members
        Amercom/Synterials, Inc; Ceracom, Inc.; COI Ceramics, Inc.; Deere &
    Company; General Electric Company; UT Battelle, LLC; Saint-Gobain
    Ceramics & Plastics, Inc.; Siemens Westinghouse Power Corporation.
                                     ______

                    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

              Prepared Statement of the Alaska Native Health Board
        The Alaska Native Health Board (ANHB) submits this statement on the
    fiscal year 2004 Indian Health Service budget. Our fiscal year 2004
    Federal Legislative Priorities paper which we gave to the Subcommittees
    provides more detail than we can include in this four-page testimony.
    In summary, our fiscal year 2004 IHS budget recommendations are:
      --Community Health Aide Practitioner Program--a $7.4 million increase
      --Stop the erosion of the IHS budget by fully funding mandatory
            increases including pay costs, inflation, and population growth
            ($360 million)
      --Staffing packages for the health centers at St. Paul ($1.4
            million), Metlakatla ($2.5 million), and King Cove ($1.5
            million)
      --Funding to complete construction of the health centers at St. Paul
            and Metlakatla and the Bethel quarters
      --Funding for the Barrow Hospital planning and site acquisition ($8
            million) and for beginning funding for replacement of the Nome
            Hospital
      --Medevac transportation in Alaska--a $2 million increase
      --Patient travel in Alaska--a $2 million increase
      --Increase funding for Contract Health Services
      --Fully fund contract support costs--$60 million increase
      --Support $20 million increase for Sanitation Facilities
      --Distribute the Special Diabetes Program for Indians program via the
            existing formula
        Community Health Aide Practitioner Program.--We request a $7.4
    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. We request $5 million to increase the number of CHAP
    positions by 115 FTE's, for a total of 615; $1.5 million to increase
    the number of field supervisors; $750,000 to increase state-wide CHA/P
    training capacity; $150,000 for ongoing updates of materials specific
    to the CHA/P.
        Stop the Erosion of the IHS Budget.--Year after year the IHS budget
    is eroded by the lack of funding to fully meet built-in cost increases,
    and the Administration's fiscal year 2004 proposal for the IHS is
    particularly deficient in this area. As evidence of this, the IHS
    projects that its fiscal year 2004 budget proposal would result in
    367,000 less patient visits in fiscal year 2004 than in fiscal year
    2003 (IHS Budget, page 29).
        The proposal for the IHS Services account is only one percent over
    the fiscal year 2003 enacted level. This represents a significant
    erosion of IHS buying power as there is inadequate funding for
    inflation, population growth and pay raises. Some of that one percent
    ``increase'' is in fact the $50 million increase in diabetes
    entitlement funding and a projected $7 million increase in third party
    payments. Given the reductions states are making in the Medicaid
    program, we are concerned about tribal Medicaid collection going down,
    and are surprised at the projected increase in collections.
        According to the IHS budget document, tribes and IHS will have to
    absorb $114 million in built-in costs in fiscal year 2004. This is only
    part of the story. The Administration requested only a 2 percent pay
    raise for civilian employees, even though it is expected that Congress
    will approve 4.1 percent pay raise. We appreciate that the fiscal year
    2004 House and Senate budget resolutions support giving civilian
    employees the same level of pay raise as is scheduled for military
    employees and urge the Subcommittee to provide funding to fully meet
    pay raise and other built-in costs.
        We also appreciate the Senate approving an amendment recommending a
    $292 million increase in the IHS budget, but that should be viewed as a
    minimum increase. Just to keep IHS Services at their current level
    would require approximately $360 million increase (inflation, pay
    costs, population growth, staffing for new facilities).
        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
    four 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).
        Other Patient Travel.--Funding for patient travel is a critical
    component of health care in Alaska. Individual inability to pay for the
    cost of patient travel, including land, transportation, food and
    lodging results in persons deferring health care. That, in turn, leads
    to more severe compilations that ultimately result in increased cost of
    providing health care. A roundtrip ticket to Anchorage can cost as much
    as $1,600 from some communities. People may have to make the decision
    between health care or food, fuel and other basic necessities. We
    request $2 million in recurring funding for patient travel in Alaska.
    Facilities at St. Paul, Metlakatla, Barrow, Bethel and Nome
        St. Paul Health Center.--Congress appropriated $5.5 million in
    fiscal year 2003 for partial construction of the St. Paul Health
    Center--the Administration had requested $11 million in fiscal year
    2003 to complete construction. We ask that Congress provide the
    remaining amount necessary to complete construction. 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.--Congress appropriated
    $306,000 in fiscal year 2003 for construction of the health center for
    the Metlakatla Indian Community and it also directed that an additional
    $5 million be made available for this health center from savings from
    completed health care facilities. We ask Congress to appropriate the
    necessary amount in fiscal year 2004 to complete construction of the
    Metlakatla clinic and associated quarters.
        Clinic services are currently 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
    are 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 2004 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.
        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 for the last year of a
    four-year quarters construction project.
        Staffing Packages for St. Paul Health Center, Metlakatla Health
    Center, and King Cove Clinic.--We urge funding for staffing packages
    for new facilities at St. Paul ($1.4 million), Metlakatla ($2.5
    million) and King Cove ($1.5 million). Detailed information on these
    staffing needs have been supplied to the IHS.
        Rural Sanitation Funding.--We give special thanks to Secretary
    Thompson for his support for increasing the IHS sanitation construction
    budget by $20 million, for a total of $114 million. We believe that the
    Secretary's visit to rural Alaska was instrumental in his decision to
    support this increase.
        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
    critical to assuring long-term success of village sanitation projects.
        Contract Support Costs.--The Administration has proposed no
    increase for IHS contract support costs, even though it is expected
    that new contracts will be entered into during fiscal year 2004. The
    Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, in its March 11, 2003, letter to
    the Budget Committee, reports that 25 new or expanded contracts are
    expected during fiscal year 2004. The estimated unmet contract support
    costs in fiscal year 2003 was approximately $60 million. We believe
    that there is a federal obligation to funds these costs.
        Diabetes.--We thank Congress for reauthorizing the Special Diabetes
    Program for Native Americans and Alaska Natives last year. Funding for
    this program will be $150 million, a $50 million increase over the
    current year. We ask that IHS not award the new $50 million
    competitively, but rather that there be consultation with tribes about
    the use of these funds. Tribes individually need more diabetes funds
    and we would not want to see to entire $50 million distributed outside
    the formula. We point out that Alaska has the highest rate of increase
    in new diabetes cases in Indian country. The rate of diabetes cases in
    the Mt. Edgecumbe Service Unit increased 81 percent from 1985-1999
    (from 22 to 49 per 1,000).
        HHS Consolidation and Reallocation Proposals.--We appreciate that
    Congress rejected in the fiscal year 2003 Appropriations Act the HHS
    proposals to consolidate maintenance and construction funds, and
    legislative and public affairs within the office of the HHS Secretary.
    The fiscal year 2003 Conference Report for the IHS budget specifically
    requires that HHS proposals to consolidate or realign functions that
    affect the IHS be implemented through a reprogramming request approved
    by the Appropriations Committees. Should the Administration push these
    ``one HHS proposals'' during fiscal year 2004, we urge that they be
    rejected as they were in fiscal year 2003.
        Thank you for your consideration of our recommendations.

                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma

        Halito [Hello] from the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma to the
    distinguished Members of this Subcommittee and yakoke [thank you] for
    accepting this written statement prepared by the Tribal Members on the
    Choctaw Reservation in Durant, Oklahoma.
        I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere
    appreciation for the military personnel who are away from home and
    their loved ones. On behalf of my People, I pray that they will have a
    safe and expedient return to their families and to their Homeland.
        The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma is requesting this Subcommittee
    consider the following funding priorities in the fiscal year 2004
    Budgets for the Indian Health Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs:

                             INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

        The BIA and IHS are preparing to re-organize. We are concerned that
    this will come at the expense of diminishing tribal programs and the
    delivery of tribal services. Therefore, we ask that the Subcommittee
    include language directing both the BIA and IHS not to reduce funds
    appropriated by this Subcommittee to offset Departmental or agency
    shortfalls, to support reorganization plans, or trust reform
    initiatives without consulting with Tribal Leadership. This language
    should be included in future appropriations bills for these agencies;
      --Provide $98 million for IHS to fully fund Contract Support Cost
            (CSC);
      --Restore $4.5 million the Indian Health Service (IHS) Office of
            Tribal Self-Governance;
      --Provide $360 million for IHS mandatory, inflation and population
            growth increase to maintain existing health care services;
      --Support the President's budget request for $50 million increase in
            the Special Diabetes Program for Indians.

                                 JUSTIFICATION

        1. $98 million is needed in IHS and an additional $5 million
    increase is needed in BIA to fully fund CSC. This shortfall continues
    to penalize Tribes that elect to operate BIA and IHS programs under the
    self-determination policy. Further, this shortfall threatens to pit
    tribe against tribe as mature contractors are asked to absorb all
    inflationary increases in order to fund new contractors. Additional CSC
    appropriations are needed to implement the self-determination and self-
    governance policy as supported by Congress. We urge the Subcommittee to
    fully fund CSC for Tribes similar to how other contractors are funded
    within the federal government.
        2. In fiscal year 2003, a total of $4.2 million was eliminated from
    the Office of Tribal Self-Governance within the IHS budget. We believe
    that this decrease will severely impact IHS's ability to fully
    implement the provisions of Title V of the Indian Self-Determination
    and Education Assistance Act, as amended. The IHS Office of Tribal
    Self-Governance was established in 1996 to advocate and implement the
    Self-Governance initiative within IHS. There are currently 285 Tribes
    (51.1 percent of all federally-recognized Tribes) implementing Self-
    Governance agreements. While the number of Self-Governance Tribes has
    and continues to increase, the staff and organizational capacity of
    OTSG has not. Additional funding is needed to increase the OTSG's
    organizational capacity to meet the legal requirements of Title V and
    to protect and advance the Self-Governance initiative.
        3. The Administration's request of $40 million in fiscal year 2004
    is far short of the $360 million needed just to maintain current health
    care services. These costs are unavoidable and include medical and
    general inflation, pay costs and staff for recently constructed
    facilities. IHS and Tribal programs simply cannot afford to continue to
    lose real resources. Mandatories should be the first consideration in
    budget formulation. If unfunded, these cost increases will result in
    further health service reductions in our Tribal communities.
        4. As a result of the special Diabetes Program, today there are
    over 300 diabetes prevention and treatment programs serving American
    Indians and Alaskan Natives. The funding has allowed Tribal governments
    to develop and improve wellness centers, establish education programs,
    and all other activities. It is not only an effective tool in
    preventing and treating diabetes, but it also provides opportunities to
    reduce the incidence of diabetes related blindness, amputations and end
    stage renal disease. We ask that the increase in funding for the
    Special Diabetes Program does not come at the expense of other vitally
    important Indian health services.
        Yakoke!
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Council of Annette Islands Reserve,
                          Metlakatla Indian Community
        We are writing to you to bring to your attention, once again, our
    needs with respect to the fiscal year 2004 appropriations.
      --$14,511,000 in IHS funds to complete construction of a health
            clinic and quarters and $2.5 million in health clinic staffing.
      --Increased funding for the Alaska Community health aide program,
            Alaska Medevac services and full funding for IHS contract
            support.
      --$6,000,000 in BIA funds for continuation of the Walden Point Road
            project.
        Health Clinic, Quarters and Staffing.--We are especially concerned
    that sufficient funding is included in the fiscal year 2004
    appropriations to the Indian Health Service facilities account to
    complete the proposed new Annette Islands Service unit clinic. As you
    are aware the present clinic is housed in obsolete modular units which
    are crowded and deteriorating. Construction of the new clinic project
    has begun with funding provided in fiscal year 2002. In fiscal year
    2003 Congress appropriated $306,000 and directed IHS to apply $5
    million in savings from other projects to proceed with the clinic on
    our reservation. We should, therefore, be in a position to complete
    construction with funding to be provided in fiscal year 2004.
        The Administration has requested $14,511,000 for completion of the
    clinic and eight units of staff quarters in fiscal year 2004. We
    support this request. We understand that IHS has carried out the
    instruction of the Congress to make available $5,000,000 in fiscal year
    2003 funds for clinic construction. Thus the appropriation for fiscal
    year 2004 can be appropriately adjusted. We also request an
    appropriation of $2.5 million to support an increase in staffing of 31
    positions. We greatly appreciate the support of your Committee and the
    Congress for this vital health care project.
        Special Health Program Needs in Alaska.--We also support the
    request of the Alaska Native Health Board for a $7.4 million increase
    to be phased in over three years to increase the Community Health Aide
    program in Alaska and we support full funding for the Indian Health
    Service to cover all built in increases in costs and to keep services
    at least at their current level. We understand that this would require
    an increase of $360,000,000.
        We urge that Congress provide a $2,000,000 increase to cover the
    special need for medevac services in Alaska. This is important
    especially for insular locations such as ours on Annette Island where
    we have no hospital facilities.
        We are concerned that the Administration has requested no
    additional funding for contract support to enable an estimated 25 new
    tribal contracts and self-governance agreements to be award in 2004,
    without diminishing contract support funding available for existing
    self-governance health services programs like ours. We support full
    funding for contract support.
        We urge that in appropriating additional funding for the special
    diabetes program the Congress require the Indian Health Service to take
    account of the relative incidence of diabetes in its various regions
    and consult with tribes on the appropriate manner of distribution. Our
    own incidence of diabetes here at Metlakatla is very high.
        Walden Point Road.--Under a Memorandum of Agreement, dated November
    20, 2000, the Metlakatla Indian Community has worked jointly with the
    Department of Defense (DOD), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),
    the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Alaska Department of
    Transportation and Public Facilities, on developing the Walden Point
    Road to alleviate isolation and improve public safety and health care
    (emergency medical evacuations must now be all by air). The project,
    when completed, would link Metlakatla to the city of Ketchikan. The
    project is eligible for funding under 23 USC 101 (a) 12 and is listed
    on the Indian Reservations Roads Inventory of the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs (Walden Point Road, Air 7, Sections 30-130 (14.7 miles). The
    Community is seeking $8,850,000 (based on FHWA cost estimates) to keep
    this project on track in fiscal year 2004 from the Federal Highway
    Administration. The Community requests $6,000,000 to continue the
    Walden Point Road project in fiscal year 2004 from the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs.
        Thank you for consideration of our concerns with respect to the
    Indian Health Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs appropriations for
    fiscal year 2004.

                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of the Hoopa Valley Tribe

        Greetings from the Hoopa Valley Tribe, name is Clifford Lyle
    Marshall and I am the Chairman of the Hoopa Valley Tribe, which is
    located in Northern California wilderness, in a beautiful but
    geologically remote area, economically depressed and with a high rate
    of unemployment. Our people are struggling with poverty, discrimination
    and limited access to health care. The Hoopa Valley Reservation was
    established by an Executive Order in 1864 as a direct result of
    negotiations for a peace and friendship treaty between the Hoopa People
    and the United States Government. More recently, it was one of the
    original ten federally recognized Indian tribes to participate in the
    Self-Governance Demonstration Project.

                   THE HOOPA VALLEY RESERVATION DEMOGRAPHICS

        144 square miles of reservation territory. The off reservation
    service area is over 400 square miles. This is a tri-county service
    area consisting of Humboldt, Siskiyou and Trinity Counties.
      --The population (2000) was 2,633
      --Native language: Athabascan
      --Race: 84.7 percent Native American, 11.9 percent White, and 3.9
            percent Other

                    PERSON LIVING BELOW POVERTY LEVEL (1999)
                                    [Percent]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Hoopa, Families............................................         29.0
    Hoopa, Individuals.........................................         32.0
    Humboldt County, individuals (1990)........................         12.8
    State of California........................................         14.2
    National...................................................         12.4
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         HOOPA COMMUNITY HEALTH PROFILE
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Disability status (percent):
         21 to 64 years with a disability.....................     22.7
        Over 65 years with a disability.......................     54.4
    Birth Rate:
        Hoopa.................................................     24.7/1000
        United States.........................................     14.6/1000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Diabetes Health Disparities
      --175 current patients diagnosed as diabetic
      --700 Children 2-19 years of age at risk of developing adult onset
            diabetes secondary to obesity
        Childhood Obesity is a major health disparity on the Hoopa
    Reservation. Over 64 percent of the Hoopa Valley Reservation is obese.
    The National level is 15 percent, the Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation
    is far over this amount.
        The Governing Board and the Executive Leadership at K'ima:w Medical
    Center conducted a comprehensive analysis regarding the health profile
    of our community and concluded that many significant and alarming
    health disparities are growing. Our people are in desperate need of
    assistance to expand and improve existent services and to create new
    services. We have a long and strong tradition in delivering healthcare
    locally. Exporting health services to urban centers would disrupt the
    continuity of care lifestyle, and would conflict with our cultural
    tradition and will weaken even further our economical infrastructure.
    After a careful consideration, the following four priorities were
    identified as most needed.
        Expansion of healthcare access to include 24-hour emergency medical
    standby.--Our people deserve accessible, prompt and consistent service
    at the most beneficial and necessary time. By extending our hours we
    will provide not only better access, also continuity in time
    comprehensiveness and coordination of care. The cost of increased
    required staffing and operating extended hours is estimated at $635,868
    per year.
        Dialysis Center.--Our community has an above average number of
    diabetic patients on dialysis that we transport three times a week at
    approximately sixty miles distance. We project that the number of
    people in need of dialysis will double in the next five years. In
    order, to start with four stations and expand as needed we estimate the
    need of $1,400,000.00. This will cover the initial cost of equipment
    and startup of the service for one year.
        Ambulance Expansion.--Our service population is dispersed over 400
    square miles, with rugged roads. Maintaining the Ambulance service is
    critical for transporting patients to K'ima:w Medical Center in Hoopa
    or to the next hospital. We need to move the Ambulance to a more
    efficient central location and to replace some of the critical
    equipments. The total level of funded needed to do this is estimated at
    $205,000.00.
        Expansion of the Field Health and Outreach program.--We provide
    continuity of care and education at patients home. Part of the service
    is transporting non-emergent patients to and from K'ima:w Medical
    Center or to specialty visits in Redding or San Francisco. The CHR
    service is essential in assisting elderly with home healthcare. The
    level of funding to expand our service is estimated at $197,000.00 per
    year.
        In order, to increase service to our remote rural area we will need
    $2,437,668.00 in addition to what we are currently funded. Our American
    people are confronted with disproportionate incidence of disease and
    medical conditions, aggravated inadequate funding and worsening
    economical and social environment. Equalizing care and providing
    similar health services available to most Americans is our sacred
    responsibility. Thank you, for your time and consideration, and if you
    have any questions check out our website at www.hoopa-nsn.gov or call
    Emmet Chase at (530) 625-4261.

                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the National Indian Health Board

        The President's Indian Health Service (IHS) fiscal year 2004 budget
    request is $2.89 billion, and we are requesting an additional $679
    million to boost clinical services, contract health services, facility
    construction, self-governance programs, and funding to address
    increased pay act costs, population growth, etc.
        The NIHB serves nearly all Federally Recognized American Indian and
    Alaska Native (AI/AN) Tribal governments in advocating for the
    improvement of health care delivery to American Indians and Alaska
    Natives. We strive to advance the level of health care and the adequacy
    of funding for health services that are operated by the Indian Health
    Service, programs operated directly by Tribal Governments, and other
    programs. Our Board Members represent each of the twelve Areas of IHS
    and are elected at-large by the respective Tribal Governmental
    Officials within their regional area.
        As we enter the 108th Congressional session, we call upon Congress
    and the Administration to address the funding disparities that continue
    to hamper Indian Country's efforts to improve the health status of
    American Indians and Alaska Natives. No other segment of the population
    is more negatively impacted by health disparities than the AI/AN
    population and Tribal members suffer from disproportionately higher
    rates of chronic disease and other illnesses.
        The federal responsibility to provide health services to American
    Indians and Alaska Natives reflects the unique government-to-government
    relationship that exists between the Tribes and the United States. The
    importance of this relationship is reflected in the provisions of
    Article I, Sec.  8, clause 3 of the United States Constitution, which
    gives the federal government specific authorities in its dealings with
    Indian Tribes.
        Indian Country has continuously advocated for equitable health care
    funding. Health care spending for AI/AN's lags far behind spending for
    other segments of society. For example, per capita expenditures for AI/
    AN beneficiaries receiving services in the IHS are approximately one-
    half of the per capita expenditures for Medicaid beneficiaries and one-
    third of the per capita expenditures for VA beneficiaries. Sadly, the
    federal government spends nearly twice as much money for a federal
    prisoner's health care that it does for an American Indian or Alaska
    Native. The failure of the federal government to provide equitable
    health funding for American Indians and Alaska Natives reflects a
    tragic failure by the United States to carry out its solemn Trust
    responsibility to American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal governments.
        The greatest travesty in looking at the deplorable health of
    American Indians comes in recognizing that the vast majority of
    illnesses and deaths from disease could be preventable if funding was
    available to provide even a basic level of care. It is unfortunate that
    despite two centuries of treaties and promises, over 1.6 million
    American Indians and Alaska Natives are forced to endure health
    conditions and a level of health care funding that would be
    unacceptable to most other U.S. citizens.
        The President's IHS fiscal year 2004 budget request is $2.89
    billion, an increase of $40 million over the fiscal year 2003 enacted
    amount for the Indian Health Service. Even if the $50 million increase
    for diabetes funding is included the budget request is still over $200
    million short of what is needed to maintain current services. It is
    estimated that a $325 million increase is required provide the same
    level of health care services provided in fiscal year 2003. This amount
    would be sufficient to cover pay act costs, population growth, etc.
        The President's budget includes $114 million for sanitation
    construction, an increase of $20 million over the fiscal year 2003
    Budget Request. This 20 percent increase represents the largest
    increase provided for sanitation construction in over a decade. This
    provision and significant increase is applauded and demonstrates the
    Administration's commitment to providing safe water and waste disposal
    to an estimated 22,000 homes, an increase of 2,600 over the number of
    homes served in 2003. Proper sanitation facilities play a considerable
    role in the reduction of infant mortality and deaths from
    gastrointestinal disease in Indian Country.
        The President's budget request also reflects the $50 million
    increase in the Special Diabetes Program for Indians funding approved
    during the 107th Congress. We are grateful to the Administration and
    Congress for recognizing the success and effectiveness of the Special
    Diabetes Program for Indians as a tool to reduce the incidence and
    harmful effects of Diabetes in Indian Country.
        Health Facility Construction.--The budget includes a total of $72
    million for construction of new health facilities allowing IHS to
    replace its priority health care facility needs with modern health
    facilities and to significantly expand capacity at its most overcrowded
    sites. The request will complete outpatient facilities at Pinon (Navajo
    Reservation, Arizona) and Metlakatla (Annette Island, Alaska); continue
    construction of the Red Mesa Outpatient Facility (Navajo Reservation,
    Arizona) and begin construction of a new outpatient facility to replace
    the Sisseton hospital (Sisseton- Wahpeton Sioux Tribe, South Dakota).
    When the Sisseton hospital is closed, IHS will purchase inpatient and
    emergency care from non-IHS facilities such as the nearby Coteau Des
    Prairies hospital.
        Pay Costs.--The budget includes an additional $35 million to cover
    increased pay costs for IHS's 15,021 FTEs and to allow tribally run
    health programs to provide comparable pay raises to their own staffs.
        The budget documented the IHS health care funding needs at $18.2
    billion. President Bush's proposed appropriation of $2.89 billion falls
    well short of the level of funding that would permit Indian programs to
    achieve health and health system parity with the majority of other
    Americans.
        Failure to adequately increase the Indian Health Service clinical
    services budget will force numerous Tribal health providers to cut back
    services, worsening the plight of an already severely at-risk
    population and jeopardizing greater public health. Staff cuts would
    also result, increasing waiting periods to get appointments, as well as
    reducing clinic hours. Also, without adequate funding, several
    successful programs throughout Indian Country would have to be
    eliminated, such as patient outreach, nutritional programs, preventive
    care, referral services, dental and optometric services.
        Funding for the Indian Health Service has failed to keep pace with
    population increases and inflation. While mandatory programs such as
    Medicaid and Medicare have accrued annual increases of 5 to 10 percent
    in order to keep pace with inflation, the IHS has not received these
    comparable increases. Current Indian Health Service funding is so
    inadequate that less than 60 percent of the health care needs of
    American Indians and Alaska Natives. We request that an additional $292
    million, which represents an additional 10 percent over the President's
    request, be provided to the Indian Health Service to address medical
    inflation, currently at a rate of 12 percent.
        As we have carefully reviewed the President's fiscal year 2004 IHS
    Budget Request, several provisions would seriously affect the agency's
    ability to carry out its responsibilities pertaining to the health and
    welfare of American Indians and Alaska Natives. Below, I will briefly
    discuss several of these provisions.
        The President's Budget Request includes $493 million, which
    provides an additional $25 million or 5 percent increase over the
    previous year's request, for Contract Health Services. The documented
    need for the Contract Health Service Program in Indian Country exceeds
    $1 Billion. At present, less than one-half of the CHS need is being
    met, leaving too many Indian people without access to necessary medical
    services. We recommend an increase of at least $175 million, which
    would raise American Indian and Alaska Native tribes to approximately
    60 percent of need.
        The President's fiscal year 2004 Budget Request includes $271
    million, the same as the fiscal year 2003 enacted budget, to support
    tribal efforts to develop the administrative infrastructure critical to
    their ability to successfully operate IHS programs. Tribal governments
    continue to assume control of new programs, services, functions, and
    activities under Self-Determination and Self-Governance, therefore
    additional funding is needed. Tribal programs have clearly increased
    the quality and level of services in their health systems fairly
    significantly over direct service programs and failing to adequately
    fund Contract Support Costs is defeating the very programs that appear
    to be helping improve health conditions for American Indians and Alaska
    Natives. We recommend an additional $150 million to meet the shortfall
    for current contracting and compacting.
        According to the President's fiscal year 2004 Budget, the number of
    tribally managed IHS programs continues to increase, both in dollar
    terms and as a percentage of the whole IHS budget. Tribal governments
    will control an estimated $1.6 billion of IHS programs in fiscal year
    2004, representing 53 percent of the IHS's total budget request.
    Because of this, it is critical that funding for self-governance be
    provided in a manner reflective of this. Therefore, we feel it is
    necessary to provide $12 million funding over and above the proposed
    amount of $12 million. The enacted fiscal year 2003 budget cut the
    office of Self-Governance funding by 50 percent without any notice to
    tribes.
        The President's budget includes savings of $31 million from
    administrative reductions and better management of information
    technology. The IHS proposes to achieve these savings primarily by
    reducing the use of Federal staff. IHS also plans to reduce
    administrative costs and to achieve efficiencies through the
    development, modernization and enhancement of IHS information systems.
        The National Indian Health Board and Tribal governments have long
    been concerned about ``cost-saving'' provisions contained in the
    President's Budget Request, both in fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year
    2004. The result will be the elimination of potentially hundreds of
    full-time staff at the headquarters and area levels, which would add
    new burdens to the provision of health care to American Indians and
    Alaska Natives, rather than addressing the widespread health
    disparities throughout Indian Country. We feel it is appropriate that
    the President's Management Initiatives not be implemented until Tribal
    governments have the opportunity to develop feasible alternatives.
        The President's fiscal year 2004 budget request for the Department
    of Health and Human Services (DHHS) reflects the priorities of the
    United States with regard to health and safety concerns relating to
    Homeland Security. It reflects the Administration's commitment to
    anticipating future threats to America's public health care, health
    infrastructure and human services systems. It is important to note
    that, along with the Department of Defense and Veteran's Affairs health
    systems, the Indian Health Service occupies a unique position within
    the Federal government as a direct health care provider. Therefore, we
    are requesting $50 million be added during fiscal year 2004 to help the
    Indian Health Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Tribal
    governments prepare for and respond to potential terrorist attacks,
    including increases for Data Systems Improvements and much needed funds
    to expand the capacity of tribal epidemiology centers.
        On behalf of the National Indian Health Board, I would like to
    thank the Senate Appropriation Committee--Interior subcommittee for its
    consideration of our concerns as we strive to improve the health of
    American Indian and Alaska Native people. If we are ever to reduce the
    terrible disparities between the health of American Indians and Alaska
    Natives compared to other Americans, we need to properly fund the
    Indian Health Service and we urge Congress to significantly increase
    IHS funding for fiscal year 2004. IHS and the Tribes are continuing to
    work diligently to develop health systems of sufficient quality and
    with levels of services that our people desperately need.

                                     ______

                               CULTURAL AGENCIES

       Prepared Statement of the Institute of American Indian and Alaska
                      Native Culture and Arts Development

        On behalf of the Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native
    Culture and Arts Development (IAIA), our Board of Trustees, students,
    faculty, staff and entire community, we express our enormous gratitude
    for the Subcommittee's past commitment to IAIA. Federal appropriations
    are crucial to the operations, continued success and development of the
    college and museum.

                               SUMMARY OF REQUEST

        IAIA is authorized under Public Law 99-498. Herein, we respectfully
    submit our fiscal year 2004 request, a total of $9.25 million to be
    allocated as follows:
      --$5.25 million, as supported in the President's fiscal year 2004
            Request, for strengthening operations as IAIA continues to
            mature into a four-year postsecondary institution and prepares
            for its first accreditation assessment of new four-year
            programs; and,
      --$8 million for capital construction, phased in with $4 million in
            fiscal year 2004 and $4 million in fiscal year 2005 to meet an
            $8 million federal matching requirement of the W.K. Kellogg
            Foundation for the development of an international American
            Indian, Alaska Native and indigenous lifelong learning center.

                                  INTRODUCTION

        IAIA, originally established in 1962 by Executive Order of
    President John F. Kennedy, has produced most of North America's most
    illustrious contemporary Indian artists. Founded as a Bureau of Indian
    Affairs (BIA) high school, IAIA's path has been one of steady
    evolution--from a unique high school, sharing quarters with Santa Fe's
    old Indian School, to a federally chartered four-year college, building
    its own campus and operating the American Indian Arts Museum--a
    cultural jewel in historic Santa Fe, NM.
        The Institute's founders championed freedom of expression for
    American Indian artists. Stereotypes were dispelled through bold
    creative expression and for the first time, Indian artists set their
    own artistic standards, becoming empowered by their own voices. From
    this vision, the contemporary Indian art movement was born, enriching
    Indian and non-Indian cultures alike, aesthetically and economically.
    The Institute's success is firmly grounded in the empowerment of
    American Indian and Alaska Native people in their pursuit of higher
    education, economic self-sufficiency, and the continued expression of
    their artistic creativity and cultural traditions.
        IAIA's history has not always been an easy path. The past decade in
    particular presented many difficulties due to leadership turnover and
    severe cuts in federal appropriations. Important programs were
    eliminated, student enrollment suffered and the college endowment was
    severely depleted. As a result, accreditation was threatened.
        IAIA is still working to rebuild its former strength. Through
    dedicated effort it has emerged stronger and more determined than ever
    and has won the hearts of many. A stronger working relationship with
    Congress and the OMB has been established, along with a focused
    concentration on private sector fundraising. Undertaking a design and
    build process as monies were raised for new campus construction allowed
    the Institute to celebrate a grand opening of its new campus in 2000.
    In 2001-2002 another historic landmark was reach--IAIA became a four-
    year college and was granted accreditation from the North Central
    Association of Colleges and Schools to offer Bachelor's degrees in
    Museum Studies, Creative Writing, Studio Arts, and Visual
    Communications. In 2002, IAIA celebrated its 40th Anniversary and
    gained national accolades for its history, enormous contributions to
    the larger society, and most importantly, its impact on the thousands
    of Native students it has served.

                     KEY FACTS RELEVANT TO FEDERAL FUNDING.

        Charter.--IAIA is federally chartered by Public Law 99-498. This
    law affirms and acknowledges that Native art and culture are critical
    to the nation as a whole and, consequently deems it appropriate and
    even essential for the federal government to support IAIA in advancing
    the preservation and promotion of Native arts and cultures.
        Mission.--With IAIA's unique authority and charter, its mission is
    to serve as the national center of research, training, language and
    scholarship for Native Americans and Alaska Natives, dedicated to the
    study, creative application, preservation and care of our Native arts
    and cultures. The primary goal of IAIA is to enhance knowledge and
    understanding of the cultural traditions of American Indians and Alaska
    Natives with a special focus on traditional and contemporary Native
    art. To this end, it provides a culturally based curriculum that
    combines professional skills development with an integrated liberal
    arts education.
        Funding.--As a national postsecondary institution, IAIA operations
    are funded through direct federal support and a diversified private
    sector approach to foundations, corporations, tribes, and individual
    donors. It does not receive state support for operations or student
    aid.
        Governance.--IAIA is governed by a board of trustees appointed by
    the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate, a
    majority of which must be of American Indian and Alaska Native descent.
        Educational Goals.--IAIA's educational goals are to: recruit and
    admit qualified American Indian and Alaska Native students and provide
    them with a Native-centered arts education--graduate students from the
    degree programs with demonstrated artistic and academic competency--
    focus on the needs of the individual student by providing an
    environment that encourages independent work, personal growth and
    professional development--strengthen cultural identity--and provide
    awareness of community and cultural diversity.
        Museum.--IAIA's enabling legislation also authorizes funding to the
    IAIA Museum and specifies its dual purpose of education and
    presentation. Its facilities and collections provide hands-on training
    for students and faculty and serve as an outlet to showcase exemplary
    work and ongoing connections with alumni. It provides the Institute
    with a highly visible venue for public relations, education, and
    outreach efforts, attracting over 50,000 visitors annually. It also
    houses 6,500 pieces, comprising the National Collection of Indian
    Contemporary Art and valuable artifacts from BIA collections.
        Campus.--The Rancho Viejo Partnership, Ltd. donated 140 acres to
    IAIA for the establishment of the college's permanent campus. IAIA
    developed the land infrastructure for site development and created an
    impressive master campus plan. The first phase of the new campus, which
    is nearly complete, includes several buildings: Academic and
    Administration, Cultural Center, Student Housing, Student Life Center,
    Facilities and IT Management, and the Library and Technology Center.
        Student Body.--IAIA's diverse student body represents virtually
    every state in the country. Over the years, IAIA has enrolled and
    graduated almost 4,000 members of the 558 federally recognized tribes.
    The student population is 90 percent American Indian and Alaska Native.
    It is relatively young in comparison to other tribal college student
    populations. The majority is need-based, reside on campus, and
    experience phenomenal personal and professional growth from the
    holistic framework and relevancy of the curriculum. Graduates become
    renowned artists or highly respected professionals in tribal
    communities and mainstream society.
        Tuition.--IAIA's tuition rates are similar to other community
    colleges in the Santa Fe area, but is strongly committed to assisting
    its student body access federal and private sources of financial aid.
        Performance Measures.--The college is assessed regularly by
    mainstream accreditation review committees and meets strict evaluation
    standards. It has achieved dual accreditation as a Fine Arts College by
    the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools and the National
    Association of Schools of Art and Design.
        Community Support.--IAIA is strongly supported nationally by tribes
    and Indian education and tribal organizations. This budget request has
    the unanimous support (by resolution) of the American Indian Higher
    Education Consortium, the All Indian Pueblo Council, the National
    Congress of the American Indian, and the National Indian Education
    Association.

    Budget Justifications
        After many years as a two-year college, the Institute is now
    transitioning into a four-year college of higher learning. It is in the
    process of fully developing a range of arts and culturally based degree
    programs in art, design, media arts, and digital communications. Along
    with this successful growth it is critical to recognize the challenges
    and additional associated costs, as reported to you in our budget
    requests for fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003. Actual costs of
    core operations, imperative to the four-year designation, were not
    addressed in the fiscal year 2003 budget. Through the implementation of
    an aggressive fundraising campaign, aimed at individuals, corporations,
    tribes, and private foundations, IAIA has increased its private sector
    donations. However, serious challenges exist due to the downturn in the
    economy and stock market, both of which have resulted in substantial
    investment losses for the philanthropic community.
        However, even with diversified and additional private support, it
    has not been enough to adequately supplement federal appropriations in
    addressing ``actual'' costs of operations at the Institute. This has
    forced IAIA to absorb the difference internally, posing serious
    implications for the overall health of the Institute and placing
    additional burdens on an already stringent core budget and over-
    stretched staff. Staff and faculty have not received cost of living
    increases over the past three years. Program budgets have been reduced
    by over 10 percent annually and existing staff and faculty are
    absorbing additional responsibilities. This is causing burnout, high
    staff turnover, and a depletion of IAIA's reserve/endowment fund,
    ultimately weakening core infrastructure and budget stability.
    Consistent funding streams and stable core operations are imperative to
    maintaining accreditation standing and essential to continued progress
    and success. This situation must be addressed before the next
    accreditation review in 2004. Our budget request represents the minimum
    amount necessary to address infrastructure needs, stabilize operations
    and meet other accreditation standards and criteria.

    Continuing Education Lifelong Learning Center
        The emergence of adult learners as a major constituency in American
    higher education has been one of the most dramatic changes in the
    United States in the past 25 years. Since the 1970s, major commissions
    have been established to examine lifelong learning. Their
    recommendations and findings present significant research and evidence,
    which have led to a national education agenda with a high priority on
    comprehensive lifelong learning. As a result, the Kellogg Foundation
    has established continuing education centers throughout the world,
    demonstrating their commitment to creating comprehensive lifelong
    learning models across all levels and groups of people. However, while
    Native populations have not been considered in this dialogue or agenda,
    they have some of the highest educational needs in this country.
        Through a competitive process the W.K. Kellogg Foundation recently
    selected IAIA as the designated site for the very first continuing
    education center to serve American Indian, Alaska Native and indigenous
    peoples worldwide. Planning, construction and development costs are
    projected at $22 million. The Kellogg Foundation awarded IAIA a lead
    gift of $2 million for planning, which requires a federal match of at
    least $8 million for an additional $8-10 million award from the
    Foundation. Federal cooperation is essential to the success of this
    initiative. It will exemplify a national model of excellence in
    reaching the primary goal of President Bush's Executive Order on Tribal
    Colleges and Universities--federal and private engagement in supporting
    American Indian higher education. The Institute is fully committed to
    planning for the sustainability of the Center and diversifying initial
    construction and start-up costs by engaging private, federal, state,
    and tribal partners, as the following chart specifies:

                         BREAKDOWN OF FUNDRAISING GOALS
                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Kellogg Initial Planning Award and Lead Gift...............           2
    Federal Sector.............................................           8
    New Mexico State Legislature...............................           2
    American Indian Tribes.....................................           2
    Kellogg Matching Award.....................................           8
                                                                ------------
          Total................................................          22
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        We have shared information about the Center with the key leaders in
    the Congress, federal agencies, White House, New Mexico State
    Legislature, and tribes, indigenous communities, organizations, and
    other potential national and international partners. The response has
    been incredibly favorable, as there is a collective vision that the
    Center will allow for an exponential increase in quality lifelong
    educational opportunities for our people and indigenous populations
    across the world. Our goal is to ensure that the Center will empower
    and better equip Native people to take their rightful positions in all
    aspects of the changing global society.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Last year IAIA celebrated 40 years of artistic excellence. Through
    a tireless dedication of IAIA's staff, faculty, trustees, as well as
    the critical support of President Bush, Congress, foundations and many
    individuals, we have achieved great things. This success has positioned
    the Institute to truly become a nationally prominent, internationally
    respected four-year institution of higher education. We appeal to you
    to provide the necessary support to IAIA's hard-earned momentum. The
    federal resources specified in our budget request are essential to the
    future of the Institute of American Indian Arts. Thank you for your
    serious consideration and continued support.

                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the American Association of Museums

        Chairman Burns, Senator Dorgan and distinguished members of the
    Subcommittee, the American Association of Museums (AAM) is pleased to
    submit testimony concerning the fiscal year 2004 budgets 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 organization that represents
    and addresses the needs of the broad range of the museum community to
    enhance their ability to serve the public. AAM disseminates information
    on current standards and best practices and provides professional
    development for museum professionals to ensure that museums have the
    capacity to contribute to life-long education in its broadest sense and
    to protect and preserve our shared cultural heritage. Since it's
    founding in 1906, AAM has grown to more than 15,800 members across the
    United States--over 10,000 individual museum professionals and
    volunteers, nearly 3,000 institutions, and 2,300 corporate members.
        The museum community has enjoyed a positive and productive working
    partnership with both the NEA and NEH for many years. Whether they have
    worked in conjunction with the Institute of Museum and Library Services
    or on their own, the contributions of the NEA and NEH to the vitality
    of America's museums and the public services they provide to our
    communities can not be underestimated. These two agencies have provided
    invaluable support to America's museums since their inception, and we
    fully support them and the good work they do for the American people.
        Consequently, we view the proposed fiscal year 2004 budgets for the
    NEA and NEH with a mixture of optimism and disappointment. We
    appreciate the Administration's strong support for the National
    Endowment for the Humanities and fully support the President's request
    of $152 million for NEH in fiscal year 2004 but we are disappointed by
    the decision to keep NEA funding essentially flat at $117.5 million.
        As the committee knows, the core of the NEH request is an increase
    of $25 million to expand a special initiative begun last year entitled
    We the People. We fully support this initiative which is designed to
    advance understanding of American history, culture, and civics. We
    believe, however, that the arts are as integral to American history,
    culture and civics as the humanities and we are disappointed the
    administration chose not to reinforce the power of We the People by
    providing additional funds to the National Endowment for the Arts to
    help broaden public access to and understanding of our rich artistic
    heritage as well.
        We recognize that we are in the midst of a national crisis both at
    home and abroad and that difficult budget decisions need to be made,
    but we urge the committee to consider the economic, educational and
    social return even a modest increase in the federal investment in the
    arts and humanities would bring to the people we all serve.
        It would be incorrect to suggest that artistic and cultural events
    would cease without funding from the federal government. However, we
    are convinced that America would not have the rich, diverse and vibrant
    artistic community we have in this country if it were not for the
    support both large and small organizations have received from the NEA
    over the last 35 years. The recognition that comes from being awarded
    NEA grant funding is invaluable to an organization. It helps them
    leverage additional private support--NEA requires grant recipients to
    match all awards up to a ratio of four to one--that allows
    organizations to continue to grow and mature long after the federal
    money is gone. Dollar for dollar, private funding simply cannot match
    the impact of even a modest amount of government funding. Even leaving
    aside the educational and social value of strengthening the federal
    investment in the arts, both of which are substantial, the economic
    value speaks for itself. The nonprofit arts industry alone generates
    $53.2 billion annually in economic activity, supports 2.09 million jobs
    and returns $5.6 billion to the federal government in income taxes. NEA
    seed money has helped make this possible.
        In his testimony before the committee on March 13, NEA Chairman
    Dana Gioia stated that one of his five primary goals for the NEA was to
    ``reclaim its leadership role in American culture.'' He said, the
    Endowment:

        ``. . . must enter a new era, confident of its civic
    responsibilities in a society overwhelmed by commercialized electronic
    mass entertainment. The NEA must enlarge the conversation of American
    public life to include the arts. It must promote, preserve, and
    celebrate the best of our culture, old and new, classic and
    contemporary. It must reacquaint America with its own best self.''

        For, as he so rightly put it, ``nothing less is worthy of our
    nation.''
        A budget of $170 million would enable the NEA to take important
    strides towards reclaiming its leadership role and expand its ability
    to support and promote creativity in the arts in America. In addition,
    a $170 million budget allows the endowment to fully fund the Challenge
    America initiative. By fully funding this initiative, the Arts
    Endowment can use the program's vast potential through grants for arts
    education, youth-at-risk projects, cultural preservation, community
    arts partnerships and improved access to the arts for all Americans, to
    use the strength of the arts to enhance America's communities.
        Mr. Chairman, the simple fact is that culture is what defines,
    builds and binds our communities. In cities and towns across America
    one finds numerous examples of arts, culture and the humanities being
    used as educational tools, economic engines, sources of civic pride,
    and catalysts for fostering a greater sense of community identity and
    multicultural understanding. To ensure that America continues to have a
    strong, vibrant, and viable artistic and cultural community that future
    generations can enjoy and learn from tomorrow requires a prudent and
    forward thinking investment in our artistic and cultural institutions
    today. We ask the committee to make that investment and support a
    budget of $170 million for the NEA for fiscal year 2004.
        We also ask the committee to support the administration's request
    of $152 million for the National Endowment for the Humanities. The NEH
    plays an important role in the American experience. In fact, 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. In his testimony
    to the committee on March 13th, NEH Chairman Bruce Cole made a very
    compelling case for supporting the NEH's budget request for fiscal year
    2004. He said:

        ``At this critical time, it is urgent that Americans understand the
    principles, events, and ideas that have defined our past and shape our
    future. Democracy, unlike other forms of government, is not self-
    perpetuating. Its principles and practices must be cultivated in order
    to be transmitting and sustained.''

        Yet numerous studies and reports show that students in K-12, and
    even college, have a poor, or at best confused, understanding of our
    nation's history and the ideals and principles of democracy upon which
    it was founded. The NEH is well positioned to help redress these
    deficiencies.
        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. With more than two-
    thirds of our nation's K-12 curriculum dedicated to the humanities,
    including subjects such as reading, literature, history and civics,
    continuing this support is crucial to addressing our nation's needs in
    education and correcting the problem of ``American amnesia'' as
    Chairman Cole put it.
        NEH's impact, however, reaches beyond the classroom and lecture
    hall by engaging the public in the humanities through exhibits in
    museums, libraries, and historical organizations; the varied programs
    of the state humanities councils and a variety of other activities. 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 high level of trust can
    in part be attributed to the careful research that goes into developing
    museum exhibitions and programs. NEH grants, in addition to being
    invaluable in supporting efforts to preserve and protect our vast
    cultural, historic, and artistic resources held in trust for the
    American people in our museums, are also invaluable in supporting
    efforts to research those treasures and put them into historical
    context. An object or artifact without context tells no story and
    teaches nothing.
        As with the NEA, a modest investment through the NEH produces rich
    dividends. NEH seed money for high quality projects and programs, and
    NEH's reputation for scholarly excellence, leverages millions of
    dollars in private support for humanities projects and brings the
    humanities alive for millions of Americans each year--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.
        Federal support for the humanities has historically received
    bipartisan support in Congress, from the Endowment's creation in 1965
    to the present day. Every American President has said that the
    humanities play an essential role in American life and are worthy of
    federal support and this administration is no exception, as evidenced
    by their strong support for the We The People initiative. We strongly
    support this program and the NEH in general and ask the committee to
    fully fund the administration's budget request of $152 million for
    fiscal year 2004 for this extremely valuable agency.
        Mr. Chairman, we firmly believe that the NEA and the NEH are both
    wonderful resources and leaders for the American people in their
    respective areas. The museum community is proud to partner with both
    agencies to provide high quality programs and services for the people
    we all serve.
        The NEA and NEH are not the same entities they were almost a decade
    ago. The agencies have reformed and refocused their programs on serving
    public and community needs. It is the time to reward these efforts and
    give the Endowments the resources to fully embrace this new phase of
    their history, particularly at a time when all Americans need to
    understand the principles of their own and others' cultures in greater
    depth. 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 their
    technology and internal administration 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 though to
    consider carefully the good work being done by the NEA and NEH for the
    American people and do what you can to fund these urgently needed
    increases.

                                     ______

                  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 2004 appropriations for the National Endowment for the Arts
    at an increased funding level of $170 million, with the increase used
    to support the creation, preservation, and presentation of the arts and
    for the Challenge America initiative.
        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.
        For 15 years, local government arts funding has been growing
    steadily, staying ahead of inflation and even showing growth during the
    recession years of the early 1990's. This year, however, we saw the
    first aggregate decrease in local government funding for the arts in
    more than 15 years, to an estimated $771 million--a drop of about 3.5
    percent.
        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. Nearly all of them 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 & Economic Prosperity
        In 2002, Americans for the Arts released the results of a national
    economic impact study measuring the nonprofit arts industry in 91
    American communities during 2000-2001. The diverse communities range in
    population (4,000 to 3 million), geography (Anchorage to Miami), and
    type (rural to large urban). Local arts agencies-public and private
    organizations working to increase community access to and participation
    in the arts-served as local research partners, collecting detailed
    expenditure data from 3,000 nonprofit arts organizations (full range
    from theater to museums) and 40,000 audience members. The project
    economists, from the Georgia Institute of Technology, customized input/
    output analysis models for each of the 91 communities to provide
    specific and reliable economic impact data about their nonprofit arts
    industry.
        The Arts & Economic Prosperity study documents in unprecedented
    scope and detail the key role played by the nonprofit arts industry in
    strengthening our nation's economy. It dramatically alters the
    perception that the arts are luxuries--worth supporting in prosperous
    times but hard to justify when the economy is struggling. At a time
    when governments at all levels are making tough budget choices, this
    study sends an important message--that support for the arts does not
    come at the expense of economic development. In 1994, Americans for the
    Arts published its first economic impact study and the results from
    that study became the most frequently used statistics in Congress and
    other arenas to demonstrate the value of the arts to our communities,
    our states, and our nation. In 2000, we set out to update those numbers
    with a new and larger study. Not only did we want to measure the impact
    of spending by nonprofit arts organizations, but also to quantify the
    economic impact of event-related spending by their audiences.
        By all measures, the results are impressive. The nonprofit arts
    industry generates $134 billion in economic activity every year--$53.2
    billion in spending by arts organizations and an additional $80.8
    billion in event-related spending by arts audiences. This economic
    activity has a significant national impact. This economic activity
    supports 4.9 million full-time equivalent jobs--a greater percentage of
    the U.S. workforce than is employed as accountants, lawyers,
    physicians, or computer programmers. America's nonprofit arts industry
    also generates $24.4 billion in federal, state, and local government
    revenues combined annually. By comparison, federal, state, and local
    governments collectively spend less than $3 billion on support for the
    arts each year-a financial return of more than 8-to-1.
    Growth of the Nonprofit Arts Industry since 1994
        The nonprofit arts are a growth industry in the United States.
    Spending by arts organizations increased from $36.8 billion in 1992 to
    $53.2 billion in 2000 (45 percent).

    Measuring Ancillary Spending of Nonprofit Arts Audiences
        The nonprofit arts, unlike most industries, leverage significant
    amounts of event-related spending by their audiences. Attendance at
    arts events generates related commerce for local businesses such as
    hotels, restaurants, and retail stores. For example, when patrons
    attend a performing arts event, they may park their car in a toll
    garage, purchase dinner at a restaurant, eat dessert after the show,
    and return home and pay the babysitter. This spending generated an
    estimated $80.8 billion of valuable revenue for local merchants and
    their communities in 2000--an average of $22.87 per person, per event,
    not including the price of admission.

    Cultural Tourism: Out-of-Towners Spend More
        In addition to spending data, survey respondents were asked to
    provide their home zip codes, enabling researchers to determine which
    attendees were local (i.e., reside within the county in which the event
    occurred) and which were non-local (reside outside the county). Local
    attendees spent an average of $21.75 per event, while non-local
    attendees spent $38.05 per event (74.9 percent more). As would be
    expected, travelers spent significantly more in the categories of
    lodging, meals, retail, and transportation. These data demonstrate that
    when a community invests in the arts, it stands to harness significant
    economic rewards.

                             NONPROFIT ARTS ATTENDEES SPEND AN AVERAGE OF $22.87 PER PERSON
                                          [Not Including the Cost of Admission]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Non-resident
                           Category of expense                         Resident \1\   \1\  attendees     All arts
                                                                         attendees                       attendees
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Meals and Refreshments..........................................           $9.99          $15.12          $10.33
    Souvenirs and Gifts.............................................            3.49            4.01            3.51
    Transportation..................................................            2.39            5.74            2.63
    Overnight Lodging (one night only)..............................            2.13            7.80            2.55
    Other...........................................................            3.75            5.38            3.85
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          Total Per Person Spending.................................           21.75           38.05          22.87
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Residents live in the county in which the event took place; non-residents live outside the county.

        When governments reduce their support for the arts, they are not
    cutting frills. They are under-cutting a nonprofit industry that is a
    cornerstone of tourism and downtown revitalization. When governments
    increase their support for the arts, they are generating tax revenues,
    jobs, and the creative energies that underlie much of what makes
    America so extraordinary.
        This message is equally important for the private sector to hear.
    The nonprofit arts, unlike most industries, leverage significant event-
    related spending by their audiences, with non-local audiences spending
    75 percent more than their local counterparts. The arts attract
    visitors downtown and extend the business day: restaurants add dinner
    service, garages stay open until midnight, and stores draw more
    customers.
        When we hear talk about reducing support for the arts, we should
    ask: Who will make up for the lost economic activity? Who will attract
    tourists to our community? Who will vitalize our downtowns seven nights
    per week? Who will provide the 8-to-1 return on investment that the
    arts provide to federal, state, and local treasuries? Who will replace
    the jobs that the arts support? The expression, ``the arts mean
    business,'' is an economic reality that can no longer be dismissed.

    Impact of NEA Grants on the Economy
        Federal arts grants administered by the National Endowment for the
    Arts are required to be matched by the private sector or with state and
    local government funds. As a result, NEA grants help leverage
    additional funds, which significantly contribute to our nation's robust
    economic nonprofit arts industry. NEA's matching requirement also
    provides incentives for state and local governments, as well as private
    donors, to maintain or increase their level of funding support.
        As important NEA grantees, local arts agencies are key local
    partners to the federal government in improving community life, from
    offering after-school arts education programs to generating economic
    development through increased tourism, urban renewal, and attracting
    new businesses. We urge this subcommittee to make a commitment to
    support community building and to secure the economic growth of the
    nonprofit arts industry by appropriating $170 million for the National
    Endowment for the Arts.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Association of American Universities, the
         American Council on Education, National Association of State
                      Universities and Land-Grant Colleges

        The Association of American Universities, the American Council on
    Education, and the National Association of State Universities and Land-
    Grant Colleges appreciate this opportunity to submit for the record
    testimony in support of the National Endowment for the Humanities
    (NEH). Through our combined memberships, our associations represent
    virtually all of the public and private research universities in the
    country--institutions that educate large numbers of the nation's
    undergraduate and graduate students and conduct the bulk of the
    country's basic research and scholarship. We respectfully request that
    the Subcommittee provide the President's request of $152 million for
    NEH in fiscal year 2004.
        The fiscal year 2004 request represents an increase of $27.1
    million (21.6 percent) over fiscal year 2003 and would be the first
    significant increase in over a decade. The increase would be dedicated
    to the ``We the People'' history initiative announced by the President
    on September 17, 2002. The goal of the initiative is to deepen
    Americans' knowledge and understanding of our national heritage.
    Because all divisions and programs would be eligible to participate in
    the initiative, more funds would be available for ongoing core
    programs--a goal long supported by our three associations. The ``We the
    People'' initiative will also involve an expansion of the NEH Summer
    Seminars and Institutes program, and enhanced support for American
    Editions and Reference Works, fundamental scholarly resources for
    understanding our identity as a nation.
        Given current world events and the war on terrorism, it is more
    important than ever that Americans have a good understanding of
    history. Several surveys over the last few years have emphasized both
    students' and the public's lack of knowledge about our nation's
    history.
      --A recent National Assessment of Education Progress test found that
            more than half of high school seniors thought that Germany,
            Italy or Japan was our ally in World War II.
      --A Columbia Law School survey found that 35 percent of voting-age
            Americans thought that Karl Marx's dogma, ``From each according
            to his ability, to each according to his needs,'' was in the
            United States Constitution. Another 34 percent responded that
            they weren't sure.
        These findings highlight the need for the ``We the People''
    initiative. University students all too quickly become working young
    adults, and their assumptions and attitudes are carried over into
    society at large. As NEH Chairman Bruce Cole has stated, ``The
    principles of democratic self-government cannot be affirmed unless they
    are understood and remembered. Surely we diminish our young people's
    lives and weaken our nation if students do not learn how the society in
    which they live came to be.''
        Many of NEH's projects support efforts to preserve and expand our
    knowledge and understanding of our history and culture. Such projects
    are unlikely to be funded by any single state or institution because of
    their scale and magnitude. Only an agency like NEH, with its federal
    funds and broad vision can support such projects, which include
    bibliographies, encyclopedias, and the preservation of papers of great
    leaders, such as presidents George Washington, Ulysses S. Grant, and
    Dwight Eisenhower, and the papers and writings of Frederick Douglass,
    Benjamin Franklin, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lewis and Clark, Thomas
    Edison, and Mark Twain. NEH has also supported educational television
    documentaries such as Ken Bums's The Civil War, The West, and Jazz, and
    biographical films on Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Charles
    Lindbergh, and George C. Marshall.
        History and culture is brought alive in other ways as well. At the
    University of Virginia, NEH grants have helped to support the ``Valley
    of the Shadow'' project (http://www.iath.virginia.edu/vshadow2n), an
    archive of documents, images, maps and records for two communities, one
    Northern and one Southern, during the Civil War. The project is a
    hypermedia archive of thousands of sources for the period before,
    during, and after the Civil War for Augusta County, Virginia, and
    Franklin County, Pennsylvania. Those sources include newspapers,
    letters, diaries, photographs, maps, church records, population census,
    agricultural census, and military records. Students can explore every
    dimension of the conflict and write their own histories, reconstructing
    the life stories of women, African Americans, farmers, politicians,
    soldiers, and families. The project is intended for secondary schools,
    community colleges, libraries, and universities. Shepherding and
    nurturing such efforts--in essence, preserving our heritage--is the
    government's trust and must remain at the federal level.
        NEH support often leverages state, local, and private philanthropic
    investment and increases public engagement with the humanities. The
    imprimatur of NEH funding, awarded on the basis of merit as determined
    by rigorous peer review, has a multiplier effect, increasing public
    participation in humanistic endeavors and attracting additional funds.
    NEH challenge grants require $3 or $4 in matching funds for each
    federal dollar, thereby generating more than $1.2 billion in nonfederal
    support for U.S. libraries, colleges, museums, and other eligible
    institutions.
        MATRIX, the Center for Humane Arts, Letters, and Social Sciences
    Online at Michigan State University, is one example of a project
    leveraged through NEH support. MATRIX is devoted to the application of
    new technologies in humanities and social science teaching and
    research. In addition to serving MSU and its faculty and academic
    units, MATRIX is the home of H-Net, which houses and supports over 100
    interactive listservs edited by scholars in North America, Europe,
    Africa, and the Pacific. MATRIX has received a very high level of
    external funding from federal grant agencies such as NSF, NEH, Ford,
    Mellon, USAID, and has very high on- and off-campus visibility, which
    includes international recognition and extensive collaborations with
    other countries, especially in western and southern Africa. Its members
    collaborate extensively with other disciplines, including those outside
    of the humanities. Notable academic accomplishments include projects
    providing educational access (e.g. for women in Africa), content for
    schools (e.g. Civics on-Line), and educational outreach (work with off-
    campus groups from other countries and local school districts). Further
    information can be found at http://www.matrix.msu.edu/newmatrix.
        The creation of knowledge is one of the central missions of
    research universities. It permeates the institutions in ways seen
    nowhere else. NEH funds humanities research that may not be immediately
    accessible to the broader public, but which builds a foundation from
    which Americans of all ages will ultimately benefit. As the results of
    NEH-supported research become part of the learning environment, our
    overall knowledge base increases and new generations of scholars find
    fresh questions to explore.
        One example of this is the Digital Scriptorium at the University of
    California, Berkeley. The project was conceived as an image database of
    dated and datable medieval and renaissance manuscripts and was intended
    to unite scattered resources into an international tool for teaching
    and scholarly research. It has evolved into a general catalog designed
    for the use of paleographers, codicologists, art historians, textual
    scholars, and other researchers. It allows scholars to verify with
    their own eyes cataloguing information about places and dates of
    origin, scripts, artistic styles, and quality. It documents visually
    even those manuscripts that traditionally would have been unlikely
    candidates for reproduction. It provides public access to fragile
    materials otherwise available only within libraries. Because it is web-
    based, it encourages interaction between the knowledge of scholars and
    the holdings of libraries to build an ever-enriched and corrected flow
    of information.
        Another important role NEH plays is in the area of preservation.
    Again, such efforts are of substantial benefit to the entire nation but
    are unlikely to be funded by any individual state or institution. NEH's
    Newspaper Program has supported newspaper preservation projects in each
    of the fifty states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the
    U.S. Virgin Islands. Cornell University has used NEH funds to
    coordinate the identification and preservation of 8,075 aging volumes
    on American agricultural history and rural life published between 1820
    and 1945 and held by land grant universities in California, Florida,
    Nebraska, Texas, Arizona, Arkansas, Hawaii, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana,
    and New York. The preservation of brittle books and newspapers assist
    scholars in producing source material accessible to all Americans, from
    legal scholars to political scientists to schoolchildren.
        Research universities, small private institutions, state colleges,
    and community colleges use NEH grants to conserve and nurture our
    American heritage, bring the humanities to the community, expand
    knowledge, and educate the next generation of Americans. NEH-supported
    summer seminars and institutes provide an opportunity for high school
    and college teachers to spend six to eight weeks learning from and
    working with leading scholars in the humanities. Summer seminars and
    institutes provide an exhilarating boost to the participants,
    regenerate their enthusiasm, and facilitate the transfer of new
    knowledge. This summer, teachers will have the opportunity to study
    ethics at the end of life at the University of Utah, Afro-Hispanic
    literature at the University of Missouri at Columbia, science and
    values at the University of Pittsburgh, and Aristotle's writings on
    meaning and thought at San Diego State University.
        The NEH has enjoyed bipartisan support throughout its 38-year
    history and has been the most important source of federal support for
    humanistic endeavors in the United States. By deepening knowledge of
    our national heritage, the ``We the People'' initiative will give
    Americans a better understanding of how major events of our history
    reflect certain fundamental and enduring ideas. AAU, ACE and NASULGC
    strongly support this initiative, and again urge the Subcommittee to
    provide the $152 million that the President requested for NEH in fiscal
    year 2004.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Federation of State Humanities Councils

        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate this
    opportunity to present written testimony on behalf of the state
    humanities councils, the state-based programs of the National Endowment
    for the Humanities. I am Jamie Doggett, chair of the board of the
    Federation of State Humanities Councils. My husband and I are ranchers
    in Montana, where I served three four-year terms as a governor's
    appointee on the Montana Committee for the Humanities. I am writing in
    support of the Administration's fiscal year 2004 Budget Request for the
    National Endowment for the Humanities which seeks funding of $152
    million, including an increase of $25 million for the exciting new We
    the People (WTP) initiative on American history, culture and civics.
    The Administration's fiscal year 2004 budget request for NEH also
    includes the critically important continuation of $31.829 million in
    funding for state councils through the Federal-State Partnership line.
    We are pleased that this will be supplemented by significant resources
    we anticipate will be available to councils through the new WTP
    funding.
        The state humanities councils are located in each of the 50 states,
    Washington DC and the U.S. commonwealths and territories. Since their
    creation nearly three decades ago, the state councils have been
    promoting the use of history and literature to connect individuals with
    each other and with the life of their community. Working with dedicated
    historians and other scholars and professionals, the councils have
    helped communities understand and preserve their local history, define
    and distinguish among conflicting values, and undertake dialogue that
    can help address real problems. Notwithstanding the widening gap
    between their extremely modest funding level and the dramatic and
    consistently growing need and demand for their programs, state councils
    tirelessly seek to utilize the resources available to them as
    efficiently as possible in order to respond effectively to the demands
    of the communities they serve. Unfortunately, councils find it
    increasingly difficult to fulfill many of the burgeoning requests they
    receive.

                            WE THE PEOPLE INITIATIVE

        All of us involved with this vital work recognize now more than
    ever that it is crucial for Americans to understand our own history,
    culture and system of government before we are able to engage
    meaningfully with nations and groups with different traditions and
    values. Thus, councils have responded enthusiastically to the NEH's
    expanded WTP initiative focused on broadening and deepening Americans'
    understanding of our nation's history and culture, for its thrust has
    for some time been a primary concern of state councils, as reflected in
    the Illinois council director's description of her council's ``enduring
    commitment to promoting greater public understanding of our history in
    communities and venues, large and small, across the state.'' It is
    illuminating to consider the tremendous scope of activities already
    underway across the country which typify the sense and spirit of WTP,
    with all state councils looking forward to additional resources which
    will allow them to build on what has already been accomplished.

    History and Heritage Programs
        Because they are deeply committed to responding to community needs,
    councils pursue a variety of approaches to promoting knowledge and
    understanding of American history and culture. Speakers Bureaus, a
    stable of speakers on a variety of topics who are available to do local
    programming for a minimal fee, are a long-standing and popular vehicle
    used by councils to deliver programs and expertise to locations
    throughout their states, especially distant rural areas. The Montana
    council hosts a Speakers Bureau with about half of its 100 programs
    focused on history including Native American studies, regional history,
    Lewis and Clark, and ``living history.'' In Oklahoma, ``Territory
    Speakers'' engage public audiences on topics such as ``The Meaning of
    the American Revolution'' and ``Shaped By Adversity: The Depression
    Generation.'' Iowa offers a rich array of Speakers Bureau programs
    including ``The Underground Railroad in Iowa,'' ``The 30s and 40s
    Depression and WWII: How Did We Cope?'' and ``Early Iowa Pioneer
    Women,'' with librarians and historical societies telling the council
    that these are some of the best programs their institutions offer. The
    council reports that requests for these programs has soared, exhausting
    the budget well before the end of the year and necessitating limiting
    organization requests. In addition to allowing expansion of Speaker
    Bureaus programs to a level sufficient to meet demand, many councils
    seek new funding to support development of new WTP-focused speakers
    bureaus, some with a particular emphasis on reaching young people.
        Several councils sponsor chautauqua, or ``living history,''
    programs which feature portrayals of historical characters. A group of
    councils, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Missouri, Kansas, and North and South
    Dakota, have joined together in the ``Great Plains Chautauqua,'' a
    program conducted under a tent in local communities throughout the
    participating states. For the next four years the theme of the Great
    Plains Chautauqua is ``From Sea to Shining Sea,'' an examination of the
    westward expansion of the new American nation. They will feature
    scholars portraying historical figures such as William Clark,
    Sacagewea, York and Dolley Madison, who will participate in week-long
    residencies in rural communities and help audiences understand the
    theme in all its complexity. Great Plains Chautauqua programs draw
    thousands of attendees from throughout the local area; current resource
    constraints preclude councils from offering chautauqua programs in more
    than one community per year in their states.
        The Nevada council has an especially vibrant chautauqua program.
    The ``Great Basin Chautauqau'' is held on five consecutive nights in
    Reno and draws 1,000 people each night. The 2002 theme was ``The
    Founders Generation'' and for 2003 it will be ``The Lewis and Clark
    Expedition.'' In-state Chautauquans usually become a part of the
    council's ``Humanities on the Road'' speakers bureau. The council also
    developed their ``Young Chautauqua Program,'' which received a Coming
    Up Taller Award from the President's Committee on the Arts and
    Humanities, as a creative approach to the teaching of history based on
    the research-intensive model of the adult chautauqua.
        A number of councils have developed programming with a particular
    emphasis on an understanding of state or local history. The Virginia
    humanities council has launched the African American Heritage Program,
    an educational and economic resource for the state jointly developed
    with the Virginia Tourism Corporation. The program includes a database
    of more than 400 significant historic sites, a trails program
    comprising publications and marketing to encourage the public to visit
    the sites, and a grant program supporting organizations involved in
    interpretation of Virginia's African American Heritage as well as the
    goals of other components of the initiative. The Michigan council co-
    sponsors ``Michigan's Great Outdoors Culture Tour'' featuring 24
    performing artists and cultural interpreters offering more than 110
    programs in scenic settings such as parks, campgrounds, and historic
    sites in northern Michigan. The family-friendly events bring to life
    the rich culture and heritage of people, places, and traditions of
    Michigan's northwoods and Great Lakes. The Humanities Council of
    Washington D.C. has inaugurated ``Soul of the City,'' a three-day urban
    leadership development seminar encompassing hands-on projects about
    Washington's neighborhoods taught through the lens of history, ethics,
    literature and public spaces.
        Councils use their regrant programs to encourage programming done
    by other institutions, frequently providing greater outreach and access
    and encouraging institutional capacity-building. The South Carolina
    humanities council supported a series of forums focused on the story of
    Reconstruction history in Beaufort County, sponsored by the
    Reconstruction Heritage Partnership, a coalition of local institutions
    and governments. The Illinois council with a notable depth of
    programming in the area of American history and culture, has a broad
    cross-section of regrants and other activities which it has organized
    under headings such as Inventing America/Becoming America, America at
    Work, American Mirror/American Memories, and American Challenges/
    American Issues. In Wisconsin, the council has supported development of
    a 13-week series of radio programs combining oral histories and
    contemporary commentary to create living memories of Wisconsin. The
    director of the Nevada council has observed that some of the best
    humanities programs in the state are developed through their regrant
    program, with additional federal funds allowing them to create a
    program that would ``roughly match the growing need.'' The Florida
    council director speaks of the need to triple their regrant program to
    meet the needs of the 17 million people in their diverse, complex
    state.

    Support for K-12 Teachers and Students
        All of us recognize that teachers are at the frontline of
    addressing the challenge of understanding who we are and where we have
    been. The state humanities councils, two-thirds of which conduct either
    summer institutes or one- or two-day teacher workshops, have
    established these programs to provide high-quality support and
    assistance to teachers in the humanities, recognizing that it is these
    disciplines which provide children with the analytic and verbal skills
    they need to participate in democratic society. The Idaho council, for
    example, has sponsored annual summer institutes for teachers on topics
    ranging from the Bill of Rights to Idaho political history since WWII,
    with this year's interdisciplinary institute for literature and history
    devoted to the theme of ``John Steinbeck and the Art of Social
    Engagement.'' This summer the New Jersey council is offering institutes
    for K-12 teachers on ``A Reconsidered Past: New Scholarship in African
    American History'' and ``Religious Diversity in America.'' The Georgia
    humanities council director captured eloquently the unique experience
    these institutes provide teachers in referring to letters received from
    attendees at the civil rights institute the council co-hosted last
    summer. He mentions participating teachers characterizing it as a life-
    changing experience, observing this happens because they ``came into
    contact with heroism, sacrifice, [and] fundamental values of humanity
    for which some were willing to give their all . . .''
        The Nebraska humanities council has chosen to take advantage of
    what they refer to as the ``teachable moment'' provided by the Lewis
    and Clark Bicentennial. The council has made a four-year commitment to
    programming that prepares K-12 teachers to benefit from the newest
    scholarship on the Lewis and Clark Expedition with summer seminars, in-
    school workshops for school districts, and a state-wide video
    conference for school and public librarians on the best materials for
    acquisition.
        For nearly 20 years, the Louisiana humanities council has been
    funding intensive four-week graduate seminars for elementary, middle
    and high school teachers, with the potential to affect the quality of
    teaching for 78,000 students annually. A significant number of these
    seminars have focused on American history, including four seminars on
    the U.S. Constitution. Among the offerings this summer are seminars on
    the Bicentennial of the Louisiana Purchase.
        The Indiana council has focused on re-designing the customary
    residential teacher institute to take advantage of technology as a
    delivery system for content. They have created an internet tool which
    provides teachers with lesson plans tied to state academic standards
    and information about rich humanities resources from cultural,
    academic, and library sources around the state.
        Eager to assist teachers interested in providing students with
    meaningful and engaging material, several state councils are working in
    partnership with National History Day (NHD), the national year-long
    classroom-based education program which engages students in grades 6-12
    in a process of discovery and interpretation of historical topics
    grounded in research. State councils both serve as state affiliates for
    National History Day and provide sustaining funding to other
    organizations in that role. The Maryland Humanities Council, which is
    the NHD state affiliate, views the program as an important vehicle for
    invigorating history education in the secondary grades. Crippling
    cutbacks in state support for NHD programs has constrained
    participation by many schools and the federal funding provided through
    state councils is often the only source of support for this and other
    similar high-quality programming devoted to teaching and learning about
    our history and heritage.

                       THE ONGOING NEED FOR NEW RESOURCES

        In addition to expanding current programs and activities and
    pursuing new opportunities afforded by the new funding provided through
    the WTP initiative, councils continue to require funding for other core
    programs, many of which are targeted at audiences otherwise overlooked.
    For instance, several councils, such as Georgia, Maryland and
    Wisconsin, are grappling with the challenge of serving immigrant
    communities, a growing audience throughout the country Additional
    funding would allow the Oklahoma council to develop programming
    specifically addressed to the state's Hispanic population which has
    grown 256 percent since 1990.
        In his testimony concerning the Administration's fiscal year 2004
    budget request, NEH Chairman Bruce Cole acknowledged the important role
    of state councils as the ``delivery system'' for high-quality
    humanities programming, noting that the request incorporates
    significant support for local and statewide projects on American
    history, culture, and civics sponsored by the 56 state humanities
    councils, essential NEH partners who will help to ensure that We the
    People reaches throughout every state and territory of the nation.
    Although even in challenging economic circumstances councils work to
    raise resources from state and private sources, federal funding is a
    crucial catalyst for council activities and efforts both as part of the
    WTP initiative or more generally.
        Thank you for your continuing support for the work of the state
    councils and NEH and for your consideration of our endorsement of the
    Administration's fiscal year 2004 request for $152 million for the NEH,
    including the $25 million for the We the People initiative.

           LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Abraham, Hon. Spencer, Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
      Department of Energy...........................................   107
        Prepared statement...........................................   111
        Summary statement............................................   109
    African Wildlife Foundation, prepared statement..................   207
    Alaska:
        Department of Fish and Game, prepared statement..............   174
        Native Health Board, prepared statement......................   460
    Alliance to Save Energy, prepared statement......................   392
    Allison Transmission Division of General Motors, Indianapolis,
      IN, prepared statement.........................................   395
    American:
        Association of Museums, prepared statements................207, 472
        Bird Conservancy, prepared statement.........................   207
        Council on Education, prepared statement.....................   477
        Forest and Paper Association, prepared statement.............   349
        Gas Association, prepared statement..........................   398
        Geological Institute, prepared statement.....................   243
        Hiking Society, prepared statement...........................   212
        Indian Graduate Center, prepared statement...................   265
        Indian Higher Education Consortium, prepared statement.......   266
        Iron and Steel Institute, prepared statement.................   400
        Public Power Association, prepared statement.................   402
        Society for Microbiology, prepared statement.................   246
        Sportfishing Association, prepared statement.................   351
        Veterinary Medical Association, prepared statement...........   207
        Zoo and Aquarium Association, prepared statement.............   207
    Americans for:
        National Parks, prepared statement...........................   210
        Our Heritage and Recreation, prepared statement..............   211
        The Arts, prepared statement.................................   474
    Anza-Borrego Foundation, prepared statement......................   348
    Appalachian:
        Mountain Club, prepared statement............................   354
        Trail Conference, prepared statement.........................   356
    Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation,
      prepared statement.............................................   269
    Association of:
        American Universities, prepared statement....................   477
        Navajo Community Controlled School Boards, prepared statement   271
    Audubon, prepared statement......................................   362
        Florida, prepared statement..................................   215
        New York, prepared statement.................................   340

    Bear Trust International, prepared statement.....................   205
    Bennett, Senator Robert F., U.S. Senator from Utah:
        Opening statement............................................     8
        Questions submitted..........................................   102
    Biomass Energy Research Association, prepared statements.......403, 408
    Bob Lawrence & Associates, Inc., prepared statement..............   406
    Boone and Crockett Club, prepared statement......................   205
    Bosworth, Dale, Chief, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture:
        Opening statement............................................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................    14
        Summary statement............................................    11
    Bowhunting Preservation Alliance, prepared statement.............   205
    Buckmasters American Deer Foundation, prepared statement.........   205
    Bureau of Economic Geology, The University of Texas at Austin,
      prepared statement.............................................   411
    Burns, Senator Conrad, U.S. Senator from Montana:
        Opening statements.......................................1, 57, 107
        Prepared statement...........................................    58
        Questions submitted by......................................86, 141
    Byrd, Senator Robert C., U.S. Senator from West Virginia:
        Opening statement............................................   121
        Questions submitted by.......................................   157

    California:
        Government and Private Sector Coalition for Operation Clean
          Air (OCA), prepared statement..............................   416
        Industry and Government Central California Ozone Study (CCOS)
          Coalition, prepared statement..............................   216
    Campbell, Senator Ben Nighthorse, U.S. Senator from Colorado:
        Opening statement............................................     5
        Questions submitted by.......................................    39
    Campfire Club of America, prepared statement.....................   205
    Caterpillar Inc., prepared statement.............................   413
    Center for Advanced Separation Technologies, prepared statement..   417
    Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center, prepared statement.   339
    Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, prepared statement...................   463
    Chugach Regional Resources Commission, prepared statement........   274
    Citizens for Mojave National Park, prepared statement............   218
    City of Kansas City, MO, prepared statement......................   176
    Civil War Preservation Trust, prepared statement.................   219
    Coal Utilization Research Council (CURC), prepared statement.....   420
    Coalition of Northeastern Governors, prepared statement..........   423
    Colorado River:
        Basin Salinity Control Forum, prepared statement.............   163
        Board of California, prepared statement......................   165
    Confederated Tribes of the:
        Grand Ronde Community of Oregon, prepared statement..........   277
        Warm Springs Reservation, prepared statement.................   278
    Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, prepared statement.........   205
    Conservation:
        Force, prepared statement....................................   205
        International, prepared statement............................   207
        Trust Fund Coalition, prepared statement.....................   342
    Council of Annette Islands Reserve, Metlakatla Indian Community,
      prepared statement.............................................   464
    Crownpoint Institute of Technology (CIT), prepared statement.....   281

    Defenders of Wildlife, prepared statements.....................177, 207
    Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International, prepared statement.......   207
    Domenici, Senator Pete V., U.S. Senator from South Carolina:
        Opening statements...........................................9, 126
        Questions submitted by..................................35, 99, 153
    Dorgan, Senator Byron L., U.S. Senator from North Dakota:
        Opening statements.......................................3, 59, 108
        Prepared statement...........................................    60
        Questions submitted by......................................42, 105
    Doris Day Animal League, prepared statement......................   166

    Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes, prepared statement.   283
    Enewetak/Ujelang Local Government Council, prepared statement....   336

    Federation of State Humanities Councils, prepared statement......   479
    Feinstein, Senator Dianne, U.S. Senator from California:
        Opening statement............................................     7
        Questions submitted by.......................................   157
    Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, prepared statement...   284
    Foundation for North American Wild Sheep, prepared statement.....   205
    Fremont County, WY Legislative Delegation and Members of the
      Select Committee on Tribal Relations, letter from..............   286
    Friends of:
        Acadia, prepared statement...................................   220
        Back Bay, prepared statement.................................   175
        Great Smoky Mountains National Park, prepared statement......   220
        Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge, prepared statement...   180
    Frontera Audubon Society, prepared statement.....................   180

    Gasification Technologies Council, prepared statement............   424
    General Electric Power Systems, prepared statement...............   426
    Grand Canyon National Park Foundation, prepared statement........   221
    Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, prepared
      statement......................................................   287
    Ground Water Protection Council, prepared statement..............   248

    Highlands Coalition, prepared statement..........................   367
    Hollings, Senator Ernest F., U.S. Senator from South Carolina,
      questions submitted by.........................................    48
    Hoopa:
        Tribe of California, prepared statement......................   289
        Valley Tribe, prepared statement.............................   465
    Houston Safari Club, prepared statement..........................   205
    Humane Society of the United States, prepared statement..........   182

    IBACOS, Inc., prepared statement.................................   429
    Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts
      Development, prepared statement................................   469
    International:
        Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, prepared
          statements.................................................  167,
                                               185, 205, 222, 250, 291, 369
        Elephant Foundation, prepared statement......................   207
        Fund for Animal Welfare, prepared statement..................   207
        Rhino Foundation, prepared statement.........................   207
    Interstate:
        Council on Water Policy, prepared statement..................   252
        Mining Compact Commission, prepared statement................   260
    InterTribal:
        Bison Cooperative, prepared statement........................   292
        Timber Council, prepared statement...........................   295
    Izaak Walton League of America, prepared statement...............   205

    Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, prepared statement....................   298
    Jane Goodall Institute, prepared statement.......................   207
    Japanese American Citizens League, prepared statement............   224

    Kashdan, Hank, Director of Program and Budget Analysis,
      Department of Agriculture......................................     1

    Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, prepared
      statement......................................................   299
    Lower:
        Elwha Klallam Tribe, prepared statement......................   302
        Lake Rancheria Koi Nation, prepared statement................   303
    Lummi Nation, prepared statement.................................   304

    Mescalero Apache Tribe, prepared statement.......................   307
    Mineral Policy Center, prepared statement........................   253
    Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, prepared statements.192, 224
    Mother Lode Chapter of the Sierra Club, prepared statement.......   371
    Mule Deer Foundation, prepared statement.........................   205
    Narragansett Indian Tribe, prepared statement....................   309
    National:
        American Indian Court Judges Association, prepared statement.   312
        Association for State Community Services Programs, prepared
          state-
          ment.......................................................   432
        Association of:
            Abandoned Mine Land Programs, prepared statement.........   263
            Conservation Districts, prepared statement...............   372
            State Energy Officials, prepared statement...............   434
            State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, prepared
              statement..............................................   477
            University Fisheries and Wildlife Programs, pepared
              statement..............................................   193
        Audobon Society, prepared statement..........................   207
        Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, prepared
          statement..................................................   225
        Council for Science and the Environment, prepared statement..   254
        Indian Health Board, prepared statement......................   466
        Institutes for Water Resources, prepared statement...........   256
        Mining Association, prepared statement.......................   438
        Parks Conservation Association, prepared statement...........   227
        Recreation and Park Association, prepared statement..........   239
        Research Center for Coal and Energy, West Virginia
          University, prepared statement.............................   441
        Rifle Association, prepared statement........................   205
        Shooting Sports Foundation, prepared statement...............   205
        Trappers Association, prepared statement.....................   205
        Wildlife Federation, prepared statement......................   207
    Navajo Nation, prepared statement................................   314
    Nebraska Game & Parks Commission, prepared statement.............   196
    New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission, prepared statement......   171
    New York State Office of Parks Recreation and Historic
      Preservation, prepared statement...............................   241
    Nez Perce Tribe, prepared statement..............................   317
    Northern Forest Alliance, prepared statement.....................   380
    Norton, Hon. Gale A., Secretary of the Interior, Office of the
      Secretary, Department of the Interior..........................    57
        Prepared statement...........................................    67
        Summary statement............................................    63

    Oregon Water Resources Congress, prepared statement..............   196

    Partnership for the National Trails System, prepared statement...   230
    Petroleum Technology Transfer Council, prepared statement........   443
    Plug Power Inc., prepared statement..............................   445
    Pope and Young Club, prepared statement..........................   205
    Preservation Action, prepared statement..........................   242
    Puyallup Tribe of Indians, prepared statement....................   322

    Quality Deer Management Association, prepared statement..........   205

    Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, prepared statement................   205
    Ruffed Grouse Society, prepared statement........................   205

    Safari Club International, prepared statements.................205, 207
    SAGE Electrochromics, Inc., prepared statement...................   448
    Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, prepared statement...................   325
    Scarlett, P. Lynn, Assistant Secretary, Policy, Management and
      Budget, Department of the Interior.............................    57
    Seminole Tribe of Florida, prepared statement....................   327
    Shikar Safari Club International, prepared statement.............   205
    Siemens Westinghouse Power Corporation, prepared statement.......   449
    Sierra:
        Club, prepared statement.....................................   207
        Nevada Alliance, prepared statement..........................   383
    Society for:
        American Archaeology, prepared statement.....................   207
        American Foresters, prepared statement.......................   385
        Historical Archaeology, prepared statement...................   207
    Southern Company, prepared statement.............................   452
    Southwest Tribal Fisheries Commission, prepared statement........   329
    Squaxin Island Tribe, prepared statement.........................   331
    Stevens, Senator Ted, U.S. Senator from Alaska:
        Opening statement............................................    60
        Prepared statement...........................................    62
        Questions submitted by.......................................    97

    Teachers' Retirement System, State of California, prepared
      statement......................................................   455
    Teaming with Wildlife Steering Committee, prepared statement.....   195
    Tern and Plover Conservation Partnership, prepared statement.....   199
    The:
        Cascades Conservation Partnership, prepared statement........   365
        Fund for Animals, prepared statement.........................   207
        Humane Society of the United States, prepared statement......   207
        Nature Conservancy, prepared statements....................207, 375
        Ocean Conservancy, prepared statement........................   342
        Wilderness Society, prepared statement.......................   345
        Wildlife Conservation Society, prepared statement............   207
        Wildlife Society, prepared statements......................205, 390

    Trezise, John D., Director of Budget, Department of the Interior.    57
    Tumbledown Conservation Alliance, prepared statement.............   388

    United States Advanced Ceramics Association, prepared statement..   457
    United Tribes Technical College, prepared statement..............   333
    Upper Mississippi River Basin Association, prepared statement....   199

    Whitetails Unlimited, Inc., prepared statement...................   205
    WildAid, prepared statement......................................   207
    Wildlife Management Institute, prepared statements...............  172,
                                                    202, 205, 207, 259, 388
    Wind River Irrigation Project in Wyoming, prepared statement.....   335
    World Wildlife Fund, prepared statement..........................   207
    Wyoming Water Association, letter from...........................   204

                                 SUBJECT INDEX

                                  ----------

                           DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                                 Forest Service

                                                                       Page

    Accountability...................................................    15
    Additional Committee Questions...................................    35
    Aerial Operations................................................    40
    Alaska:
        Forest Trip by Air...........................................    32
        Jurisdictional Problems......................................    31
    Analysis Paralysis...............................................     6
    Assessment of Threat.............................................    39
    Audit Opinion....................................................    12
    Bark Beetle......................................................  7, 9
    Beetle Kill on the Kenai Peninsula...............................    31
    Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation.............................     2
    Categorical Exclusions...........................................    14
    Collaborative Adaptive Management Program........................     7
    Cost Containment.................................................    52
    County Partnership:
        Program......................................................    28
        Restoration..................................................    35
    Deferred Maintenance.............................................    36
    Drought.......................................................... 2, 25
    Establishment of Emergency Treatment Objective...................    39
    Evironmental Litigation Costs....................................     9
    Fire:
        Funding......................................................    43
        Impacts on Watersheds........................................    24
        Preparedness................................................. 2, 37
            Suppression..............................................    11
    Firefighters..................................................... 3, 42
    Firewise.........................................................    24
    Forest Service Research..........................................    16
    Grass Banks......................................................    47
    Grasslands Management Plan.......................................    46
    Grazing Permits..................................................     4
    Ground Operations................................................    40
    Grounded:
        Air Tanker Fleet.............................................    25
        Fire Air Tanker Fleet........................................     6
    Hazardous Fuel Treatments........................................    53
    Healthy Forests Initiative.......................................    12
    Insects and Disease..............................................    38
    Invasive Species.................................................    34
    Lake:
        Arrowhead....................................................    22
        Tahoe........................................................    21
            Restoration Act..........................................     8
    Leafy Spurge..................................................4, 34, 45
    Legislative Proposals............................................13, 18
    Lewis & Clark Bicentennial Activities............................    46
    Maintenance......................................................    44
    National Forest Land Management Planning.........................    32
    Noxious Weeds.................................................... 5, 33
    Prairie Dog......................................................     8
    President's Management Agenda....................................    16
    Process Predicament..........................................14, 15, 27
    Quincy Library Group.............................................     8
    Range Management.............................................13, 16, 33
    Recreation Fee Demonstration Program.............................    23
    Research.........................................................13, 19
    Safety--Ground and Aviation Operations...........................    54
    San Bernadino National Forest....................................    21
    Sheyenne Valley Grazing Association..............................    48
    Situational Assessment...........................................    51
    State and Private Forestry.......................................    16
    Stewardship Contracting..............................10, 11, 19, 28, 37
    The Next 100 Years for America's National Forests and Grasslands.    17
    Tongass Timber Reform Act........................................    30
    USDA Forest Service--Fire & Aviation Operations Action Plan 2003.    50
    Vibrant Forest and Range Based Economy...........................    36
    Water Filtration Plants..........................................    24
    Western:
        Forest Fires.................................................    22
        Water Rights.................................................    23
    Wildland:
        Fire Management..............................................    26
        Urban Interface..............................................    29
    Yosemite Toad....................................................     7

                              DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                            Office of the Secretary

    Additional Committee Questions...................................   140
    Advanced Vehicle Technology Programs--Partnership for a New
      Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) and FreedomCAR...................   142
    Clean Coal.......................................................   130
        Power Initiative.............................................   153
        Technology Program...........................................   133
    Clean Energy Technology Exports..................................   138
    Climate Change Technology Initiative (NCCTI).....................   153
    Competitive Sourcing Program.....................................   136
    Elk Hill.........................................................   161
    Energy:
        Conservation Budget Request..................................   117
        Information Administration Budget Request....................   120
        Markets......................................................   159
    Environmental Impacts of Fuels...................................   144
    Fiscal Year 2004/05 Competitive Sourcing/A-76 Planning...........   137
    Fossil Energy:
        Budget Request...............................................   113
        OMB Budget...................................................   129
        Program Top-to-Bottom Review.................................   135
        Research Budget Cuts.........................................   127
        Distributed Generation--Fuel Cells--Solid State Electricity
          Conversion Alliance (SECA).................................   150
        Distributed Generation--Fuel Cells--Vision 21--Hybrids.......   150
        Domestic Gas Production/Imports..............................   147
        Domestic Oil Production/Imports..............................   146
        Fuels........................................................   149
        Futuregen....................................................   151
    Fuel Cell......................................................130, 155
        Research at Los Alamos National Laboratory...................   132
    Future-Gen.......................................................   134
    Gasoline Prices..................................................   124
    High Temperature Superconductivity...............................   156
    Hybrid Technology................................................   133
    Hydrogen:
        Fuel.........................................................   160
        Transportation System........................................   141
        Vehicles.....................................................   131
    Insourcing.......................................................   137
    Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation Budget Request.......   113
    National Energy Technology Laboratory............................   134
    Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves--Rocky Mountain Oil
      Technology Center (RMOTC)......................................   151
    Non-Release of Department's OMB Budget Request...................   129
    Nuclear Weapons Testing..........................................   157
    Off-Highway Vehicle R&D..........................................   144
        Program Termination..........................................   124
    Oil and Gas:
        Federal Transmission Siting..................................   155
        Research.....................................................   154
    Performance Measures.............................................   145
    Petroleum Reserves...............................................   116
    President's Management Agenda and National Energy Policy
      Coordination...................................................   112
    Program Assessment Rating Tool [PART]............................   128
    Solid State:
        Conversion Alliance..........................................   139
        Energy Conversion Alliance...................................   139
        Lighting.....................................................   152
    Status of Clean Energy Technology Report.........................   139
    Summary of the Management Plan...................................   136
    Technology Transfer--Clean Energy Technology Export (CETE).......   157
    Transition of Technologies to Market.............................   143
    U.S. Department of Energy, Revised Competitive Sourcing Plan.....   136

                           DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                            Office of the Secretary

    Activity Based Costing...........................................    83
    Additional Committee Questions...................................    86
    Alaska Conveyance Program........................................    97
    Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act..................    97
    Budget Overview..................................................    68
    Bureau of Land Management:
        CBM EIS for Montana..........................................    92
        Energy and Minerals..........................................    94
        Fire Funding.................................................    95
        Montana Gas Permitting.......................................    92
    Conservation Grants..............................................    70
    Conserving Wildlife and Fisheries................................    70
    Cooperative Conservation Initiative..............................64, 69
    Crownpoint Institute of Technology...............................    99
    Denali National Park.............................................    98
    Different Funding Categories.....................................    76
    Energy Development...............................................    65
    Everglades Restoration...........................................    66
    Federal Permit Streamlining Pilot Project........................   103
    Federally-Owned Land Statistics..................................    99
    Fish and Wildlife Grant Programs.................................    96
    Fort Peck Reservation/Dry Prairie................................    91
    FWS/Consultation on Fuels Reduction Projects.....................    89
    Going-to-the-Sun Road............................................    89
    Helping to Meet the Nation's Energy Needs........................    72
    Historical Trust Accounting......................................    74
    Indian:
        Education................................................65, 73, 77
        School Construction..........................................   100
        Schools......................................................    75
    Law Enforcement and Security.....................................    74
    Maintenance Backlog..............................................    65
    MMS Royalty-In-Kind..............................................    88
    Mojave Desert Tortoise...........................................   104
    Northwest Area Water Supply Project..............................    79
    OIA/Status of Compact Negotiations...............................    89
    Oil and Gas Permitting on Federal Lands..........................   102
    Other Partnerships...............................................    70
    Other Program Initiatives........................................    66
    Overhead.........................................................    82
    PILT--Proposed Movement From BLM to the Department Level.........    93
    Powder River Basin EIS...........................................    84
    President's Management Agenda....................................    91
    Program Assessment Rating........................................    81
    Recreation.......................................................    73
        Opportunities................................................    65
    Rural Water Program Legislative Proposal.........................    80
    Santa Fe Indian School Reconstruction Funding....................   101
    Science..........................................................67, 74
    Security.........................................................    67
    SMCRA Reauthorization............................................    86
    Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute (SIPI).................   101
    Spruce Bark Beetles..............................................    99
    State Regulatory Grants..........................................    87
    Stewardship Contracting..........................................    84
    Taking Care of Parks.............................................    72
    Tribal Colleges Funding..........................................    77
    Trust Programs...................................................    68
    Trust Reform:
        Initiatives..................................................    63
        Reform Reorganization........................................    95
    Wild Horse and Burro Program.....................................78, 83
    Wildland:
        Fire.........................................................    66
            And Healthy Forests......................................    71
    Zortman/Landusky Mine Reclamation................................    85

                                       -