    [Senate Hearing 109-288]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 109-288

                                                            Senate Hearings

                                     Before the Committee on Appropriations

    _______________________________________________________________________

                                                 Department of the Interior

                                                       and Related Agencies

                                                             Appropriations

                                                           Fiscal Year 2006

                                              109th CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION

                                                                  H.R. 2361

    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
    NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

                                                          S. Hrg. 109-288

       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2006

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

                                    HEARINGS

                                    before a

                              SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

                           ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       on

                                   H.R. 2361

       AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
    ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER
                        30, 2006, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                   __________

                          Department of Agriculture
                           Department of the Interior
                           Nondepartmental Witnesses

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

      Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
                                   index.html

                                     _____

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    99-866PDF              WASHINGTON : 2006
    _________________________________________________________________
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
    Printing  Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free
    (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail:
    Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001

                          COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                      THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, Chairman
    TED STEVENS, Alaska                  ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
    ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania          DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
    PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico         PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
    CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri        TOM HARKIN, Iowa
    MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky            BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
    CONRAD BURNS, Montana                HARRY REID, Nevada
    RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama           HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
    JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire            PATTY MURRAY, Washington
    ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah              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
    WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado
                        J. Keith Kennedy, Staff Director
                  Terrence E. Sauvain, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------

                 Subcommittee on 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              HARRY REID, Nevada
    JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire            DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
    LARRY CRAIG, Idaho                   BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
    WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado               HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
                               Professional Staff
                                  Bruce Evans
                                  Ginny James
                                Leif Fonnesbeck
                                  Ryan Thomas
                                  Rebecca Benn
                           Peter Kiefhaber (Minority)
                           Rachael Taylor (Minority)

                             Administrative Support

                                 Michele Gordon

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                            Thursday, March 3, 2005

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

                           Wednesday, March 10, 2005

    Department of the Interior: Office of the Secretary..............    53
    Nondepartmental witnesses........................................   143

      DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2006

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, MARCH 3, 2005

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 9:31 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Conrad Burns (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Burns, Stevens, Cochran, Bennett, Dorgan,
    and Feinstein.

                           DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                                 Forest Service

    HON. MARK E. REY, UNDER SECRETARY FOR NATURAL RESOURCES
                AND ENVIRONMENT
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            DALE N. BOSWORTH, CHIEF
            HANK KASHDAN, DIRECTOR, PROGRAM AND BUDGET ANALYSIS

                   opening statement of senator conrad burns

        Senator Burns. Good morning. We are very pleased to welcome
    Dale Bosworth, the Chief of the Forest Service, and Under
    Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment, Mark Rey this
    morning, and also Hank Kashdan, who is Director of Program and
    Budget Analysis. We thank you all three for coming down this
    morning.
        We all know that there has been significant belt-tightening
    in non-defense programs for this coming year, and of course the
    Forest Service budget request we are reviewing today is
    currently an example of that. The President's budget request of
    $4.065 billion for non-emergency discretionary appropriations
    represents a cut of 5.8 percent compared to the 2005 level of
    $4.239 billion.
        I know that this budget climate requires some tough
    choices, but some of the proposed program cuts have us a little
    bit troubled up here. For example, funding for construction and
    maintenance has been decreased by $134 million, roughly 26
    percent, compared to current levels. This is hard to understand
    given the Forest Service's own estimates that there is more
    than $8 billion in backlog of maintenance work on the national
    forests.
        Funding for State Fire Assistance has also been decreased,
    by over $22 million, which has almost cut in half the number of
    communities in which the Forest Service can provide technical
    assistance and grants for equipment. These local fire
    departments are often the first to respond to wildland fires.
    They provide a vital help to the Forest Service and the
    Department of the Interior.
        Also, I am concerned about the $29.5 million cut in Forest
    Health Programs in State and Private Forestry. We have millions
    of acres in our Nation's forests that are infested with insects
    and diseases like the western bark beetle, the southern pine
    beetle, and the gypsy moth. The dead trees that result from
    these pests add to our already excessive fuel loads we have on
    our forests. Reducing this program affects the agency's ability
    to monitor and eradicate these pests and diseases.
        On the other side of the ledger, some programs receive
    significant increases in the proposed budget request. These
    include: Research, $9 million; Forest Legacy, $22.8 million;
    hazardous fuels, $19 million; and Wildland Fire Suppression,
    $51.6 million. I think we will all be interested in hearing
    from both of you how you formulated your 2006 budget and how
    you made the difficult decisions to allocate funding between
    the various programs.
        There is another issue that concerns me also, the
    skyrocketing cost of firefighting programs. The average annual
    cost for fire suppression in the Forest Service in the last 5
    years has been around $958 million. By way of comparison, in
    the 5 years prior to that it was only $352 million.
        These escalating costs force the Forest Service to borrow
    massive sums of money and have caused serious disruptions in
    the ongoing work of the agency. For fiscal year 2004, the
    committee was able to provide a special allocation of $400
    million to deal with these escalating costs and impacts of
    heavy borrowing. The last fire season was not a particularly
    bad one compared to what we have seen over the last few years,
    but you still needed to tap into those additional funds to pay
    for firefighting expenses.
        I would like to hear from both of you today on whether this
    special allocation proved effective in the past fire season,
    whether you believe that a similar mechanism is needed in the
    future, and how the agency has implemented several measures the
    committee included in the 2005 Interior bill to address rising
    fire suppression costs. These cost-saving measures include
    putting in place an independent panel to review the
    expenditures on large fires and devoting a full-time staff to
    analyzing the most efficient means to procure the hundreds of
    millions of dollars worth of supplies that are needed by the
    fire program each year.
        Finally, I am pleased to see that the agency has obtained a
    clean audit opinion of its books for the third consecutive
    year. You are to be congratulated on that, Chief. In addition,
    the agency was removed this year from the GAO's list of
    agencies at high risk of waste, fraud, and abuse. I
    congratulate you and your leadership in straightening up many
    of these problems that we had in the Forest Service, and I know
    you are doing much more in this area and hope to hear from you
    later today on that subject.
        I thank you for joining us today. We will have a lot of
    questions from this committee with regard to where we have cut
    and where we have added. We would enjoy listening to your
    reasoning for that. I thank you again for coming this morning,
    and now I yield to my good friend from North Dakota, Senator
    Dorgan.

                  opening statement of senator byron l. dorgan

        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
        Let me also welcome the Chief and Mr. Rey. I think you have
    covered, Mr. Chairman, many of the interests that I have. I am
    very interested in hearing the rationale for the budget
    recommendations. I must say that in the area of capital
    improvement and maintenance, given what we know is the backlog
    and the really critical need to be funding these areas, I am
    very concerned about a 40 percent reduction in facilities, a 16
    percent reduction in roads, and in deferred maintenance and
    infrastructure improvement a 30 percent reduction--29.7
    percent.
        All of this begs the question, what are we going to do to
    address what we know are problems here and what we know
    requires us to continue to make investments to our forest lands
    and the property that allows the American people to enjoy our
    forest lands.
        So I am going to submit some questions as well at the end
    of this dealing with leafy spurge and some other weed issues
    that I am sure they would expect. Mr. Chairman, as you know,
    the Congressional Review Act issue is on the floor of the
    Senate beginning now dealing with the rule coming from USDA to
    allow the live importation of cattle from Canada. Although I
    believe a Federal judge in your State of Montana yesterday
    issued a stay on that issue, we will nonetheless have a 3-hour
    debate and a vote on the Congressional Review Act trying to
    overturn that rule. So I will at some moment leave to go
    participate in that debate after we hear the witnesses.
        But again let me thank you for holding the hearing and I am
    anxious to hear Under Secretary Rey and Chief Bosworth.
        Senator Burns. Chief? Who wants to lead off down there this
    morning?

                     summary statement of hon. mark e. rey

        Mr. Rey. I think that would be me.
        Senator Burns. Okay, lead.
        Mr. Rey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Dorgan, for
    the opportunity to discuss the President's fiscal year 2006
    budget for the Forest Service. I am pleased to join Chief
    Bosworth in appearing before you today.
        As Chief Bosworth will discuss in a little more detail,
    this year marks the 100th anniversary of the Forest Service. As
    such, I think it is worthwhile to reflect on the fact that as a
    result of the agency's multiple use management actions over the
    past 100 years, the decline in forest land has stabilized and
    acres of forest land have increased in some areas of the
    Nation. Areas destroyed by wildfire have declined by 90
    percent, forest growth is exceeding harvest, tens of millions
    of acres of cut-over land have been reforested, and much of
    these areas have again been harvested and reforested. Finally,
    populations of important wildlife species have been restored
    from the brink of extinction which they faced 100 years ago.
        So the situation today is far different than it was 100
    years ago, as a result of 100 years of conservation
    stewardship.
        Let me touch on some of the issues that the Forest Service
    will be focusing on as we begin the second century. First, the
    health of our Nation's forests. The Healthy Forests Initiative
    and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act provide emphasis and
    new authorities necessary to protect communities and natural
    resources from the risk of catastrophic wildfire. The fiscal
    year 2006 budget for the Forest Service and the Department of
    the Interior together includes about $867 million to continue
    implementation of the President's Healthy Forests Initiative.
    This is an increase of $57 million from last year and a
    substantial increase over the authorization provided in the
    Healthy Forests Restoration Act Title 1 provisions.
        In fiscal year 2006, the Forest Service and the Department
    of the Interior land managing agencies will reduce hazardous
    fuels on 4.3 million acres of Federal land, an increase of
    nearly 300,000 acres from fiscal year 2005, which will be an
    all-time record achievement as compared to about a million
    acres treated annually during the years of the decade of the
    1990s.
        Now, as you look at our fiscal year 2006 request for the
    Healthy Forests, you are going to find that the program is
    oriented more heavily toward Federal than non-Federal lands,
    and that emphasis exists for three reasons. First of all, we
    are the only ones who can and will treat Federal lands. We are
    the only governmental entity that will do that.
        Second, by and large the Federal lands are in worse shape
    from a fuels standpoint than non-Federal lands. Third, there
    are other programs with, in some cases, more effective delivery
    mechanisms to provide assistance beyond that which we can
    provide to our non-Federal partners to assist in firefighting
    and hazardous fuel reduction processes.
        I would also note that the Forest Service will focus two-
    thirds of its treatments in the wildland-urban interface to
    protect communities, in accordance with the priorities set in
    the fiscal year 2006 request.
        While the effective treatment of hazardous fuels provides
    the long-term protection of communities and natural resources
    from the threat of catastrophic wildfire, the agency must also
    continue to address fire preparedness. The Forest Service and
    the Department of the Interior will maintain sufficient
    readiness resources to suppress more than 98 percent of
    wildfires on initial attack. As a result of the reengineering
    of our fleet of aviation assets in advance of the fiscal year
    2004 fire season, the Forest Service and the Department of the
    Interior maintained--actually exceeded--the success rate from
    previous years in suppressing fires on initial attack. In 2003,
    for instance, we were successful in extinguishing 98.3 percent
    of ignitions on initial attack. In fiscal year 2004, we were
    successful in extinguishing 99 percent of ignitions on initial
    attack. This meant 70 fewer escapements, with an average
    suppression savings of about $20 million. So our reengineered
    aviation fleet stood us in good stead.
        As the chairman correctly noted, the money for suppression
    is up this year as compared to last year. As we have in
    previous years, we have budgeted the 10-year average, which
    continues to increase. That accounts for that increase in the
    2006 request.
        Let me talk a little bit now about Forest Service
    organizational efficiency, or operational efficiency. In
    response to concerns about agency accountability and
    management, the Forest Service has been diligently working to
    improve its financial and program management. The agency's
    implementation of new planning rules, for instance, is expected
    to significantly reduce both the time and cost to amend or
    revise land and resource management plans.
        Another very important efficiency initiative contained in
    the President's budget would enable the agency to more
    effectively manage its facilities. Presently the agency has
    over 40,000 facilities in its inventory. That is significantly
    more than we need and it averages substantially more than one
    building per employee. Legislation proposed as part of the
    budget request would authorize the sale of unneeded facilities
    for fair market value and the use of sale proceeds to address
    our maintenance backlog. That, we believe, is directly
    responsive to the reductions that we have suggested in
    maintenance programs.
        In addition, the legislation would provide for the
    establishment of a working capital fund for facility
    maintenance that will assess programs that use facilities for
    the maintenance of those facilities.
        In response to the President's management agenda, the
    Forest Service is becoming more efficient in how it performs
    administrative support. By the end of 2005, the agency will
    have completed its implementation of a new information
    technology support organization and the centralization of its
    financial management and functions. In 2006, the agency will
    centralize its human resource management activities. Combined,
    these three efforts will reduce overhead expenses by $91
    million annually, and that is money that can be saved and
    thereafter reprogrammed for on-the-ground management activity.
        As the chairman noted, in recognition of the agency's
    commitment to sustain an effective financial management, the
    Government Accountability Office removed the Forest Service
    from its high-risk list. The GAO action was a direct result of
    three successive clean audits, the first three in the agency's
    history, and the demonstrated commitment of the administration
    to implement organizational changes that will ensure the Forest
    Service's ability to sustain clean audits into the future.

                               prepared statement

        I look forward to working with the committee and the
    Congress to enact the President's fiscal year 2006 budget
    request. After Chief Bosworth is done, we would be happy to
    respond to your questions.
        [The statement follows:]
                     Prepared Statement of Hon. Mark E. Rey
        Mr. Chairman, Senator Dorgan, and members of the Subcommittee,
    thank you for this opportunity to discuss the President's fiscal year
    2006 Budget for the Forest Service. I am pleased to join Chief Bosworth
    in appearing before you today. In my testimony, I will discuss two main
    issues. First, I will focus on priorities for the Forest Service as it
    moves into its second century of fulfilling its mission, including the
    role that the President's Healthy Forests Initiative (HFI) holds in
    that mission. Second, I will discuss the reforms and efficiency actions
    the agency is employing to deliver its mission more efficiently.
        As we move through the process of enacting the fiscal year 2006
    Budget, all of us in the Executive Branch, like all of you in Congress,
    are well aware of the challenges faced in funding the priorities of the
    Nation. The President's proposed budget for the Forest Service
    addresses key priorities, makes critical tradeoffs, and demands
    efficiency in delivery of programs. I look forward to working with you
    to enact the President's budget for the Forest Service.
                    moving forward--a new century of service
        As Chief Bosworth will also discuss, this year marks the 100th
    anniversary of the Forest Service. To give you a sense of how the
    Forest Service plans to move forward, I will briefly review the mission
    adopted by the Forest Service in 1905 when it was formed, and how its
    response to the national issues in the coming century are, for the most
    part, similar.
        The 1905 mandate given the Forest Service involved responding to
    the degradation of watersheds and the substantial loss of forests and
    wildlife. The agency began taking important actions to conserve
    America's resources, including the closing of public domain lands and
    reserving the remaining public lands for protection and management;
    promoting the conservation and productivity of forests and grasslands
    regardless of ownership; acquiring scientific knowledge on natural
    resources management; improving management and productivity of all
    agricultural lands and forests; and adopting and enforcing wildlife
    conservation laws. As a result of the agency's actions over the past
    100 years of multiple-use management, the decline in forestland has
    stabilized and increased in some areas of the Nation. Areas destroyed
    by wildfire have declined by 90 percent. Forest growth is exceeding
    harvest. Tens of millions of acres of cutover lands have been
    reforested and much of these areas have again been harvested and
    reforested. Finally, populations of important wildlife species have
    been restored from the brink of extinction.
        In the coming century, the Forest Service must focus on restoring
    the health of watersheds, increasing recreational opportunities,
    providing clean water, establishing healthy wildlife and fish
    populations, and protecting communities and resources from the risk of
    catastrophic wildfire. The agency must accomplish this while providing
    minerals and forest products to meet the increasing demands of the
    nation. The President's emphasis on healthy forests makes sustainable
    production of products an integral aspect of improving forest health.
                           healthy forests initiative
        The HFI and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act provides emphasis
    and new authorities necessary to protect communities and natural
    resources from the risk of catastrophic fire. The fiscal year 2006
    budget for the Forest Service and DOI includes about $867 million to
    continue implementation of the President's HFI, which is an increase of
    $57 million from last year. This amount includes a request for $492
    million in hazardous fuels funding and the planned expenditure of an
    additional $375 million in other habitat management activities that
    will reduce the risk of wildfire. In fiscal year 2006, the Forest
    Service and the Department of the Interior (DOI) will reduce hazardous
    fuels on 4.3 million acres, an increase of nearly 300,000 acres from
    fiscal year 2005, itself an all-time record.
        The Forest Service will focus two-thirds of its treatment in the
    wildland urban interface (WUI) to protect communities. Protecting
    communities from the risk of wildfire can be accomplished by activities
    that result in the production of forest products and the protection and
    enhancement of watersheds and wildlife. For example, the Forest Service
    has worked closely with communities to complete over 600 Community
    Wildfire Protection Plans that identify the local strategies necessary
    to protect communities and promote multiple-use management activities.
        The efficient expenditure of Federal funds requires the agency to
    develop appropriate incentives that will make the use of forest
    products an integral aspect of the hazardous fuels reduction. The
    Forest Service will make maximum use of the stewardship contracting
    authority and the new authorities provided by the Healthy Forest
    Restoration Act to make treatment of hazardous fuels more efficient. In
    furthering this objective, the President's Budget includes a $10
    million investment to improve facilities at the Forest Product
    Laboratory (FPL) in Madison, Wisconsin that will increase research in
    creating new products from forest biomass.
                        efficient response to wildfires
        While the effective treatment of hazardous fuels provides the long-
    term protection of communities and natural resources from the threat of
    catastrophic wildfire, the agency must also continue to address fire
    preparedness. The Forest Service and DOI will maintain sufficient
    readiness resources to suppress more than 98 percent of wildfires on
    initial attack. This represents the same approximate level of readiness
    that has occurred over the past several years. Being prepared to manage
    and suppress wildfire requires continued emphasis on improved and
    efficient use of equipment and personnel. As a result of reengineering
    the fleet of aviation assets in advance of the fiscal year 2004 fire
    season, the Forest Service and DOI maintained the success rate in
    suppressing fires on initial attack. Increased emphasis on the using
    helicopters instead of large fixed-wing air tankers enabled better pre-
    positioning of aviation assets in areas where the greatest danger
    existed and the more accurate application of retardant. The Forest
    Service is currently completing a long-term aviation strategic plan
    that will address the wise use of fixed-wing and helicopter assets,
    which we fully expect to further improve efficiency.
        Effective use of suppression assets requires close coordination
    among Federal, State, and local agencies. Under the oversight of the
    Wildland Fire Leadership Council, Federal, State, and local resources
    are being more effectively coordinated in response to wildfires. I am
    pleased with the coordination that has resulted through this effort.
        Although the fiscal year 2004 fire season was relatively mild, the
    agency still expended $726 million for wildfire suppression. The
    President's Budget continues a focus on reducing wildland fire
    suppression costs and provides suppression funds at the ten-year
    average cost adjusted for inflation. Additionally, the Budget contains
    incentives for reducing costs through the allocation of funds to the
    field and authorizing use of unobligated balances for hazardous fuel
    treatments.
                     forest service operational efficiency
        In response to concerns about agency accountability and management,
    the Forest Service has been diligently working to improve its financial
    and program management. The agency's implementation of a new planning
    rule is expected to significantly reduce both the time and cost to
    amend or revise land management plans. In addition, the rule provides
    for a pre-decisional objection process that replaces a less efficient
    appeal process. With the objection process, the public has an
    opportunity to make their concerns known to a higher-level official,
    and the agency then has the opportunity to make appropriate adjustments
    before the plan is approved. The appeal process, which was after plan
    approval, required any necessary or appropriate changes to be made
    through further planning processes.
        Another important efficiency initiative contained in the
    President's Budget will enable the agency to more effectively manage
    its facilities. Presently, the agency has over 40,000 facilities in its
    inventory--significantly more than it needs, averaging substantially
    more than one building per employee. Legislation proposed as part of
    the budget will authorize the sale of unneeded facilities for fair
    market value, and the use of sale proceeds to address the maintenance
    backlog. In addition, the legislation will provide for the
    establishment of a working capital fund for facility maintenance that
    will assess programs that use facilities for the maintenance of those
    facilities. Local line officers will need to assess the number of
    facilities that are needed and the necessary operating funds to perform
    facilities maintenance--this creates the incentive to keep the number
    of facilities to a minimum. The rest will be conveyed at fair market
    value. It is anticipated this action will reduce the agency deferred
    maintenance backlog by 25 percent by fiscal year 2010.
        In response to the President's Management Agenda, the Forest
    Service is becoming more efficient in how it performs administrative
    support. By the end of fiscal year 2005, the agency will have completed
    its implementation of a new information technology support organization
    and the centralizing of its financial management. In fiscal year 2006,
    the agency will centralize its human resource management activities.
    Combined, these three efforts will reduce overhead expenses by $91
    million annually. I appreciate the support Congress has shown as the
    Forest Service implements these reforms.
        Even with these improvements, however, inefficiencies increase
    program delivery costs and are impeding Forest Service performance. The
    Administration proposes additional reforms to enhance Forest Service
    efforts to improve its accountability and focus on measurable results
    in the management of our national forests. These reforms will
    significantly reduce overhead, business management, and other indirect
    costs to improve efficiency and program delivery.
        In recognition of the agency's commitment to sustained and
    effective financial management, I am very pleased that the Government
    Accountability Office (GAO) removed the Forest Service from its ``High
    Risk List.'' The GAO's action was a direct result of three successive
    ``clean audit'' opinions and the demonstrated commitment of the
    Administration to implement organizational change that will ensure the
    Forest Service's ability to sustain future clean audits.
                                   conclusion
        A ``clean audit'' opinion is the minimum the public should expect
    from the Forest Service. Just like America's citizens, a Federal agency
    should be able to balance its checkbook. Further, the agency must
    demonstrate that it performs its mission as efficiently as possible.
    The President's Management Agenda is creating the framework for
    efficiency. I believe the Forest Service has responded well and is
    demonstrating its commitment to the efficient delivery of natural
    resource management on Federal and non-Federal forest and rangelands. I
    look forward to working with Congress to enact the President's fiscal
    year 2006 Budget.
        I would be pleased to answer any questions.

        Senator Burns. Chief, do you have an opening statement you
    would like to make?
        Mr. Bosworth. Yes, I would.
        Senator Burns. Thank you. Proceed.

                     SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DALE N. BOSWORTH

        Mr. Bosworth. Mr. Chairman and Senator Dorgan: I also am
    pleased to be here to discuss the President's fiscal year 2006
    budget for the Forest Service. As Under Secretary Mark Rey
    mentioned, it is our centennial year in the Forest Service, 100
    years of caring for the land and taking care of the national
    forests and grasslands and trying to serve the American people.
    It gives us a unique opportunity this year, I believe, to work
    with many of our partners and collaborators and critics to
    reflect a bit on the past, but more importantly to be looking
    to the future, to the next century of service. Together, we can
    figure out what kind of changes we need to make so that we will
    be able to continue to provide top-quality service to the
    American people in managing their forests.
        In my opening remarks, I would like to touch on four themes
    very briefly. Those are: the budget, the tight, austere budget
    that we are in; some efforts to improving efficiency under way;
    better visibility and collaboration for the agency; and our
    efforts at integrating our work more effectively.
        So first, in regards to the budget situation, we at the
    Forest Service recognize that we have a responsibility to help
    reduce the deficit, which results in some very difficult
    choices that we need to make. There are tradeoffs obviously
    that come with those choices, and we have worked hard at
    identifying those tradeoffs and trying to mitigate those so
    that we can continue to produce high-quality services.
        We have kept our focus on the top priorities. The top
    priorities are reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire and
    continuing to improve forest health conditions.
        Now, in terms of efficiency, for the 4 years that I have
    been in this job, we have been focusing on trying to get more
    and more dollars, and a higher percentage of our dollars, to
    the ground where the job can get done. There are two areas of
    efficiencies that we keep focusing on. One is in natural
    resource management, getting more efficient with the National
    Environmental Policy Act, developing environmental impact
    statements, and our consultation efforts with Fish and Wildlife
    Service and NOAA Fisheries. You have given us a lot of help
    through the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. The Administration
    has helped with the Healthy Forests Initiative. We have
    stewardship contracting that you were key to getting us a pilot
    and then the full authority. Those things have helped in that
    area.
        The other aspect of efficiency is in our own internal
    operations, our business management practices. We have been
    focusing on improving them and the result is, as has been
    mentioned before, that we are no longer on the high-risk list
    from GAO and we have had several clean audit opinions.
        We would be unable to sustain those clean audit opinions if
    we did not make some significant changes in how we are
    organized. Therefore, we have opened up a service center for
    financial management in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and we are in
    the process of moving people to that service center. We are
    going to be doing the same kind of efforts with information
    technology and we are also beginning the process of moving
    people to Albuquerque in our human resources area. We expect to
    reduce about 1,300 full-time equivalents, FTE's, when we
    complete all of our reorganization for the business management
    areas. We expect to save about $91 million a year when we are
    fully implemented.
        So those changes together will make a big difference in how
    we can deliver the services that people want. We are also
    making some reforms in facilities management and we will have
    some proposals regarding these reforms that we can discuss more
    if you wish.
        I believe that making these commitments and implementing
    these changes, although they are difficult for the
    organization, will result in a higher percentage of our dollars
    getting to the ground to get the work done.
        In the area of visibility and collaboration, we need to
    improve and to continuously improve our ability to work with
    the public in a very visible way. There are several areas.
    Probably the first would be in the areas of partnerships. We
    have done a good job in partnerships in my view, but we have
    great opportunities to improve that.
        In fiscal year 2004, we had about $500 million worth of
    work that we got from partners, both in cash and in-kind work,
    doing things on the ground. That was matched with about $500
    million of our funds, totaling $1 billion of work on the ground
    that we were doing through partnerships. We can increase that.
        Our new planning rule that just came out in December
    requires independent audits at the end of the year for each
    forest through an Environmental Management System. That will
    allow people to know whether or not we are doing what we say we
    will do and whether or not we are getting the results on the
    ground in the way that we said we would do.
        We will increase our monitoring and that will allow us to
    make some adjustments based upon what we learn from the
    monitoring and what we learn through those independent audits.
    I believe that will increase our public involvement and it will
    also increase the visibility of our work.
        In the area of wildfire, wildfire protection agreements
    that we have in communities help us to work better together
    with the communities. We have wildfire protection agreements
    with over 600 communities now.
        The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act allows for
    recreation advisory councils. Once again, that will be an
    opportunity for us to work closer with the public in
    determining if, when, where, and how we should be collecting
    fees.
        As far as integrating our work to provide for healthy
    forests, in fiscal year 2006 the Forest Service will reduce
    fuel hazards by 2.8 million acres. About 1 million acres of
    that will be accomplished with non-hazardous fuels funds, from
    things like wildlife habitat improvement dollars, timber stand
    improvement dollars, and sale of forest products dollars. The
    idea is that if we place those projects in the right places, we
    can accomplish both the timber sale objectives as well as fuels
    treatment objectives, or habitat improvement objectives as well
    as fuels treatment objectives.
        So our line officers are now achieving multiple benefits
    and multiple goals by focusing integrated treatments in the
    right places.
        We believe that by integrating work, we will improve our
    efficiency and we will in the end accomplish more work on the
    ground.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        So in closing, I am looking forward to working with you. I
    appreciate this opportunity to discuss our budget. Again, it is
    a tight budget and we expect to deliver our programs by
    focusing on priorities, by improving our efficiency, and by
    integrating our work. I would be happy to answer any questions
    you might have. Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]
                     Prepared Statement of Dale N. Bosworth
                                  introduction
        Mr. Chairman, Senator Dorgan, and members of the Subcommittee,
    thank you for this opportunity to discuss the President's fiscal year
    2006 Budget for the Forest Service. I am privileged to be here with you
    today. I want to express my appreciation for the support this
    Subcommittee has given the Forest Service to improve the health and
    sustainability of the nation's forests and rangelands.
        I am pleased to discuss the President's fiscal year 2006 Budget
    request for the Forest Service, which totals $4.07 billion in
    discretionary funding. It emphasizes the top priorities of the agency,
    especially the President's Healthy Forests Initiative, that are
    essential to improving the sustainability and health of the nation's
    forests and rangelands. First, I will discuss the future direction of
    the Forest Service. Then, I will describe our efforts to reduce
    wildfire threats and costs. For the remainder of my testimony, I will
    highlight programs and legislative proposals that reflect new
    directives or shifts in emphasis for fiscal year 2006.
                     future direction of the forest service
        This year the Forest Service celebrates its 100th anniversary. We
    are commemorating a century of caring for America's national treasures.
    One hundred years ago, America's first forester, Gifford Pinchot,
    recognized that ``our responsibility to the Nation is to be more than
    careful stewards of the land, we must be constant catalysts for
    positive change.'' This advice was true in 1905 and remains a guiding
    light now in 2005. Change is inevitable. This is why the Forest Service
    is committed to being a catalyst for positive change into our next
    century of service.
        Congress created the Forest Service as part of a national strategic
    response to the degradation of watersheds and the substantial loss of
    forests and wildlife that was occurring at a rapid rate during the last
    half of the 19th century. Let me briefly reflect on how much has
    changed since the Forest Service was established in 1905. During the
    last half of the 19th century, the U.S. population had more than
    tripled and forests were being cleared for agriculture at an average
    rate of 13.5 square miles per day. Wildfires were burning 20 to 50
    million acres a year between 1880 and 1930. These fires, as well as
    unregulated hunting and logging, were threatening long-term economic
    and environmental values. In fact, these activities were tolerated and
    even encouraged in the name of economic development, but it had become
    increasing clear that what was going on was unsustainable.
        Establishing the Forest Service in 1905 created a direct response
    to these threats. This response has been successful. The decline in
    U.S. forestland has stabilized and forest acreage is now about what it
    was in 1905. In fact, forestland in the Northeast has actually
    increased by 26 million acres since the Forest Service was established.
    Areas burned by wildfire have declined 90 percent since the 1930s.
    Forest growth has exceeded harvest since the 1940s. Tens of millions of
    acres of cutover lands that existed in 1905 have been reforested. Many
    of these are now mature forests whereas other reforested lands have
    been harvested a second time and are starting a new cycle. While some
    wildlife species continue to face threats, many others that were
    greatly depleted or nearly extinct in 1905 have increased dramatically,
    such as Rocky Mountain elk and wild turkey.
        The Forest Service has played a key role over the past 100 years in
    creating the changes that have touched our landscapes. In January, the
    agency convened a Centennial Congress in Washington D.C. to discuss
    these changes and the future 100 years of the Forest Service. Delegates
    to the Congress examined issues ranging from engaging the public in
    land management decisions to rewarding forest owners for carbon
    sequestration, delivering clean water, and providing other multiple-use
    benefits. We discussed how American society shifted from rural and
    agrarian to urban and industrialized. This in turn influenced the mix
    of uses and values the public seeks from its public lands. Today we see
    increased demands for recreation, greater consumption of natural
    resources, and mounting pressure on public lands from new development.
    Yet, at the same time, the public is expressing greater concern over
    the need for sustainable resource management.
        This historical shift places us in a conservation era that focuses
    on ecological restoration and long-term sustainability. We must manage
    the land for long-term ecosystem health and sustainable uses while
    meaningfully engaging the public in our decision-making. Land managers
    must be adaptable, innovative, and welcoming of new information, ideas,
    and perspectives. In the end, to be that constant catalyst for positive
    change in this era, the Forest Service must be more collaborative,
    accountable, and efficient in managing our natural resources.
        In the face of constant change, Americans must examine their
    consumption choices as an important aspect of sustainable development
    and ecosystem health. The United States consumes more wood than any
    other country. We also consume far more timber than we produce. The
    Forest Service has an opportunity to promote sustainable wood
    production and consumption. For example, Americans build roughly 1.5
    million single-family houses each year, which consume roughly 22
    billion board feet of lumber. At the same time, we lose approximately
    17 percent of this amount to fire each year, which is equivalent to
    250,000 new houses. We also lose a significant amount to insects and
    diseases. If we could salvage some of this lost wood, without
    compromising ecosystem health, we could help minimize our need to
    import wood. When imports encourage illegal or unsustainable
    environmental practices abroad, then there's a problem. This is why the
    Forest Service is assisting the State Department with implementing the
    President's initiative against selling illegal logs. The goal of the
    initiative is to combat illegal logging and the sale of illegally
    harvested timber products. But, minimizing consumption from foreign
    forests is only part of the equation. If we want healthy and resilient
    ecosystems and communities, then we need intelligent consumption
    balanced with sustainable management of our nation's forests and
    rangelands.
      we are implementing a long-term strategy to reduce wildfire threats
        Restoring fire-dependent ecosystems is the long-term solution to
    reduce the harmful effects of catastrophic wildfire. Restoration work
    involves eliminating the buildup of hazardous fuels so that natural
    fire regimes may be reestablished. The results of this effort may, in
    some cases, take several years before we begin to see significant
    changes in the way fire burns across the landscape. The President's
    Healthy Forests Initiative (HFI) is helping us tackle the process
    gridlock that was impeding the restoration of fire-adapted ecosystems,
    including the treatment of hazardous fuels.
        In support of the HFI, the President's Budget dedicates $281
    million to treat 1.8 million acres for hazardous fuels. An additional 1
    million acres will be protected as part of other natural resource
    management activities. Since 2001, Federal land management agencies
    have treated 11 million acres of hazardous fuels on public lands. The
    Forest Service and the Department of the Interior (DOI) agencies
    exceeded our program goals by accomplishing 2.9 million acres of
    hazardous fuel reduction for 2004, including 1.6 million acres in the
    Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI). Fifty-seven percent of these treatments
    were in the WUI.
        Another part of our long-term restoration strategy is to treat the
    right acres, in the right place, at the right time. Consistent with the
    President's recent Executive Order on Cooperative Conservation, the
    Forest Service is working closely with State forestry agencies and
    other partners to coordinate fuel treatments and to provide technical
    and financial assistance to reduce hazardous fuels on State and private
    lands. We are also enlisting the assistance of local communities. The
    Forest Service is working with coalitions of interested citizens to
    identify those areas in greatest need of hazardous fuel treatments.
    This collaborative effort includes helping communities complete
    Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPP). To date, over 600 such
    plans have been completed or are in progress across the nation. The
    number of plans will continue to grow as partnerships are formed and
    high-risk areas are identified. A consistent and systematic interagency
    approach will have a large-scale impact on reducing the size and
    severity of catastrophic wildfires. In addition, in fiscal year 2005, a
    handful of pilot projects supported by our Research program will test
    the strategic placement of fuel treatments on the behavior and effects
    of wildland fires. If this is effective, we will be better positioned
    to design and locate treatments to make a difference in the size,
    behavior, effects, and costs of fires. This integrated approach will
    maximize our investment in fuel treatments and allow us to build more
    integrated fuel treatment strategies with our partners.
        The expanded stewardship contracting authority provided by Congress
    is another key feature of the President's Healthy Forests Initiative
    goal of reducing catastrophic wildfire threats by making treatment of
    the land more cost-effective and collaborative than ever. For example,
    it allows contractors to make economic use of materials removed during
    restoration or thinning projects. This incentive promotes efficient
    land management practices and creates business opportunities in local
    communities. Using the stewardship and general contracting authority
    that Congress included in the Tribal Forest Protection Act (Public Law
    108-278) enacted last summer, Indian tribes have the opportunity to
    enter into agreements with the Secretaries of Agriculture and the
    Interior to achieve additional fuels reduction work on federal lands
    adjacent to their reservations. We are working with the Bureau of Land
    Management and Tribes on implementation guidelines for the Act.
        In all, we have a multi-faceted approach to tackling wildfire
    threats. Stewardship contracting, collaborating with partners, and
    strategically treating hazardous fuels are just a few examples. With
    your continued support of our hazardous fuels program and the HFI, we
    can have a long-term impact on minimizing the threat of catastrophic
    wildfire.
     we are looking for new ways to reduce wildland fire suppression costs
        In addition to reducing wildland fire threats, we must also reduce
    fire suppression costs. The President's Budget proposes a $51.6 million
    increase above the fiscal year 2005 enacted amount for wildland fire
    suppression. This reflects the most recent 10-year average for
    suppression costs, which are on an upward trend. Despite going into the
    2004 fire season on the heels of continuing drought and dry fuel
    conditions, the fire activity resulted in a below-average year across
    most of the Nation. Alaska, the lone exception, experienced its worst
    fire season on record with 703 fires and 6,517,200 acres burned. The
    lower 48 States experienced 61,873 fires that burned 1,394,144 acres.
    We attribute this less severe fire season to more favorable weather,
    fewer dry lightning storms, and to achieving initial attack success
    rates of over 99 percent.
        Despite this relatively ``good'' fire season, the agency still
    expended $726 million on wildland fire suppression. The Forest Service
    will continue to focus on reducing wildland fire suppression costs
    through incentives for efficient funds management, effective supply
    chain management, and rapid demobilization of incident response
    resources. The President's Budget provides additional incentives for
    reducing suppression costs by allocating suppression funds to the field
    and authorizing use of unobligated wildfire suppression funds for
    hazardous fuels treatment. Thus, a line officer's success in reducing
    suppression expenses can be rewarded through the availability of more
    funds to reduce hazardous fuels. Additionally, the Forest Service will
    work with the independent panel that was established by Congress to
    assess the agency's management of large wildland fires. The panel's
    first report on the fiscal year 2004 fire season will be completed
    soon.
            research guides our decisions and delivers new solutions
        In addition to these efforts, hazardous fuels reduction is critical
    to minimizing wildland fire suppression costs. Creating market-based
    incentives for the removal of this ``biomass'' is an important aspect
    of the agency's Forest and Rangeland Research program. The President's
    budget includes a $10 million request for capital improvements in our
    Forest Products Lab, which has been a world leader in developing
    innovative products made from wood and other forest materials.
    Maximizing use of forest biomass can complement forest management,
    provide jobs in local communities, and offer a renewable energy source
    for our country. The agency's Research program is critical for
    developing new technologies that make economic use of unmarketable and
    other salvageable forest materials while meeting our resource
    management needs. For example, the Lab developed a new composite
    material for residential siding made of recycled plastic and wood from
    juniper and salt cedar, two tree species that contribute to hazardous
    fuel loads in the Southwest. Biomass utilization offers a host of
    opportunities, many of which are yet to be discovered. For this reason,
    we are pleased that the President's Budget includes such an important
    investment in our country's future.
        The President's Budget also includes a $12.8 million boost in
    research to fund the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program to
    cover 100 percent of America's forests with an annual inventory. The
    FIA is the Nation's only forest census, which has been keeping track of
    the heartbeat and other vital statistics of America's forests for
    roughly 75 years. FIA is the only program delivering continuous and
    comprehensive assessments of our forests in a nationally consistent
    manner across all land ownerships. Policy and programmatic decisions
    hinge on what the census tells us about forest health. The FIA's up-to-
    date monitoring, coupled with cutting-edge research and our State and
    Private Forestry programs, also play a key role in addressing the
    emerging threat of invasive species. The FIA is critical to assessing
    our current progress in implementing our Invasive Species Strategic
    Plan. Moreover, FIA information will feed into the two national Early
    Warning System Centers that we are establishing in fiscal year 2006 to
    identify, detect, and rapidly respond to environmental threats, such as
    invasive species, diseases, insects, and fire.
      our new planning process is more flexible, efficient, and responsive
        Our future forest planning efforts will focus more on emerging
    threats, such as invasive species, wildfires, and unmanaged recreation.
    To meet these challenges, the Forest Service recently published a
    planning rule that offers greater flexibility for land managers. The
    rule establishes a dynamic planning process that is less bureaucratic,
    emphasizes science, and provides more opportunity for public
    involvement earlier in the planning stages. Moreover, land management
    plans must be more strategic, transparent, timely, and cost-effective.
        This new planning process directs each forest and grassland unit to
    adopt an Environmental Management System (EMS), which is an adaptive
    management tool designed to provide feedback to land managers on all
    phases of land decisions. A key feature of the EMS requires independent
    audits of our agency's performance at 5-year intervals to ensure that
    we are achieving the plan's goals. The EMS will ground our decisions in
    science and strengthen our accountability.
        Public involvement in our decisions also makes us more accountable.
    This is why the rule requires opportunities for public involvement at
    four key stages in the planning process. The rule also establishes a
    pre-decisional objection process that replaces our agency's costly and
    lengthy appeals process. These new features encourage the public to
    participate with land managers in the early planning stages to resolve
    any issues and concerns. This will be less adversarial than in the past
    where some people waited until after a final decision to make their
    concerns known by filing an appeal. Under the old rule, it typically
    took 5 to 7 years to revise a 15-year land management plan, and in the
    case of one forest, cost as much as $5.5 million. Under the new rule, a
    plan revision will take approximately 2 to 3 years and cost much less.
            we can reap multiple benefits from preserving open space
        The President's Budget dedicates $80 million to the Forest Legacy
    Program, which will protect an estimated 300,000 priority acres in
    fiscal year 2006. This program is an excellent tool for reducing the
    loss of open space and saving working forests. This program is
    successful, in part, because it places the important decisions of how
    and where to protect open space in the hands of States, local
    governments, individual landowners, and non-profit partners. Protection
    of open space serves multiple purposes that go beyond the obvious
    benefit of supporting biodiversity, maintaining scenic beauty, and
    preventing conversion of land to undesirable uses. More open space
    directly encourages and supports working forests, working farms, and
    working ranches. This is a value-added benefit that makes it profitable
    to maintain open space. We need to maintain ``working forests''- those
    that are managed to produce economic and environmental benefits. Study
    after study shows that conservation of forests is one of the best
    methods for keeping our drinking water safe and clean.
        Another key to this program's success is that it leverages millions
    of dollars at the local level. For example, each Federal dollar
    typically leverages an equal amount in non-Federal contributions. Since
    1992, a $197 million Federal investment has protected over $381 million
    of land value, encompassing over 1 million acres through conservation
    easements and land purchases. We hope that you will continue to support
    this important program.
        The President's Budget also proposes an increase of $5 million for
    the Forest Stewardship Program, which provides planning and management
    assistance to thousands of America's private forest owners. Federal
    funds are leveraged by contributions from State forestry agencies that
    deliver this program. The improved forest management that results from
    this program benefits all Americans by providing a full range of
    ecosystem services, including clean water and air, habitat for
    wildlife, and forest products.
     we have new approaches to tackle the public's growing recreation needs
        National forests and grasslands are an integral connection between
    the American public and their desire to experience the great outdoors.
    The Forest Service hosts more than 200 million recreation visitors each
    year. Reconciling this demand within the limits of maintaining
    sustainable ecosystems is becoming a greater challenge each year. To
    address this issue, we are looking at a variety of new approaches to
    keep us in the forefront of meeting visitors' expectations of having
    safe and enjoyable recreational experiences. Last year, President Bush
    signed into law the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act. This Act
    allows the Forest Service to charge modest fees at recreation sites
    that can be used to help maintain and improve the recreational
    experience of our visitors. The vast majority of recreation sites and
    services will continue to be free for activities such as horseback
    riding, walking, hiking, and general access to national forests and
    grasslands. The Act also establishes citizen recreation advisory
    committees that will provide important input on implementation of the
    fee program. We look forward to working with these committees and
    Congress to ensure that the public is fully involved and fees are fair
    for the value received.
        In the past several years, I have noted that unmanaged recreation,
    particularly with respect to off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, is a major
    challenge to our national forests and grasslands. The age of Americans
    being able to drive anywhere on National Forest System lands has come
    to an end. Over the last 3 decades, ownership of OHVs in the United
    States has grown from 5 million to 37 million vehicles. National
    forests are experiencing an explosion of user-developed trails beyond
    our agency's capacity to manage or maintain. Some of these unauthorized
    trails are causing unacceptable resource damage. In response, the
    Forest Service recently published a proposed regulation on management
    of motor vehicle use on national forests. The regulation would require
    forests to work closely with local communities to designate roads,
    trails, and areas open to motor vehicle use and specify allowable use
    by vehicle class and time of year. Motor vehicle travel off of the
    designated system would be prohibited. The agency is currently
    developing the final rule, which is expected to be published later this
    year.
            we need to reverse the trend of deteriorating facilities
        Our backlog in deferred maintenance for our infrastructure
    continues to be a challenge. This backlog is especially critical for
    facilities that provide recreation opportunities to the public, as well
    as our administrative sites where employees work and provide services
    to the public. It is appropriate that we look for solutions beyond
    appropriations to tackle our deferred maintenance backlog. For example,
    this budget proposes a new incentive-based approach to reduce our
    maintenance backlog for administrative sites and visitor centers.
    Moreover, the President's Budget proposes new legislation that
    authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to sell or exchange
    administrative sites that are no longer needed for National Forest
    System purposes. The legislation will facilitate the timely disposal of
    administrative sites and free up dollars to invest back in existing or
    replacement facilities. It will also provide for the use of a working
    capital fund for the performance of routine maintenance. These reforms
    will assist the agency in maintaining and improving the quality of its
    facility assets.
      we have made great strides in performance and financial management
                                 accountability
        The Forest Service will continue agency-wide efforts to improve
    performance and financial management accountability in fiscal year
    2006. We have already made significant progress toward this goal. I am
    proud to report that the Government Accountability Office removed the
    Forest Service from its ``high risk'' list because we achieved a third
    consecutive ``clean'' audit opinion and are implementing significant
    organizational changes that ensure sustainability in financial
    management. Not only is this an important accomplishment for our
    agency, but it demonstrates our serious commitment to make continued
    improvements in financial management, as well as build efficiency into
    other administrative areas that have been burdened with outdated
    policies and decentralized processes. While I am pleased with our
    financial management improvement, I must also acknowledge that
    attaining this milestone simply means that we are now balancing our
    checkbook--something the public should expect as the norm. Keeping the
    checkbook balanced will allow the agency to better focus on its natural
    resource management functions.
        Our Financial Management Improvement Project is moving forward as
    planned. Later this month, the new Albuquerque Service Center will be
    operational, with phased implementation throughout this fiscal year.
    This new center will provide financial and budgetary services to the
    agency using performance standards that focus on customer service,
    efficiency, and data quality. With full implementation of financial
    management reforms, the Forest Service anticipates that it will realize
    a $35 million in annual savings. Additionally, when other reforms are
    implemented, the annual savings will increase to $91 million.
        A key element of quality financial management is the ability to
    link funding and expenditures to the strategic goals of the agency. In
    response to the Budget and Performance Integration initiative in the
    President's Management Agenda and the Government Performance and
    Results Act, the Forest Service is presenting an improving performance-
    based budget year after year. In fiscal year 2004, the Forest Service
    completed a new strategic plan. This planning blueprint has helped the
    Forest Service and its field units develop programs of work that
    address our natural resource needs while maximizing limited resources
    and improving performance accountability. The strategic plan was the
    driving force in making budget decisions and requests for fiscal year
    2006. With important system enhancements, the Forest Service will be
    able to provide project-specific information about fiscal year 2006
    expenditures with direct linkage to our strategic plan's goals and
    objectives.
        To ensure that the Forest Service's annual activities are
    appropriately aligned with its Strategic Plan, the agency is making
    effective use of the Program Assessment and Rating Tool (PART). The
    PART process has been used in the past to develop more effective
    performance measures and emphasis in programs, including wildland fire
    management, capital improvement and maintenance, Forest Legacy, and
    invasive species. Two additional programs will be evaluated in support
    of the fiscal year 2006 President's Budget.
                                   conclusion
        The President's Budget for fiscal year 2006 delivers funding for
    innovative approaches as well as long-standing programs that have
    served the land and the American public well. The President's Budget
    also demonstrates that the Forest Service must use incentive-based
    approaches to reduce costs and accomplish its mission. We must continue
    to work closely with Federal and non-Federal partners to leverage
    alternative funds to accomplish our program of work. As I said at the
    beginning of my testimony, we must move forward with a renewed interest
    in collaboration, efficiency, and accountability as we enter this new
    century of service. We must be rapid responders, but we must also
    respond to change with great care. After all, we are the trustees of
    America's greatest natural resources.
        Thank you for this opportunity to discuss the President's Budget. I
    look forward to working with you to implement our fiscal year 2006
    program and am happy to answer any questions you may have.

        Senator Burns. Thank you. Thank you a lot, Chief. We
    appreciate your statement. We appreciate your good work on the
    task. Of course we realize that we are on a tight budget up
    here also.

                                    GRAZING

        I want to bring up one thing that still kind of concerns
    me. We talk about healthy forests and we talk about removal of
    fuels, and I think we have done a lot to move in that direction
    and we have accomplished a lot. I noticed in the budget that
    you cut $3.4 million out of your budget for processing of
    grazing allotments. Now, I want to remind our good friends
    this: Every place that we have grazing, we have less fires. I
    think the grazing permits can be thrown right in there with
    healthy forests or fuel or fire prevention and should be moved
    up in the priorities. Instead, we have given you categorical
    exclusion to help you increase and to deal with those permits.
        They are not moving any faster that I can see, and now we
    are cutting budget from it, which, I think, does a couple of
    things. The program keeps an industry alive, and it keeps your
    forest in a management-type mode where we can prevent fires and
    provide additional fuels reduction.
        I do not see you making that connection on how important
    this really is. It is a natural thing. It does not cost us
    anything. We, in fact, get a few dollars back for it.
        Mr. Bosworth. Mr. Chairman, the numbers that were
    calculated to show how many allotment management plans we would
    complete were calculated prior to the time that we had the
    opportunity to use categorical exclusions. Our expectation is
    that we would be able to increase significantly the number of
    allotment management plans each year, from about 400 probably
    up to around 750 allotment management plans each year, with the
    use of the categorical exclusion.
        So that would be about 300 additional each year for the
    next 3 years. If we are able to complete those even faster than
    the 3 years and we got the total of 900 completed that we have
    the authorization for, we would be back asking you for some
    additional help. But categorical exclusions are going to go a
    long ways toward achieving what you are concerned about, I
    believe.
        Mr. Rey. That reduction is a reflection of our expectation
    that our unit cost to do grazing lease renewals will be reduced
    slightly through the use of the categorical exclusion. So that
    was a reduction we took, not to reduce outputs, but in
    recognition of the fact that we could produce a higher level of
    outputs more efficiently, given a very tight budget.
        We do understand and appreciate that grazing plays an
    important role in fuels reduction. In fact, in some of our
    national forests, particularly the ones in the Los Angeles
    Basin, we let grazing leases out to maintain fuels levels in
    fuels breaks for that purpose. It is a fairly inexpensive way
    to maintain fuels at a certain level in a fuel break, and
    grazing animals help us in our fuels reduction and fire
    reduction risk purposes, with one exception. We had an
    escapement on a wildfire 2 years ago in the Angeles National
    Forest where one of our goats was indirectly involved, because
    it was an escapement from a pagan worship ceremony where they
    were sacrificing a goat and the fire got away. So in that case
    the goat did not help, but normally they do.
        Senator Burns. Well, I would think that maybe you would
    hang onto this $3.4 million and accelerate the number of
    permits that you could work. I would hope you could do that.
    But to cut back if you are more efficient--I do not have any
    problem with being efficient. Therefore, we ought to see the
    increased numbers of permits being worked and issued. That is
    what I am getting at.
        I would say, I got the biggest kick out of--I drove on the
    back side of the University of Montana a couple years ago and
    there were two big truckloads of sheep being unloaded out
    there. They were going up on Mount Jumbo. Well, these people
    standing around, these little environmental people who have
    been trying to get livestock off of public lands all these
    years, said: We found a new way to control leafy spurge and
    spotted knapweed, and we are paying the people that own the
    sheep to graze this off.
        I said: By golly, wish I had thought of that. I did not
    want to throw any dampness on what they were trying to do, but
    we know that it works, and it has to be part of our activities
    to prevent forest fires. If one occurs, the suppression is much
    easier. We have seen up in the Big Timber area where a fire
    just got all the way up to a grazing lease and then it quit
    right there. So we think it is pretty important.
        I am pleased with your leadership on the audit. I think
    that was very important because we had a long time here trying
    to figure out what in the world was going on down there and how
    we were using the money. I applaud you for integrating your
    systems of accounting and also the moving, using broadband,
    centralizing your bookkeeping, and all of that.
        So that tells me that we ought to be a little more
    efficient when we start dealing with grazing, forest
    stewardship, and forest health. With the categorical exclusion
    that we have got in place for you, those should move along a
    lot faster than I think they are moving along right now.
        I would yield to my good friend from North Dakota.

                                 NOXIOUS WEEDS

        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, let me again thank the
    witnesses for their testimony. I indicated previously that I
    would submit some questions for the record. As the Chief knows,
    I will once again want to inquire about leafy spurge and weed
    control on lands that I believe we have a responsibility to
    control weeds on. I also want to provide some other questions
    for which we can get some answers.
        Because of the debate on the floor at the moment on this
    live cattle issue from Canada, I am going to go over and
    participate in the debate and I know my colleagues, including
    the chairman of the full committee now, who has joined us will
    participate. So let me defer at this point and, Mr. Chairman,
    thank you very much for this hearing this morning.
        Senator Burns. I will be over to join you in just a little
    bit. Thank you, Senator Dorgan.
        Senator Cochran.
        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for
    convening this hearing to review the Forest Service budget for
    the next fiscal year.

                           HEALTHY FORESTS INITIATIVE

        I notice in your statements both the Chief and the Under
    Secretary refer to the President's Healthy Forests Initiative.
    We were really pleased that we were able to support the
    President's initiative and get legislation passed implementing
    many of the suggestions that the Administration had made.

                        HEALTHY FORESTS RESERVE PROGRAM

        I am concerned about one aspect of the budget request,
    though, and that is the fact that there is no funding provided
    for the Healthy Forests Reserve Program. This was part of the
    Healthy Forests Initiative and we are hopeful that a way can be
    found to reallocate some funds so that that program can be
    funded.
        What is the reaction that you have to that problem? Has
    there been any conversation within the Forest Service or in the
    Department about reprogramming or in some other way making
    available funds for the Healthy Forests Reserve Program?
        Mr. Rey. There have been some conversations. They have not
    involved the Forest Service. They have been held at the
    departmental level. The reason for that is that in the
    delegation that occurred after the Act was passed the Healthy
    Forests Reserve Program was delegated to the Natural Resources
    Conservation Service because of its similarity to a number of
    NRCS programs like the Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program
    and the Grassland Reserve Program.
        We are in the process of writing the regulations--that is,
    NRCS is in the process of writing the regulations--for the
    Healthy Forests Reserve Program. We expect that they will be
    out in proposed form shortly. It is our expectation that we
    will complete those regulations contemporaneously while we are
    working on this 2006 budget and at some point as that occurs we
    would be happy to sit down with the committee and talk about
    some reallocations of funds to provide funding in the Healthy
    Forests Reserve Program.
        Senator Cochran. Good. We would appreciate very much your
    assistance in helping to find a way to see that funds are
    allocated to that program, even though it may not be within
    your budget. Your influence could help.
        Mr. Rey. Actually it is, because the NRCS is the other
    agency I oversee. So you are complaining to the right person.
        Senator Cochran. Okay. We also know that under the law we
    passed, we encouraged more resources be made available for pest
    infestation problems research, particularly into better ways to
    combat diseases in our forests. This not only applies to our
    Forest Service lands, those under your direct jurisdiction and
    responsibility, but also private forests. I think insects do
    not know whether they are on private land or public land when
    they start their work. There is a lot that can be done by our
    Government agencies to help private landowners. In our State,
    most of the land is in private ownership and so I am hopeful
    that the Forest Service and the Department will continue to
    keep that in mind and help lead the way in developing new
    management and treatment methods that they can share with
    private landowners.
        Mr. Rey. We have several of those under way now, mostly in
    the Southeastern States. I know we have some in Georgia and
    some in Arkansas. I do not recall offhand whether we have any
    projects in Mississippi. But what we would be happy to do is
    submit for the record a complete list of the projects so far
    that were developed under I think it is Title IV of the Healthy
    Forests Restoration Act.
        [The information follows:]

        Title IV--Silvicultural Assessments and Accelerated Information
                                   Gathering

        Using authority provided under Title IV of the Healthy Forests
    Restoration Act of 2003, Forest Service Research & Development (R&D),
    National Forest System (NFS), Forest Health Protection (FHP), and State
    and Private Forestry (SPF) are working together and partnering with
    several universities and State forestry agencies to conduct landscape-
    scale applied research projects to address insect infestations and
    diseases that threaten the health of many of our forests and grasslands
    in the United States. The applied research projects aim to conduct and
    evaluate different land management practices that reduce problems
    associated with the current outbreaks of insects such as the red oak
    borer and southern pine beetle, and to translate that information for
    practicing professionals, landowners, and the public. These projects
    will be instrumental in mitigating the damage caused by these
    destructive insects. There are currently six silvicultural assessments
    underway.
        Title IV also includes projects on accelerated information
    gathering on insects and diseases. There are currently six of these
    projects planned or underway, and one has been completed.
        A complete list of Healthy Forest Restoration Act research and
    development projects, under Title IV--Silvicultural Assessments, and
    Accelerated Information Gathering, is below. A detailed description of
    each individual research project may be obtained at http://
    www.healthyforests.gov/applied_research/index.html.
        Silvicultural Assessments:
      --Research and demonstration areas of silvicultural treatments for
            minimizing gypsy moth effects
      --Hemlock woolly adelgid in the southern Appalachians at Otto, North
            Carolina (SRS-4351)
      --Applied silvicultural assessment of upland oak-hickory forests and
            the red oak borer in the Ozark and Ouachita Mountains of
            Arkansas at Monticello, Arkansas (SRS-4106)
      --Maintaining habitat diversity, sustaining oak systems, and reducing
            risk of mortality from gypsy moth and oak decline on the Daniel
            Boone National Forest: silvicultural approaches and their
            operational dimensions
      --Applied silvicultural assessment (ASA) of southern pine beetle
            (SPB) in southern pine stands west of the Mississippi River
            (SRS-4106)
      --Silvicultural thinning treatments for hemlock woolly adelgid (HWA)
            damage mitigation (NE Station)
        Accelerated information gathering projects include:
      --Response of bark beetle populations to wildfire and prescribed
            burning at Athens, GA (SRS-4505)
      --Hemlock woolly adelgid in the southern Appalachians at Athens, GA
            (SRS-4505)
      --Trapping systems for early detection of exotic beetles at ports-of-
            origin and ports-of-entry, and for detection and control of
            exotic and invasive beetles in urban landscapes and managed
            forests at Athens, GA (SRS-4505)
      --Blacks Mountain interdisciplinary research project--Cone Fire
            assessment
      --Stand and landscape visualization systems and remote sensing of
            forest vegetation structure
      --Rapid response treatment strategies for public and private
            landowners in the South to recover from Red Oak Borer in the
            Ozark Mountains of Arkansas at Monticello, Arkansas (SRS-4106)
      --Genetic diversity of western white pine (Pinus monticola Dougl.)
            revealed by genetic markers: Improving the white pine blister
            rust resistance breeding program and understanding the
            importance of natural regeneration after biotic and abiotic
            disturbances.

                        HEALTHY FORESTS RESERVE PROGRAM

        Senator Cochran. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for the hearing and the good job
    you are doing as chairman of this subcommittee.
        Senator Burns. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will
    address you back as ``Mr. Chairman'' also.

                                 FOREST HEALTH

        I think the chairman raises a good question on our research
    and the maintenance of our forests, especially with regard to
    insects. They do not know whether the trees are privately owned
    or owned by the Federal Government. No matter what the private
    people do in order to take care of their problem, if we do not
    take care of ours, theirs is an endless job and we never will
    get our arm around this.
        So I think he raises a good question there and we should
    take a look at that.
        Senator Bennett.
        Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                                LITIGATION COSTS

        One of my main hobby horses that I continue to ride is the
    impact of litigation costs, both in the Forest Service and the
    BLM. We have had testimony from the BLM that litigation costs
    eat up something like 50 percent of their administrative
    budgets, and people keep filing delays, filing appeals, doing
    everything they can to use the courts to prevent what I
    consider to be sound management.
        The Government wins something like 99 percent of all of
    these appeals, but the amount of administrative time spent
    dealing with them and legal fees spent handling it are great.
    The folks who file the protests really do not care about the
    merit of their position. They simply want to snarl up the whole
    process.
        Do you have a sense or can you give us a summary of where
    these litigation costs are in the Forest Service?
        Mr. Bosworth. Senator Bennett, I do not think I can give
    you a specific cost regarding our litigation costs. The
    situation for us is that every one of our projects in one way
    or another is affected by litigation, because we have to go
    through additional analysis, additional work, checking, double-
    checking--getting an administrative file that may be 6 feet
    tall if you stacked it on end--assuming we may get litigation.
        So every project ends up being affected because we have
    people doing work and analysis and documentation that otherwise
    is not really necessary for a sound decision. They go through
    it in order to make sure that if they get litigated, they will
    have an opportunity and a chance to win.
        So if you just took the actual cost of litigation per se,
    the specific amount of time we spend on it, it would not be a
    high percentage of our budget, but probably 50 percent of our
    time goes into planning and doing analysis and documentation in
    the event of that litigation. Then we often get appealed; we go
    through the appeals process and then we get litigated on a
    proportion of those.
        So our concern has been how to reduce that level of
    analysis and work that we do so that we can make sound
    decisions and involve the public, but not have to have 10 boxes
    worth of administrative record to defend ourselves in court. It
    is very impacting in the end.
        Mr. Rey. I think that the costs break into three broad
    categories. There is the one we can quantify for you and submit
    for the record and that is the actual cost of the time spent in
    appeals and litigation. The second, which the Chief mentioned,
    is the collateral cost of working backwards for all the
    projects that are affected by litigation, adding additional
    analysis and process in the interest of litigation avoidance.
        The third is the opportunity costs associated with projects
    that are time-sensitive that are delayed and ultimately changed
    as a consequence of the delay associated with litigation. In
    southern Oregon, for instance, we are in the middle of a matrix
    of lawsuits, which is probably the best way to describe it, on
    the recovery project for the Biscuit Fire, that burned in 2002,
    which was the largest fire in Oregon's history.

                                LITIGATION COSTS

        Ultimately, by the time we sort our way through all the
    litigation--and so far we are winning the lawsuits; we are not
    losing them--much of the salvageable timber that we would have
    salvaged is going to be substantially less useful, if not
    worthless. The proceeds from that salvage were going to
    partially pay for much of the other restoration work that was
    going to be done on those sites to stabilize those watersheds
    on a long-term basis.
        So as we lost that potential revenue source as an
    opportunity cost associated with litigation that we will
    ultimately win; at least we are winning so far, even in the
    Ninth Circuit. We are going to have to either forego the
    restoration work or pay for it out of appropriated dollars. So
    that opportunity cost is not inconsequential, particularly in
    projects that are time-sensitive by their nature.
        Senator Bennett. We are the Appropriations Committee and we
    have to come up with the money that you need to carry out your
    mission, and it is just very frustrating to me that such a high
    percentage of the money we come up with goes into what is
    essentially a totally nonproductive kind of activity. If you
    were losing your lawsuits, that would indicate that you were
    doing something wrong and that these people are watchdogs. But
    the fact that you win so often indicates, I think, that they
    are not watchdogs; they are dogs in the manger who simply do
    not want you to do your job and they are using the courts as a
    way to try to prevent it.

                                     ENERGY

        Let me turn my attention to the question of energy
    resources. There is a great deal of energy available in the
    Intermountain West, where I come from, and increasing attention
    is being paid to the potential of energy coming from Forest
    Service lands. There is some sense of frustration that land
    managers on the ground do not pay attention to energy
    development, they put it very much on the back burner. Do you
    want to address that and agree or defend or vigorously deny or
    whatever else you might have in mind with respect to this
    question?
        Mr. Rey. Well, I think I would offer an alternative
    perspective. If you look at our 2006 request from among the
    National Forest System accounts, what you will see is that one
    of the largest increases is for our minerals program. A good
    part of that is a reflection of the fact that we know that we
    have a backlog of opportunity there and a desire to be more
    efficient in reviewing the applications that we get for new
    development. We are trying to process those in an efficient
    fashion so that we can produce energy in an environmentally
    sensitive way.
        Mr. Bosworth. If I could add just one thing to that, we are
    also putting significant effort into biomass and utilization of
    biomass, both in terms of research and finding places where we
    can utilize some of that material to help reduce energy needs
    for this country.

                                 PLANNING RULE

        Senator Bennett. Land management plans. We have talked here
    before about the Dixie National Forest and how again, back to
    the first subject, protests and petitions and so on have
    prevented us from saving the Dixie Forest from devastation by
    the beetles. People say: Gee, if human beings go in there,
    somehow they will taint the forest. The fact is, the beetles
    are there destroying the forest and human beings, if they were
    there, could do something about it, somehow that is okay. If
    nature kills the trees, the trees deserve to be dead, but if
    human beings kill the trees and turn them into houses, somehow
    that is evil. I do not support that view, but there is that
    view.
        Can you talk about improvements to the LMP that are coming
    as a result of the new rule you adopted in December 2004?
        Mr. Bosworth. Yes, I would be happy to do that. As you
    said, in December we finalized our planning rule. We have been
    operating under the old planning rule that was developed in
    1982, so you can tell that is quite outdated and it was time to
    make some significant revisions, in our judgment. So the new
    planning rule that we have does several things.
        First, I believe it will allow for better public
    involvement. It is going to be shorter. We will get it done
    quicker. We estimate that under the new planning rule we will
    be able to complete a forest plan revision in 2 to 3 years.
    Under our existing time frame it has taken us 8 to 10 years to
    complete a 15-year forest plan.
        By having it shortened, I believe that it will allow people
    to be much more engaged and much more involved. The average
    person cannot be involved in a forest plan if it is going to
    take 8 or 9 years to get it done. The people who are being paid
    can. The people from the timber industry or the livestock
    industry or the environmental industry can be involved in it.
    But the person down the street who wants to go out with his
    family and enjoy the national forests cannot stick with it.
        So I believe that is one major change I think will help. It
    will also cost less money if we get it done quicker.
        I believe it will also provide for better environmental
    protections. The reason I say that is because we have an
    Environmental Management System that we will put in place that
    requires an independent audit of the forest each year and that
    will show whether or not we are doing what we said we would do
    and whether or not we are getting the outcomes that we said we
    will get. We will increase the amount of monitoring that we are
    doing, so that will allow us then to make adjustments based
    upon what we have learned.
        So the whole notion would be, instead of trying to guess
    what might happen by doing an analysis up front, we will do
    adequate analysis, but we will put our emphasis into after we
    have implemented for a year; then we look and see what actually
    happened and learn from that and make adjustments. That makes
    more sense to me. I think that will provide for better
    environmental protections.
        I think it will also increase the visibility of our
    projects by having independent auditors looking at what we are
    doing and involving the public in that.
        In the end, all of our decisions will be science-based. The
    planning rule requires using the best available science. Our
    analyses will be reviewed by our scientists to make sure that
    we are actually interpreting the science correctly.
        So those are the major changes that I think will end up
    with a much better process that will be more acceptable to the
    public.
        Senator Bennett. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Burns. Senator Stevens.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                            RED CEDAR EXPORT POLICY

        I am concerned about a few things here that I read in the
    budget. For instance, there is a request that we change the
    prohibition against export of Alaska's red cedar to give the
    right of first refusal to the timber industry and then to allow
    its export. Just how would that work? Are you going to set the
    price and if they take it they can buy it; if not, are you
    going to export it? I do not understand that mechanism.
        Mr. Rey. That is basically how it would work. This would be
    an opportunity to----
        Senator Stevens. Well, you have got a timber industry on
    its knees because of the work of extreme environmentalists in
    our State and they cannot afford to meet the bid of people in
    foreign countries that do not have the environmental
    restrictions that we have. That is a no-brainer. I do not
    understand who came up with that.
        Mr. Rey. No, this is an attempt to help the industry in
    Alaska to market the red cedar, which they do not manufacture
    in Alaska, but to also give the opportunity for the industry in
    the Puget Sound to get access to those logs. The way that the
    system is supposed to work is----
        Senator Stevens. All we did was prohibit the export, Mark.
    We did not say you could not sell it to Seattle. They can still
    sell it to Seattle if they want to buy it. I do not understand
    that language at all. I would urge you to look at it and give
    us a paper on what it really means. I have been around that
    industry for a long time and I never saw such a proposal, that
    our people can buy it if they meet your price, is what you are
    saying.
        Mr. Rey. No. What we are saying is that the producers in
    the Puget Sound area get a right of first refusal at a set
    price.
        Senator Stevens. No. The language says first refusal to the
    Alaska timber industry. Check it, will you?
        Mr. Rey. Okay, we will check on that.
        [The information follows:]

        Senator Stevens is correct, since the Alaska timber industry would
    be making the initial purchase.

                               KAKE LAND EXCHANGE

        Senator Stevens. Second now, we provided $2 million to
    facilitate what was known as the Kake Land Exchange. You want
    to strike that language. Why?
        Mr. Rey. I think the exchange is complete, is it not?
        Senator Stevens. Again, take a look at that. I do not
    understand that either.
        [The information follows:]
                               Kake Land Exchange
        In October 2000, Congress enacted the Kake Tribal Corporation Land
    Transfer Act (Public Law 106-283, Kake Act), an amendment to the Alaska
    Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). The statute provides for the
    reallocation of lands and selection rights among the State, Kake Tribal
    Corporation, and the City of Kake in order to protect and manage the
    Kake municipal watershed.
        The Kake Act provided that if the State relinquished its selection
    rights to 1,389 acres of Federal lands in Jenny Creek, and if Kake
    Tribal Corporation and Sealaska conveyed 1,430 acres of non-Federal
    lands to the City of Kake, then USDA would convey the surface estate of
    the 1,389 acres at Jenny Creek to the Kake Tribal Corporation and the
    subsurface to Sealaska.
        The lands conveyed to the City were encumbered by a conservation
    easement granted by Kake Tribal to the Southeast Alaska Land Trust to
    provide for the perpetual protection and management of Kake's
    watershed. Thus, the Act authorized ``such sums as may be necessary to
    carry out this Act, including to compensate Kake Tribal Corporation for
    relinquishing its development rights [in the lands encumbered by the
    conservation easement] and to provide assistance to Kake Tribal
    Corporation to meet the requirements of subsection (h) [the timber
    export restriction].''
        In fiscal year 2001, the appropriations legislation provided $5
    million for this purpose. The Alaska Region determined the value of the
    timber rights Kake Tribal Corporation relinquished to be worth at least
    $5 million and transferred the funds. Kake Tribal Corporation
    commissioned a market analysis that indicated the Corporation lost $18
    million in revenues. This amount was not verified or accepted by the
    Forest Service using standard market value estimates. In subsequent
    fiscal years (fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2005), Congress
    appropriated additional lump sum payments to Kake Tribal for
    implementation of the Act. A total of about $13 million has been
    allocated to Kake Tribal (subject to rescission percentages). The
    Forest Service believes that the Kake Act has been fully implemented.

                              TIMBER SALE PIPELINE

        Senator Stevens. We proposed that there be $5 million be
    put in to funding for the EIS's on Alaska timber sale to ensure
    that there would be a stable supply of timber, the so-called
    pipeline amendment, to put some timber in the pipeline so it
    would be there and the EIS's would be cleared in advance so
    people knew what they were bidding on. Right now you bid on it
    and then the EIS comes along and it is stalled for 2 years.
    Your money is tied up for 2 years and your industry dies.
        Now, what is wrong with our approach?
        Mr. Rey. The problem is litigation, but not the funding of
    the EIS's.
        Senator Stevens. Well, you strike the money, $5 million for
    the pipeline money. Again, I want you to look at that. I cannot
    believe you would strike that $5 million. The Forest Service
    concurred with us that we should find a way to get the EIS's
    completed before a timber sale.
        Mr. Rey. We can take a look at that.
        [The information follows:]

        The President's fiscal year 2006 budget includes up to $4 million
    specifically for allocation to the Alaska Region for the purpose of
    preparing timber pipeline volume which is in addition to its normal
    allocation.

                                ALASKA RAILROAD

        Senator Stevens. One was provided for--$1 million for the
    activities on the Chugach that relate to the partnership
    between the Chugach people--as you know, it is a regional
    Native corporation--and the Alaska Railroad. Why did you strike
    that money?
        Mr. Rey. It was our understanding that that was a 1-year
    project. If there is a continuing need to carry that forward,
    that is something we should talk about.
        Senator Stevens. What this finances is stops made in Forest
    Service area, by the Alaska Railroad. Maybe you should
    understand what it is about. It was in order to increase the
    recreation opportunities in the forest area by financing the
    stops that are necessary. You understand? We have an Alaska
    Railroad. It does stop. It is like a Toonerville Trolley. It
    stops in advance if you tell it where to stop.
        If the people know it is going to stop in the forest, they
    will build the recreational facilities for those stops in your
    Forest Service area. Again, I look at this, I cannot believe
    that the people who prepared it--I hope this is part of OMB's
    additions to your proposal and not the Forest Service. If not,
    I suggest you station some people up in Alaska to learn a
    little bit about my State, okay?
        Mr. Rey. Okay.
        Senator Stevens. I will tell you, a kind letter will follow
    this.

                            ALASKA FIRE SEASON--2005

        As you know, the last year was about the worst fire season
    we have ever seen. At one time there were 6.6 million acres
    burning. For 15 days the EPA rated the air quality in Fairbanks
    as dangerous and hazardous--at 10 micrograms per cubic meter.
    People were told to stay indoors, to avoid exertion. Older
    people had to be moved out of the city.
        I received reports that these fires could have been
    diminished, but you lacked resources to fight fires in my
    State, whereas you were fighting fires of 100,000 acres in the
    lower 48. Now, tell me, who makes that decision that you can't
    fight fires in Alaska?
        Mr. Rey. Those decisions are made by the incident
    commanders on site in charge of the fires, and no incident
    commander in Alaska was denied any resource request that he
    posed.
        Senator Stevens. This was reported in the paper now and was
    reported to us in my offices in Alaska that the Federal
    agencies lacked the resources, manpower, and equipment to
    handle these fires because they were so large. They could
    handle minor fires, but they could not handle large fires. Now,
    you know, some time ago the environmental community came to me
    and said: God made the fires and God made the forests, so you
    should not interfere with God. Is that the proposal now, we are
    going to let fires in Alaska burn?
        Mr. Rey. No, not at all. We trust the incident commanders
    in charge of fires, whether they are Alaskan fires or whether
    they are fires in the lower 48, to decide what the attack
    strategy on those fires is going to be and call for the
    resources that they need. And in Alaska this year----
        Senator Stevens. Well, then I shall call, ask the committee
    to call the people who made the decisions in Alaska to come
    tell us why they did not fight those fires. 6.6 million acres
    of Federal forest burned and the fires went on for 20 days.
        Mr. Rey. It was a record fire season in Alaska.
        Senator Stevens. They tell me, because all the winds are
    bringing all the snow down this year, it is going to be a
    record fire season again.
        Mr. Rey. It is setting up to be another one.
        Senator Stevens. There are 2.2 million acres of beetle kill
    in the Anchorage region. We have not been able to cut it and if
    it is as dry this year in Anchorage as it was in Fairbanks last
    year, it could well consume the area that has half the
    population of my State. You know I live right in the middle of
    it, right?
        Mr. Rey. I think the difference here is that if cities like
    Anchorage or Fairbanks or even small communities are
    threatened, our incident commanders will adopt a much more
    aggressive and resource-intensive strategy.
        Senator Stevens. Now you are saying that if there are not
    any people around you let the timber burn?
        Mr. Rey. We do that in the lower 48 as well. We let it burn
    under prescription if we know that there are no property or
    human lives that are threatened. That is not unique to Alaska.
        Senator Stevens. Over 6.6 million acres of timber can burn
    and you just sit by?
        Mr. Rey. We do not sit by.
        Senator Stevens. You did not try to contain it.
        Mr. Rey. We make sure that we can extinguish when it is an
    immediate threat to human life or property.
        Senator Stevens. Well, you know it was right to the edges
    of the National Missile Defense area at Fort Greeley, do you
    not?
        Mr. Rey. There were contingency plans to make sure it did
    not----
        Senator Stevens. I remember going down to New Mexico where
    it came right up on Los Alamos because of a decision not to
    fight it about 12 miles away and the fire got away.
        I tell you, I do not think you understand. Someone has got
    to take a look at this. You just cannot let fires burn because
    you never know where they are going to go if they really get
    bad.
        Mr. Rey. We do not just let fires burn. Where we have fire
    management plans that we can let them burn with some confidence
    under prescription----
        Senator Stevens. Well, I ask you to check it.
        Mr. Rey. We can do that.
        Senator Stevens. Last, I was told that we do have the Fire
    Jumper School in Alaska in Fairbanks and during this period,
    those fire jumpers were out of the State fighting other fires
    elsewhere.
        Mr. Rey. If that is the case that is because they were not
    called for by the incident commanders that were in charge of
    fighting the Alaska fires.
        Senator Stevens. Mr. Chairman, I ask you to call that
    person to come testify before this subcommittee this year.
        Senator Burns. We will track him down.
        Senator Stevens. I do not accept the position that fires
    should be left totally to go and just rage in an area like ours
    just because we are so big. We have one-fifth of the land mass
    of the United States. Half the Federal lands of the United
    States are in our State. You are making the decision those half
    are subject to different conditions than you would make in
    other States.
        Mr. Rey. No, we are applying essentially the same standard
    in Alaska that we are applying in the lower 48.
        Senator Stevens. But if the resources are not there to
    fight them, how are we going to fight them?
        Mr. Rey. That is the issue I think we are still trying to
    assess, as to whether the resources were there to fight them.
        Senator Stevens. That is the issue I would like to set. I
    tell you, 6.6 million acres burning in a period of 20 days has
    got to be examined. It may be that current needs of the United
    States do not need that timber, but it takes a lot, lot longer
    to grow timber in Alaska than elsewhere. You agree to that?
        Mr. Rey. In that part of Alaska, sure.
        Senator Stevens. Particularly in that part of Alaska, in
    the Interior. It is a slow growing season. We have a long
    season, but it is slow growth because of the shallowness of the
    roots. Once they burn, it takes years. That whole area now is
    just stark. It looks like you are going through a part of hell
    when you drive through it.
        I really urge you to get him up here because someone has
    got to answer why there was not a greater attempt to stop those
    fires.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Burns. Thank you.
        Senator Feinstein.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        As one of the co-sponsors of the Senate Healthy Forests
    bill along with you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Cochran, Senator
    Craig, and Senator Wyden, I am very concerned by cuts in this
    budget. It is my understanding that the budget proposes a 54
    percent cut in cooperative fire assistance, a 30 percent cut in
    forest health management on State and private lands, a 13
    percent in cooperative forestry, and elimination of the
    economic action plan which helps businesses economically remove
    hazardous fuels.

                       HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION FUNDING

        In contretemps to this, funding for hazardous fuel
    reduction on Forest Service lands increases from $263 million
    to $281 million. It seems to me that the way this is imbalanced
    gives short shrift to what we, Mr. Rey, tried to accomplish in
    the Healthy Forests bill, and I want to ask a couple of
    questions.
        It is my understanding that the Forest Service has the
    capacity for an additional $41.4 million in hazardous fuel
    reduction on private lands, four or five times as much as the
    approximate $8 to $10 million in the fiscal year 2006 budget
    for these purposes. In addition, there is capacity for an
    additional $15 million in hazardous fuel reduction on State and
    private lands. So my question is, this reading would indicate
    that the budget falls far short of the amount needed to move
    ahead at full speed to reduce the risk of catastrophic fires,
    certainly in southern California.
        Mr. Rey. I am not sure where the capacity numbers come
    from, but clearly there is greater need for fuel reduction work
    on non-Federal lands than the 2006 budget provides funding for.
    I think we can agree on that. As I said in my opening
    statement, as we moved to put together our budget under the
    Healthy Forests Initiative and the Healthy Forests Restoration
    Act, we put together a budget request that focused more heavily
    on Federal lands than on non-Federal lands, and we did that for
    three reasons.
        First, we are the only ones who treat Federal lands. We are
    the only ones who can treat Federal lands. There is no other
    unit of government that is going to provide money to treat our
    Federal at-risk lands, either in the wildland-urban interface
    or outside it.
        Second, if you look across the country, I think it is a
    fair assessment to say that by and large the Federal lands are
    in worse shape than the non-Federal lands. Our fuel loads are
    heavier.
        Senator Feinstein. Except, let me stop you here. It is my
    understanding from my staff that what you have done is
    essentially move the activity to the cheaper areas and away
    from the wildland interface areas.
        Mr. Rey. No, we are actually increasing the amount of
    treatment done in the wildland-urban interface as compared with
    previous years. But we are focusing on the Federal lands within
    the wildland-urban interface, as opposed to the non-Federal
    lands within the wildland-urban interface. And wildland-urban
    interface acres are on the average more expensive to do, so you
    get less acres per a set investment than you would outside the
    wildland-urban interface because you have to go more heavily to
    the mechanical treatment.
        The third reason that we focused on Federal lands may be
    the most important, and that is as we worked with our partners
    in the firefighting community at both the Federal and State
    level, we identified other funding streams that are available
    to our non-Federal cooperators, in some cases with better
    delivery systems than our own.
        For example, the USDA Rural Development program had a $300
    million or so grant program last year using Farm bill funds to
    provide assistance to first responders. That is money that we
    are going to try to get to our rural firefighters. FEMA has a
    $700 million program to assist firefighters at the State and
    local level.
        Senator Feinstein. I guess what I see, Mr. Rey, we gave a
    lot of attention--Senator Conrad was there, Senator Burns was
    there--as to how we set up this bill to be able to move
    aggressively in certain areas on fire. We had big discussions.
    It seems to me that what you are doing is shorting part of our
    problem and moving the money to other places, and that concerns
    me.
        Mr. Rey. I think I agree with the disproportionate
    distribution of revenues over the whole of the problem, because
    we are emphasizing Federal lands over non-Federal lands. It
    does not follow, however, that in making that emphasis we are
    moving the treatments away from the wildland-urban interface
    and into other areas. The treatments are still proportionately
    focused in the wildland-urban interface. About two-thirds of
    our treatments in 2006 will be in the wildland-urban interface.
        But even on a forest with as much non-Federal land as, say,
    the San Bernardino----
        Senator Feinstein. That is what I was going to mention.
        Mr. Rey [continuing]. What we are saying is we are going to
    put our initial emphasis--our proposal to you, I guess I should
    say, is that we put our initial emphasis on treating the
    Federal lands on the San Bernardino, because we are the only
    ones who can and will do that.
        Now, that is obviously a discussion we are going to
    continue to have over the appropriations process. Last year you
    reduced what we requested for hazardous fuels, so in that sense
    you reallocated to hit non-Federal lands.
        Senator Feinstein. Not me, not for reducing.
        Mr. Rey. No, you did not reduce the overall effort, but you
    made us switch from Federal lands to non-Federal lands. Not you
    specifically, but the Congress generally.
        Senator Feinstein. Well, take for example the bark beetle
    forest that is dry and deteriorating very rapidly, which is
    part on Federal and part on non-Federal land in the San
    Bernardino National Forest. Does this mean you treat the
    Federal land and you do not treat the rest of it?
        Mr. Rey. No, what it means is we think there are other
    mechanisms for funding the non-Federal portion of the treatment
    and we want to make sure as we allocate our priorities that we
    can do our part of it. So on the San Bernardino or on another
    forest in a similar situation, what we would try to do would be
    to work with the local communities, identify what funding
    streams they have available, but make sure as we did that, we
    have enough to do our part of it.
        In some of these forests, they are using funding streams
    from the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination
    Act to do the non-Federal lands treatment. We do use hazardous
    fuels dollars to help with the development of community-based
    fire plans that cover both Federal and non-Federal lands. So we
    are not walking away from the non-Federal lands. What we are
    trying to do is to strike the right balance to make sure that
    if you look across all of the funding streams available that we
    can do a treatment that is effective because we treat both in a
    strategic fashion and not get to the point where all of the
    non-Federal land is treated and the private landowners then
    look to us and say: Well, what have you guys done?
        Senator Feinstein. I guess my concern--and let me just say
    this to my colleagues who were there. If you will recall, we
    spent a lot of time trying to work out a balanced formula and I
    think we did. We took a lot of flak from environmentalists who
    said, they are just going to turn this thing around. I do not
    want that to happen.
        I think that what the intent was and what we did should be
    carried out by the Department. I think it is a real point of
    major integrity that we work, that the cooperative fire plans--
    I attended a meeting in August in the Tahoe Basin with all of
    the fire communities. I am going up there again. They have all
    worked very hard to do their cooperative fire plan and to see
    that the funding remained so that that can get done.
        I think it would be really very tragic if what some people
    said would happen with that healthy forest plan happens,
    because we tried to see that it was a balanced approach and
    that we did the right thing by the urban-wildland interface.
        Mr. Rey. I think we are all committed to making sure that
    approach works and what we have to do as we go through each
    budget cycle is try to make sure we get the right amount of
    funding in each program area.
        Senator Feinstein. All I know is what my people tell me and
    they tell me that the way this is worked out shorts California
    and it moves the money to cheaper areas to do forestry work.
        Mr. Bosworth. I would like to respond to that, Senator. As
    Chief of the Forest Service, I get a number of different
    recommendations from my folks saying, well, here is how we
    ought to allocate it around the country. When they are looking
    at these recommendations from time to time, they say: Well, you
    know, it costs more money to do business in California; we
    ought to put it in the wildland-urban interface than some other
    place.
        So often when they are making those considerations, those
    considerations become available for other people to look at.
    All I want to tell you is they are not decisions until I make
    them. I am happy to have those considerations, but in
    California, even though we had some recommendations to do some
    different things based on cost per acre, we put the dollars in
    California where they were needed and we kept the program at
    the level and will continue to be giving a high priority for
    California.
        Senator Feinstein. Well, I had whispered in my left ear,
    where I am a little bit hard of hearing, that they did this
    year, but what about next year?
        Mr. Bosworth. Well, I am sure that I will get
    recommendations from folks again with a variety of different
    choices in how we ought to do it. But I am still going to be
    the one that makes the decision and I am very concerned about
    those wildland-urban interface areas in California. They are
    more expensive. It costs more to do business.
        Senator Feinstein. I understand that. But I cannot help
    that in any way. That is the way it is.
        Mr. Bosworth. Neither can the Forest Service folks that are
    in California, because it is just a higher cost of doing
    business. So we are going to continue to find the right
    balance, but I just do not foresee ending up shorting the areas
    there that have the critical wildland-urban interface with
    national forest land all around them.
        Again, we will continue to always look at different
    choices, but I just cannot foresee a decision that would make
    significant reductions in California.
        Mr. Rey. The good news, I guess, in terms of this is that
    our regional foresters are arguing passionately to get more
    money to do this work, and your regional forester is among the
    most aggressive and passionate.
        Senator Feinstein. Good, we like that. Thank you very much.

                              COMMUNITY FIRE PLANS

        Let me go to the community fire safe councils. It is my
    understanding that communities get about $40 million I requests
    from the fire safe councils and that there is some additional
    money available through the county payments legislation which
    Senators Craig, Wyden, and I are working on to try to get
    reauthorized. How are we going to implement the fire safety
    councils plan in the face of these budget cuts or proposed
    budget cuts?
        Mr. Rey. Well, we do fund some of the fire planning work
    through hazardous fuels dollars, which has not been cut. It has
    actually been increased. So there is some assistance there. The
    money that is provided under the Secure Rural Schools and
    Community Self-Determination Act is from a mandatory account,
    so that money will continue to flow as well.
        So we have been so far able to keep up with the community
    fire planning process. There are about 600 that have been
    developed so far, which is actually pretty impressive because
    it has only been 13, 14 months since the bill's enactment, and
    those are up and running. I think so far we have been able to
    keep up with the desire of the communities for assistance with
    their plans.
        Senator Feinstein. All right. Well, we will watch and see.
    That is for sure.

                  ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT--SIERRA NEVADA FRAMEWORK

        Let me just say that I understand you were instrumental in
    working out an agreement between the Forest Service and the
    University of California on an adaptive management plan for the
    revised Sierra Nevada Framework. I just want to congratulate
    you on that. I think it is important to have that independent
    review.
        Can you explain to us how you envision this working?
        Mr. Rey. Sure. I will take the first cut at that, but the
    Chief and, more notably, the regional forester will probably be
    much more articulate about the details.
        It is being set up as a three-part agreement between the
    State, the Forest Service, and the University of California at
    Berkeley. In the Forest Service there are two entities
    involved. There are the national forests of the Sierra Nevada
    region and then there is the Pacific Southwest Forest and Range
    Experiment Station at Berkeley.
        The University of California will do monitoring of the
    treatments that we apply for fuels reduction purposes in a
    number of sites that are going to be selected by the university
    in conjunction with the State and the Forest Service, and that
    will be part of our active monitoring program that we do as we
    move forward to implement the Sierra Nevada Framework.
        As the results of that monitoring are made available, the
    university will analyze it. It will be available for public
    review. The primary purpose of it, I guess to state it as
    simply as I can, is that we will be evaluating whether the
    treatments that we have specified accomplish the results that
    we desire and just those results. We want to evaluate whether
    they are effective in fuel reduction and that there are no
    unanticipated or unintended consequences as a result of
    implementing.
        If we find that either they are not effective or there are
    unintended consequences of a negative nature, then that work
    will form the basis for subsequent amendments to the Sierra
    Nevada Framework. The University of California and the State,
    for that matter, but primarily the University of California,
    will provide an independent certifying capability to see that
    the Sierra Nevada Framework works as we hope it will.
        Senator Feinstein. I think that is very interesting. It is
    going to be interesting to see how it works out. Let me just
    commend you.
        Do you have anything to add, Mr. Bosworth, to that?
        Mr. Bosworth. The only thing I would add is that it is
    critical for us to have a monitoring system that has public
    credibility. When you look at a plan like the Sierra Nevada
    Framework, it is fairly controversial, so there are differences
    of opinion on all sides. The future for us is going to be in
    effective monitoring, and often using independent outside
    parties to help us do that monitoring and evaluation, to do the
    kind of adaptive management that we need to do in the future.
        That is really what this is about. So this approach has the
    potential to be a model for some other places if it works. I do
    not have any reason to believe that it would not work well.
        Senator Feinstein. Well, it is certainly a hot issue. Let
    me just commend both of you. I think it is a very interesting
    project.

                              QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP

        Let me ask the last question on the Quincy Library Group.
    What actions has the Forest Service taken to ensure that the
    QLG project will meet the intent of the law in future years?
    Really what I am getting at is the planned program of work in
    the remaining years of the project.
        Mr. Bosworth. The budget proposal would maintain the base
    level of funding for Quincy Library Group. Every opportunity we
    get, we put more money into it if we can. So in fiscal year
    2005, this fiscal year, we were able to scrape up even some
    additional dollars to put into QLG to do some additional work.
        The funding proposal for 2006 would be the same level as it
    was for 2005 and that was enacted for 2005 and the same that it
    was for 2004. As I said, if there is excess money somewhere--
    which there is not usually a lot, but from time to time there
    will be dollars that will not get spent as effectively in
    another forest or another region--whenever we have the
    opportunity we will put some of those dollars into Quincy
    Library Group to ensure that we get the outcomes there that you
    had intended.

                                ROAD MAINTENANCE

        Senator Feinstein. Just one other quick question. In places
    of real road devastation, particularly in southern California,
    caused by the fires, are you going to be able to help with
    those roads? As has been stated, this is going to be another
    big fire year, I suspect, for southern California.
        Mr. Bosworth. Right now we are assessing primarily the
    flood damage that occurred from the huge rain storms in
    southern California. We know that there was somewhere in the
    vicinity of $35 million worth of damage to roads and trails,
    but we have not completed the analysis or the assessment. So
    what it will require is, at least to some degree, given the
    dollars that we have currently, that we would redirect where we
    can and do what we can to respond to that with the dollars that
    we have.
        Mr. Rey. Similarly on non-Federal lands, the Natural
    Resources Conservation Service is starting to get initial
    assessments of flood damage in the form of requests for
    emergency watershed protection money.

               BARK BEETLE DAMAGE--SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FOREST

        Senator Feinstein. I am sorry. I said the last question.
    Just one more. I am really concerned with the San Bernardino
    Mountains and the bark beetle forest. The longer you leave the
    trees there, it seems to me, the worse it gets. How much of
    that infested acreage do you think you are able to treat this
    next year? Can you give me a percentage?
        Mr. Bosworth. I do not think that I--well, let us see. I
    guess I can. Well, at least for fiscal year 2006, based on
    the----
        Senator Feinstein. Assume it is 1 million acre area.
        Mr. Bosworth. Well, approximately 56,000 acres would be
    treated with hazardous fuels funds. The 2006 President's budget
    proposal would allow for about 56,000 acres. Now, the total
    area I think that has insect damage on the San Bernardino
    National Forest I believe is around 350,000 acres or 400,000. I
    could be wrong on that, though, and I would have to get you
    better information to be sure. Is it 400,000? That is in the
    neighborhood.
        Senator Feinstein. Then the rest of it. Are you saying that
    the rest of it is going to remain untreated?
        Mr. Bosworth. Well, it really depends on where you locate
    the treatments. You do not have to treat every acre. If we
    locate our treatments in a strategic way, then that helps
    protect other areas from fire or insect disease. So it is
    critical that we locate our treatments in the right places.
        For example, in a certain drainage, you may have a 100,000
    acre drainage, but you may only need to treat 25 or 30,000
    acres if you do it right, rather than every single one of the
    acres.
        Senator Feinstein. I guess the reason I am asking this is,
    as you know, there are homes all in the middle of this. I mean,
    it is the most complicated thing. I would like to ask that you
    work with us on how you are going to do this, to try to get the
    most bang for the dollars in the interface areas where private
    property is really at risk.
        Mr. Bosworth. I would be very, very happy to work with you
    on that. I have flown over the area. I have been driven through
    the area. I have hiked through some of it, several times in the
    last 2 years. It is a very, very difficult area that is in a
    very, very terrible condition.
        Mr. Rey. I think most of the treatments are being laid out
    with the local communities through a task force that has been
    in existence for about 4 years down there. The best thing to do
    might be, if you are going to be in that area at some point
    this spring, to just sit down with the task force people and
    have them lay out what the program of treatments are.
        Senator Feinstein. I will do that, but just generally,
    57,000 acres out of nearly 1 million acres of infested forest
    is just a little bit. That is what I am most worried about,
    where we are going to get the funds to really be aggressive.
        Mr. Bosworth. It is 56,000 out of 400,000. So it is still a
    small percentage.
        Senator Feinstein. Of Federal land.
        Mr. Bosworth. Yes.
        Senator Feinstein. Okay, and not the non-Federal land.
        Mr. Bosworth. Correct.

                             CONDITIONS IN MONTANA

        Senator Burns. If you would like to visit Montana we will
    show you some of that, you do not know what a problem is. Ours
    is bigger and we have got it up there. With that, your flood
    damage down there we would take a little of it. We need
    moisture. We have no snow and we just do not have a lot of
    moisture.
        I am going to only take up one more question. We lost
    another sawmill this year, you know. Owens and Hurst went down.
    When we talk about her problems, we are losing our
    infrastructure and people who know how to work the forests. We
    lose 90 jobs up there and some allied jobs around that, that
    help us deal with the people who know how to operate in the
    forests, even on our fires and anything else.
        So we have a big problem. Up there where they have
    diseases, we cannot get those trees out, or the small diameter
    trees. We retooled our mills to handle smaller diameter logs
    and now they cannot get them. It goes through the appeals
    business and all of that, even with hazardous fuels and healthy
    forests and forest stewardship.
        So I am at a loss on how we are supposed to handle all of
    these things. I think probably when you start taking some of
    those trees out down there, you will probably run into some of
    the same problems we run into up in Montana. It sure gets in
    the way of good forest management.
        They have just about covered all the questions I have up
    and down the line. I have a few more, but we can address those.
    We are going to see a little bit of a change in funds as we
    work our way through this budget, but we will come to agreement
    on that, I think, fairly quickly, and I appreciate all your
    work.
        Senator Cochran, have you got other questions for this
    panel?

                             APPROPRIATION PROCESS

        Senator Cochran. I was going to ask, Mr. Chairman, a couple
    of questions about the organization of the Forest Service in
    the Department of Agriculture and the challenge that that
    presents to you in responding to requests to testify at
    hearings of the Appropriations Committee. We just went through
    a reorganization of our subcommittees and made some changes in
    jurisdictional responsibilities in our subcommittees. You are a
    part of the Department of Agriculture and you are here
    testifying before an Interior Appropriations subcommittee. Do
    you also get called to testify before the Agriculture
    Appropriations subcommittee as well during the consideration of
    the budget request?
        Mr. Bosworth. I do not get called for the Forest Service
    budget. I do not testify at Agriculture Appropriations. On
    occasion we participate in oversight hearings, but not from the
    Appropriations Committee on Agriculture.
        From my perspective, it works very well working with the
    Interior Appropriations subcommittee.
        Senator Cochran. Which subcommittee actually approves your
    budget request or provides funding for your activities every
    fiscal year?
        Mr. Bosworth. Interior does, the Interior subcommittee.
        Mr. Rey. I typically appear before the Agriculture
    subcommittee, but for the Natural Resources Conservation
    Service.
        Senator Cochran. Right, because you are also--you supervise
    the Director of the NRCS, do you not?
        Mr. Rey. Right.
        Senator Cochran. Well, I am curious to find out how all
    this works in practice. When we start reorganizing things,
    sometimes it has an impact that we do not fully appreciate
    while we are moving responsibilities around among different
    subcommittees. I wanted to be sure we had not made some
    decisions here that made it harder for you to do your business
    or less efficient in terms of the time you have to spend up
    here on Capitol Hill.
        Mr. Rey. I do not think your reorganization will affect us
    either way.
        Senator Cochran. Good. It suits you to continue the way
    that we are handling your budget request each year in terms of
    the committees that have jurisdiction over your hearings and
    writing the bill for you?
        Mr. Rey. I think so. The Forest Service and the Department
    of the Interior land managing agencies have enough comparable
    programs that it probably is a benefit to look at them as a
    whole. So I think it probably works just fine.
        Senator Cochran. Good.
        We thank you for the good job you are doing. We hope that
    the implementation of the National Forest Initiatives through
    the law that we passed is moving along the way we anticipated.
    You were very active in that, Mr. Rey, and we appreciate your
    personal involvement in coming up here to the Hill to meet with
    Senators as we were working our way through that.

                        HEALTHY FORESTS RESTORATION ACT

        Is the law living up to our expectations? Is it really
    giving you the tools to better manage our forests and make sure
    we achieve our goals?
        Mr. Rey. I think it has been so far.
        Mr. Bosworth. I would like to respond to that. In fiscal
    year 2004, the amount of work that we got done far exceeded
    anything that we had done in the past in terms of fuels
    treatment, for example. I think that as time goes on and our
    folks get more adept at using the new tools and opportunities
    that we have through the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, they
    will get even better. Those kind of things help us a lot, and
    we are going to continue to always look for more improvements
    and ways that we can modernize our processes. We may need help
    in the future on some other things, but so far, so good.
        Senator Burns. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Rey. Probably one other insight to share with you about
    that is that, aside from the words in the statute and the
    programs that emanated from it, one thing that I did not
    anticipate is how much more enthusiasm we found at the field
    level in the Forest Service and, while I cannot speak directly
    for them, the Department of the Interior land managing
    agencies, as a consequence of Congress speaking affirmatively
    in enactment of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act.
        That has had a material effect on how people at the ground
    level have felt about their activities and about their mission.
        Senator Cochran. That is good to hear. Thank you for giving
    us that information.
        Senator Burns. That, Senator, would reflect pretty good
    leadership here at the top end. So I think Dale has done a
    great job and all of you have done a great job. In some areas
    we will always have conflicts. We will work our way through
    this budget and this appropriation. With your help, I think we
    will come to a very successful conclusion.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        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
                            financial accountability
        Question. The Forest Service has received a clean audit opinion on
    its books for the last three fiscal years. The agency was also taken
    off the GAO's list of agencies at high risk of waste, fraud and abuse
    this year. The Forest Service is now drastically reorganizing its
    financial management systems by consolidating these functions in one
    location rather than having this work done throughout the Regions of
    the Forest Service.
        Please explain how this reorganization will make your financial
    management systems better?
        Answer. We were on the high risk list because we lacked
    accountability over billions of dollars in two major assets: Fund
    Balance with Treasury and property, plant and equipment.
        We believe these efforts, when implemented effectively, will
    provide stronger financial management, sustain positive audit results,
    and ensure compliance with federal financial reporting standards. We
    will be able to sustain this improved, more efficient, and more
    accurate operating model.
        Beginning in December 2001 and continuing throughout 2002 we
    developed a corrective action plan, brought in contract resources to
    supplement agency staff, made system improvements, performed property
    appraisals on major real property assets, reconciled all asset and
    liability accounts and adjusted the agency's accounting records to
    reflect the results of this work. As a result of this effort, the
    agency received an unqualified audit opinion on its fiscal year 2002
    financial statements; however, we had not yet proven we could sustain
    this outcome in future years. We had not reached the end goal of
    routinely producing timely, accurate and useful financial information.
        In the past two years we made additional progress, especially with
    respect to addressing several long-standing material internal control
    deficiencies. We resolved material deficiencies related to fund balance
    with Treasury, and in property, plant and equipment, thus increasing
    accountability over billions of dollars in assets. We received
    unqualified audit opinions on our financial statements for fiscal years
    2003 and 2004 thus demonstrating sustainability for three consecutive
    years.
        Management has demonstrated a strong commitment to efforts that, if
    effectively implemented, should help to resolve many of our remaining
    financial management problems and move us toward sustainable financial
    management business processes. We have a corrective action plan that we
    are executing and we have demonstrated progress in addressing our
    financial management deficiencies. These efforts are designed to
    address internal control and noncompliance issues identified in audit
    reports, as well as organizational issues. For example, during fiscal
    2004 we began re-engineering and consolidating our finance, accounting
    and budget processes to a central processing center in Albuquerque, NM.
    We previously operated in a decentralized model with over 150
    accounting/budget centers located through out the regions (9), forests
    (130), stations (8) and area. The centralization effort began in March
    2004. We have redesigned financial/budget processes to operate in a
    central processing center. The Albuquerque Service Center (ASC) opened
    on February 22, 2005. As of April 4 we have approximately 230 employees
    in the ASC with work and staff migrating thru January 2006.
        Question. How much money does the agency expect to save through
    this reorganization?
        Answer. The business case for this effort indicated a one time
    investment of approximately $45 million to be spent mostly in fiscal
    year 20h some small amount being spent in the 1st quarter of fiscal
    year 2006. The expected annual cost savings from this centralization
    effort are projected to be $36 million. The investment payback period
    is approximately 1.7 years. We are well on track at this stage of the
    project at achieving these cost savings for the investment indicated.
        Question. What will be the personnel impacts on the Regions by
    moving all these people to one location?
        Answer. There were approximately 1,175 full time employees of whom
    approximately 1,055 were located in the regional offices (9), forests
    (130), stations (8) and area (1). There also were approximately 800
    full time equivalent employees performing budget and finance work part
    time at the R/S/As. At the conclusion of this centralization effort
    there will be 305 field budget personnel and 47 field personnel engaged
    in operating the new Integrated Acquisition System. These 352 personnel
    will be located at the R/S/As. Thus there will be an approximate
    reduction at the Regions of 600-800 personnel depending on how many of
    the part time FTEs are reduced. The Albuquerque Service Center for
    Financial Management will employ approximately 400 people.
                                 planning rules
        Question. In December of last year the Forest Service released its
    final rule revising the forest planning regulations. The forest
    planning process has become far too costly and time consuming. Under
    the old rule, the agency was spending millions of dollars on forest
    plans that were taking 5-6 years just to prepare.
        Please describe how these new planning rules will streamline this
    process?
        Answer. The new forest planning rule will improve the way the
    Forest Service does forest planning. Land management plans under the
    new planning rule will be strategic in nature, and more timely and cost
    effective. The goal is to shift resources from extensive up-front
    planning, to a more balanced planning program where plans are revised
    quickly, and resources are shifted from planning to monitoring. With a
    more efficient revision process, we hope to get our resource
    specialists out of the office, and into the field.
        The process will be streamlined mainly in three ways. First, the
    new rule promotes strategic plans. The planning process recognizes that
    effects cannot be meaningfully evaluated until the project stage.
    Therefore, the forest plan analysis doesn't typically need to be as
    detailed as in the past. Second, Forest Supervisors are encouraged to
    use an interactive, collaborative process to iteratively develop the
    proposed plan. This means not only is public involvement more
    meaningful, but the interdisciplinary team no longer needs to carry
    through three, four, five, or more full ``alternatives'' though the
    entire planning process. Rather analysis is needed only for the
    proposed plan and what narrower options remain after initial public
    involvement is concluded. Third, because new science, assessments, or
    other new information can be used immediately, plans will only need to
    be amended when the new information points to a need to change a plan
    component.
        Question. Will the public still have a full opportunity to provide
    input to the Forest Service during the planning process?
        Answer. Yes. Public involvement is emphasized in the 2004 rule. The
    Forest Service intends to continue working closely with our public to
    address any concerns that might arise with regard to the planning rule
    and during forest plan development.
        Question. How much will the agency save in terms of time and money
    by implementing these new planning rules?
        Answer. Although the agency will save time and money on plan
    revisions, the overall costs to the agency will not decrease because
    time and effort will be redirected to plan monitoring and plan
    amendments. Agency time and money will be used more effectively. The
    plan revision process under the 1982 rule has generally taken 5-7
    years. Under the 2004 rule, we estimate that forest plan revisions will
    take approximately 2-3 years. This will enable the eventual shift of
    planning funds to activities which will keep the plans current.
                             montana timber issues
        Question. There is a real problem in Montana with being able to
    provide a stable supply of timber from the national forests. In
    January, it was announced that the Owens & Hurst mill in Eureka is
    going to close and 90 jobs will be lost. When timber mills close it is
    not only devastating to the people who lose their jobs and the
    economies of the towns they live in, it also damages the Forest
    Service's ability to deal with forest health issues, particularly
    hazardous fuels reduction. If there is not a market for the small
    diameter wood that is the main component of hazardous fuels on our
    nation's forests, we will never be able to afford to remove all these
    fuels with appropriated dollars.
        What can the Forest Service do to improve this situation in Montana
    and other states where the supply of wood from our public lands is
    critical to keeping mills open?
        Answer. Currently almost all regions have the capability to expand
    their timber sale programs, depending on the availability of funds. In
    fiscal year 2005, appropriated Forest Products funds were moved among
    some regions, in part to help address timber industry infrastructure.
    However, our ability to move funds among regions is limited by the fact
    that there are widespread priorities and community needs across the
    country. Moving limited funds to help one region affects our ability to
    address priorities in another region. Current Salvage Sale fund
    balances are limited and do not provide options for additional timber
    harvest.
        Forest Products is not the only affected funding source, as
    increasing emphasis on timber activities in any place also generates
    additional needs for commensurate roads and land survey support.
        The agency is discussing a change in the measure of success in
    delivering the timber sale program, using timber volume sold instead of
    timber volume offered, to put more emphasis on results.
        Question. How many board feet do you expect to be able to offer
    this year compared to last?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2004 the Northern Region offered a little
    more than 232 million board feet of timber for sale. The target for
    fiscal year 2005 is about 226 million board feet, which is a result of
    slightly less total appropriated Forest Products funds plus Salvage
    Sale Funds being available for the Region. The Region currently has
    about 262 million board feet of timber involved in appeals and
    litigation, and we are seeking solutions to move this volume forward to
    sale.
        A nearly $3 million increase in fiscal year 2005 appropriated funds
    for the Northern Region is being used to offset less Salvage Sale Funds
    being available due to lower collections.
        The agency's fiscal year 2004 accomplishments showed an increase in
    volume offered for sale and volume sold over our estimate in the fiscal
    year 2004 President's Budget. This increase occurred in both live and
    dead volume. We anticipate a similar increase in both fiscal year 2005
    and fiscal year 2006.
        Question. Does the agency believe that it is critical that we
    maintain a robust timber mill infrastructure in order to deal with our
    hazardous fuels problem on the national forests?
        Answer. Yes, a viable timber infrastructure is essential for
    accomplishing our agency's vegetation management objectives and
    restoring fire-adapted ecosystems.
                                grazing permits
        Question. There is a real problem with a backlog of expiring
    grazing permits that need to be renewed. Congress put a schedule in
    place for the renewal of these permits in the 1995 Rescissions Act. The
    agency's budget justification says that the Forest Service is only
    getting done 50 percent of the work that you need to do each year. In
    the fiscal year 2005 Interior appropriations bill the Committee
    provided additional funds to address this problem and also provided a
    Categorical Exclusion from NEPA for grazing allotments that met certain
    conditions.
        Has the Categorical Exclusion helped to increase the number of
    grazing allotments you expect to complete in fiscal year 2005?
        Answer. The Forest Service will be able to accelerate the
    completion of allotment planning beginning in fiscal year 2005 through
    fiscal year 2007 due to the Congressionally authorized use of up to 900
    categorical exclusions outlined in the Consolidated Appropriations Act
    of 2005 (Public Law 108-447). This helps the agency to a large extent,
    although at the present pace, the agency would complete about 85
    percent (including the 900 under the categorical exclusion) of the
    scheduled allotment analyses and plans by 2010, the original scheduled
    end date.
        Question. I see the fiscal year 2006 budget proposal reduces the
    program by $3.4 million and the number of grazing allotments processed
    declines by 33 percent. Why is that when we have such a large backlog?
        Answer. In addition to completion of grazing allotment NEPA
    analysis, the Grazing Management budget line item accomplishes other
    important work, including the management of grazing allotment acres to
    standard in accordance with forest plan standards and guidelines,
    development of new allotment management plans in concert with NEPA
    analyses, and performance of necessary implementation and effectiveness
    monitoring. The agency's initial focus on completion of NEPA work on
    approximately 317 allotments in fiscal year 2006 considered the need to
    balance overall grazing management program requirements with the 1995
    Rescission Act schedule and other critical resource needs. With the
    grazing allotment categorical exclusion (CE) authority as provided in
    Section 339 of the fiscal year 2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act,
    the agency is refocusing its efforts in order to accelerate the number
    of allotments processed and decrease the backlog. A total of 400-600
    allotments are expected to be analyzed with plans amended by the end of
    fiscal year 2005.
                                maintenance cuts
        Question. According to the proposed budget for fiscal year 2006,
    the agency has a backlog of deferred maintenance of over $8 billion.
    But the budget proposes to cut the Capital Improvement and Maintenance
    accounts by $134 million which is a 26 percent reduction.
        Why is the agency cutting this account when the backlog of deferred
    maintenance needs is so high?
        Answer. To balance National programs while reducing the overall
    Forest Service budget, some reductions to Capital improvement and
    Maintenance were necessary in fiscal year 2006.
        The Forest Service expects to partially offset reductions to
    administrative site maintenance and construction with the enactment of
    the proposed Facilities and Land Management Enhancement Act. The Act
    will provide for the use of revenues from the sale of surplus
    administrative site properties. Another aspect of the legislative
    proposal is the creation of a working capital fund for administrative
    facility maintenance, whereby some maintenance costs would be funded
    through assessment to other programs. These proposals are not expected
    to fully make up for the difference between the fiscal year 2005
    enacted facilities funding and the fiscal year 2006 request. Most of
    the reduction would come from capital investments.
        Within the trails program, we plan to partially offset program
    reductions through the increased use of partnerships and volunteers.
        Question. How are you planning to address this enormous backlog of
    deferred maintenance?
        Answer. We anticipate that maintenance backlog will continue to
    grow; however, we have multiple efforts underway to help positively
    address backlog maintenance.
      --Through proposed Facilities and Land Management Act, which would
            provide for the conveyance of administrative sites, we will
            eliminate the deferred maintenance liability on those
            facilities conveyed to other owners. At the same time those
            revenues would replace other deficient facilities or perform
            needed rehabilitation work on existing facilities.
      --Developing a working capital fund (WCF) for all administrative
            buildings provides a direct incentive for local staff to reduce
            facilities and optimize their space requirements, because funds
            not used in maintaining facilities are available for other
            program needs.
      --Through facility master planning and developed recreation site
            master planning efforts, we are identifying the optimum
            location, size and number of facilities we can sustain into the
            future.
      --Through the Road Analysis Process, we are taking a realistic look
            at budgets and identifying roads that can be closed or
            eliminated, or the road standard downgraded.
                            hazardous fuels funding
        Question. The agency has increased the hazardous fuels reduction
    budget by $19 million. Over the long term, the only way to reduce the
    severity of our fire seasons is by removing the excess fuels that we
    have in our forests. Recently, the GAO issued a report that stated that
    the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior had not issued
    sufficient guidance for prioritizing hazardous fuels reduction
    projects.
        Given that the hazardous problem is so large and resources are
    scarce, the agencies must have a way of prioritizing the most important
    acres for treatment.
        How would the agency respond to GAO's criticism that the Forest
    Service has not prioritized these projects nationally?
        Answer. Hazardous fuels activities under the Healthy Forests
    Initiative, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, and the National Fire
    Plan are coordinated between the Departments of Agriculture and
    Interior through the Wildland Fire Leadership Council. This
    coordination covers prioritization and overall general management
    objectives including accountability for activities and oversight of the
    development of measures of fuel condition. Fuel characteristics, fire
    regime, and vegetation are being assessed to assist in identifying
    areas where activities need to be prioritized. This information is used
    in addition to the criteria associated with wildland urban interface
    needs and needs for treatment associated with other critical areas such
    as municipal watersheds and protection of endangered species habitat.
        In addition to the above criteria and management direction, our
    national fuels treatment program priorities are developed annually to
    utilize the latest science and information in cooperation with
    Department of Interior staff, and transmitted to regions, forests, and
    districts. That guidance shapes prioritization decisions at the
    individual National Forests and Ranger Districts, where fuel treatments
    are evaluated on a site specific basis. In addition, other resource
    treatments for wildlife habitat improvement, watershed, vegetation
    management, and recreation are also being designed to address fuels
    treatment needs. Those combined objectives can help address fuel
    reduction and condition class improvement goals. The timing and
    placement of these treatments on the landscape are evaluated with our
    partners at state, tribal, local, and other federal agencies. Many
    states have formal inter-agency groups to assist in this process and we
    actively promote such collaboration. Projects covered by a Community
    Wildfire Protection Plan are also given a priority and emphasize the
    diverse partners that play a role in the prioritization process. These
    collaborative partnerships are very well established and successful in
    some areas, and in other locations some of these relationships are
    still being formed. Allocation of funds to individual National Forests
    for these projects is at the discretion of the Regional Foresters.
        Further approaches are being developed and field-tested that
    integrate all of the criteria and risks in an attempt to use the
    diverse data, needs, and objectives in a repeatable and methodological
    fashion.
        Question. How many acres do you plan to treat in 2006 compared to
    2005?
        Answer. We plan to treat 1.8 million acres in both fiscal year 2005
    and fiscal year 2006. In fiscal year 2005 we plan to treat at least
    1,281,000 acres in the wildland-urban interface (WUI). The remaining
    acres will be treated outside of the WUI with an emphasis on highest
    departure from a reference condition for vegetation, fuels and
    disturbance regimes. Additionally, an estimated 700,000 acres will be
    treated as a secondary benefit of other land management activities.
        In fiscal year 2006 we plan to treat at least 1,450,000 acres (80
    percent) in the WUI. Additionally, the agency plans to have a fully
    integrated fire-adapted ecosystem restoration program that would
    generate an additional 1,000,000 acres from other land management
    programs.
        Question. Can you explain your proposal to move the funding for
    hazardous fuels reduction from the Fire account to the National Forest
    System account?
        Answer. The transfer of the hazardous fuels budget line item to the
    National Forest System (NFS) appropriation would provide better
    alignment with current Forest Service efforts to integrate all
    vegetation treatment activities. The majority of vegetation treatments
    and other related terrestrial and aquatic activities are funded with
    NFS appropriations.
        Question. Why is this transfer necessary?
        Answer. Currently, a high priority for the use of NFS funds and
    other related appropriations is ecosystem restoration, including
    restoration of fire-adapted ecosystems both previous to and after
    significant disturbance events (wildland fires, insect and disease
    epidemics, storm damage, etc.). An integral part of restoration
    includes identifying desired future vegetative conditions and designing
    treatments to achieve those conditions.
        This proposed shift in appropriation would allow for better
    internal agency alignment of programs. As a result, we anticipate more
    integrated and efficient program management leading to the achievement
    of common vegetation objectives.
                           forest health program cuts
        Question. The Committee is concerned about the large cut ($29.5
    which is equal to 29 percent) that is proposed in the fiscal year 2006
    budget for the Forest Health program in State and Private forestry.
    This program helps to monitor and treat millions of acres of state,
    federal, and private lands for insects, diseases and invasive weeds.
        How many fewer acres will be treated as a result of these cuts?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2005, we plan to treat approximately 918,000
    acres for control of insects, diseases, and invasive plants. In fiscal
    year 2006, our target is 656,000, a reduction of about 28 percent.
        Question. How many acres nationally need treatment for insects and
    disease?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2005, the national request for treatment
    projects for forest insects and diseases totaled 1.2 million acres and
    we were able to fund approximately 76 percent of that request. We
    expect the treatment needs requests in fiscal year 2006 to be as high
    or higher than those we received this year. The continuing drought in
    areas of the West will also increase demand for projects to treat acres
    at risk to western bark beetle attack. The treatment need for invasive
    plants control projects on state and private lands is on a steep upward
    trend; in fiscal year 2005 we were able to fund programs in 27 states.
                    state and volunteer fire assistance cuts
        Question. The state fire assistance program is very important in
    providing grants for equipment and giving technical assistance to local
    fire departments. The fiscal year 2006 budget request proposes to
    reduce this program by over $22 million, which will almost cut in half
    the number of communities assisted by the program.
        Is this a wise cut when frequently it's the local firefighting
    forces that are first on the scene of a wildfire?
        Answer. Although the proposed funding in State Fire Assistance
    decreased the proposed funding for Volunteer Fire Assistance (VFA)
    remains the same as appropriated in fiscal year 2005. VFA funding is
    aimed specifically at building and maintaining fire fighting capacity
    in fire departments serving communities of less than 10,000 people.
    Rural and volunteer fire departments provide a first line of defense in
    coping with fires and other emergencies in rural areas and communities.
    These departments provide nearly 80 percent of initial attack on
    wildfires in the United States. We anticipate that maintaining current
    funding levels in Volunteer Fire Assistance will help maintain rural
    fire fighters capability to respond to National Forest fire emergencies
    as they have in the past.
        Question. Isn't it true that other grant programs for firefighters
    through agencies like FEMA are not specifically for wildland
    firefighting so this is the only grant program for this purpose?
        Answer. Although FEMA programs are not specifically aimed at
    wildland fire fighting capability and rural fire departments, those
    departments are not excluded from FEMA grant programs. They compete for
    grant funding with other fire departments.
                           fire readiness capability
        Question. Over the last several years, the Committee has had some
    difficulty working with the agency on funding for the Fire Preparedness
    budget. This is the program that puts in place firefighters, engines,
    and other basic firefighting assets at the start of the fire season. In
    fiscal year 2005, the Committee had to add $20 million to the request
    for preparedness in order to maintain the same number of firefighters
    and engines as the agency had in the previous year.
        In the budget for fiscal year 2006, you have reduced the program by
    roughly a half million dollars, but your budget justification claims
    that you will hire more firefighters and deploy more engines. How is
    this possible with less money?
        Answer. The agency will maintain a level of readiness approximate
    to that attained in fiscal year 2004. This level will be achieved
    through efficiencies implemented in the program leadership functions
    and agency-wide overhead.
        Question. Can the agency assure the Committee that at the level of
    funds requested for fiscal year 2006 you can maintain readiness at
    current levels?
        Answer. Yes, the Forest Service is committed to maintaining
    firefighting readiness comparable to the fiscal year 2004 level without
    sacrificing firefighter safety. An errata sheet was submitted
    identifying the Forest Service's resource capability consistent with
    the President's Budget and actions relative to the agency's airtanker
    fleet capability. The updated errata sheet specifies a capability
    comparable to the previous year. The content of that errata sheet is as
    follows:
      --Employ 10,480 firefighters.
      --Employ 399 prevention technicians.
      --Employ 277 smokejumpers.
      --Maintain 66 Type I crews (hotshot crews).
      --Maintain 995 engines.
      --Maintain 63 water tenders.
      --Maintain 123 dozers.
      --Maintain 29 tractor plow units.
      --Maintain 86 Type I, II, and III helicopters for local mobilization.
      --Maintain 7 Type II efficiency helicopters for national
            mobilization.
      --Maintain 6 Type I helitankers for national mobilization.
      --Maintain a fleet of up to 20 airtankers. However maintain the
            overall production capability of our prior fleet of 33
            airtankers through the use of single engine airtankers (SEATS),
            Type I helicopters, and Type II helicopters.
                                  air tankers
        Question. In 2004, the Forest Service and the Department of the
    Interior were unable to use the majority of the large air tanker fleet
    for aerial fire suppression operations. The agencies replaced these
    aircraft with single engine air tankers (SEAT's) and helicopters.
    Eventually eight P-3 Lockheed aircraft were returned to the air tanker
    fleet and the agencies were contracting to review the service life of
    the remaining air tanker fleet.
        What is the status of the reviews of the large air tanker fleet to
    determine their operational service life?
        Answer. An operational service life for the P2V is currently being
    developed by Avenger Aircraft and Services. Contracts for the Douglas
    aircraft (DC-4, DC-6, and DC-7) are currently being negotiated.
        Question. If the aircraft reviews have been started, when do you
    expect a final report on the operational service life of the aircraft?
        Answer. A preliminary operational service life is scheduled to be
    available on June 1, 2005. This preliminary operational service life
    will provide enough information to determine if some aircraft can be
    returned to service. A final report will be available when operational
    loading data in the wildfire environment has been collected and an
    operational service life for the wildfire environment is determined.
        Question. Will the final reports on the aircraft service life be
    completed before the start of the 2005 wildfire suppression season?
        Answer. No.
        Question. If the aircraft are not accepted, what are the plans for
    replacing the large air-tanker fleet and at what additional cost?
        Answer. Short term plans for the 2005 wildfire season call for
    replacing large airtankers with helitankers, type I helicopters, and
    single-engine airtankers. We anticipate the cost of these resources
    will be comparable to 2005 airtanker costs.
        Question. What are the long-term plans to modernize the air tanker
    fleet?
        Answer. Long term plans to modernize the fleet include:
      --Contractor-owned and operated aircraft such as the BAe 146 and
            Boeing 747.
      --Government-owned ex-military aircraft such as the P-3 Orion and the
            S-3 Viking operated by contractors as government furnished
            equipment.
      --Development of a purpose-built airtanker operated by contractors as
            government furnished equipment.
        Question. What aircraft are being reviewed, what is the timeline to
    replace the existing aircraft, and what role will the existing aircraft
    companies on contract have in this future organization?
        Answer. Aircraft currently under review are ex-military P-3 and S-3
    aircraft. Replacement timelines vary from 6-14 months depending on the
    aircraft. Roles for existing airtanker companies may include possible
    contracts for airtanker conversions, maintenance, and pilot services.
                             fire suppression costs
        Question. The Committee is concerned about the rising costs for
    firefighting. The average annual cost of fire suppression for the
    Forest Service over the last 5 fiscal years (fiscal year 2000-fiscal
    year 2004) has been $958 million. By way of comparison, in the 5 years
    prior to that it was only $352 million. In the fiscal year 2005
    appropriations bill the Committee included several measures to address
    these rising costs, such as putting in place an independent panel to
    review expenditures on large fires, and devoting personnel to analyzing
    the most efficient means to procure the hundreds of millions of dollars
    worth of supplies that are needed by the fire program each year.
        Please provide the Committee with an update on how you have
    responded to these instructions from the Committee?
        Answer. The answer is under review by the USDA's Under Secretary
    for Natural Resources and the Environment.
        Question. Please describe what level of savings the agency might
    expect to achieve by putting these measures in place?
        Answer. The agency is not prepared to make a definitive cost saving
    estimate, except for individual fires that have been reviewed. Because
    all fires are unique, projecting savings from a small sample across all
    large fires would not provide the information needed to target specific
    cost saving opportunities. However, completion of the cost benefit
    analysis and associated implementation strategy, the Office of the
    Inspector General's Large Fire Cost review, and the method of supply
    analysis should provide the foundation for such an estimate later this
    calendar year.
                      wildland fire outlook for this year
        Question. The Committee is very concerned about the drought
    conditions that persist in Montana and much of the Interior West and
    what that will mean for this year's fire season. Mountain snowpack is
    at or near record low levels in parts of Washington, Oregon, Idaho and
    Montana.
        What do the agency's fire models predict for this year's fire
    season in the Interior West?
        Answer. The Wildland Fire Outlook--February through August, 2005 is
    per the National Interagency Fire Center's Predictive Services Group,
    and was issued January 26, 2005.

        The outlook for this year's fire season shows above normal fire
    potential in the Pacific Northwest, Northern Rockies, the lower
    elevations of the Great Basin, and over much of Florida. Some key
    points of the upcoming season include:
      --Mountain snow packs are at or near record low levels in portions of
            Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana and northwest Wyoming. This
            situation, combined with long term drought and vegetation
            mortality from insect damage, will increase fire potential in
            portions of the West.
      --Winter storms have brought heavy rain and snow in California,
            Colorado, and the Southwest. This weather will help moderate
            the fire season in the mountains but will increase fire
            potential in the lower elevations of Nevada, Utah, and the
            California deserts, due to heavier concentrations of fine
            fuels.
      --Florida has been drier than normal so far this winter. This
            situation, combined with downed trees from the 2004 hurricanes,
            will lead to the potential for an active fire season.
        Question. Nationally, does the Forest Service expect a severe fire
    season in 2005?
        Answer. Alaska.--Snowpacks are currently running near to well above
    normal over most of the state. However, snowpack plays only a small
    part in determining the intensity of the summer fire season. At this
    time, the fire season outlook calls for equal chances of an above,
    below, and normal fire season. If the late spring through June
    temperatures turn out to be warmer than normal, then the potential for
    an active fire season would increase.
        West.--The abundant winter precipitation should result in a later
    start and the potential for a less severe fire season in the Southwest.
    The areas with the highest fire potential extend from the Cascades
    across Idaho and into Montana and northwest Wyoming. This prediction is
    primarily due to the very low snowpack and a warmer than normal spring
    forecast. However, there are still many unknowns; such as the character
    of the snowmelt and summer lightning pattern.
        South and East.--In the South, the main area of concern is in
    Florida where a dry winter, downed fuel buildup from the hurricanes,
    and localized insect mortality have lead to the potential for an active
    fire season. The fire season in the East is expected to be normal to
    below normal, but may begin earlier than normal. This prediction is due
    to below average snow cover in north-central states which could make
    fine fuels available for ignition earlier in the season than usual.
                         off highway vehicle rulemaking
        Question.The Chief has identified unmanaged recreation as one of
    the four major threats to our national forests. The agency plans to
    issue a new national policy dealing with the use of Off Highway
    Vehicles (OHV's) in national forests. Obviously, this is an issue which
    is very important to many of our constituents who use OHV's.
        When does the agency expect to issue a final rulemaking on this
    issue?
        Answer. The Forest Service hopes to issue a final travel management
    regulation in spring 2005.
        Question. Does the Forest Service expect the rule to place much
    greater restrictions on the use of OHV's?
        Answer. The proposed rule would require designation, at the local
    level, of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use. Once
    designation is complete, the proposed rule would prohibit use of motor
    vehicles off the designated system. The proposed rule provides a
    national framework for local decisions--which routes and areas are
    designated for motor vehicle use would be determined at the local
    level, after public involvement and coordination with state, local, and
    tribal governments.
        The proposed rule represents a shift to a designated system of
    routes, rather than open cross-country travel. This shift is called for
    due to the expansion of OHV availability and technology. The agency
    expects that some existing unauthorized routes would be designated,
    thereby increasing the system of managed motor vehicle trails. The
    agency anticipates that other existing unauthorized routes will not be
    designated, and use on these routes will be prohibited. Determining
    which routes fall into each category is a local decision.
        Question. What has the agency been hearing from OHV user groups
    about the need for a national policy on OHV use?
        Answer. The Forest Service received over 81,000 comments on the
    proposed regulation, reflecting a wide range of interests and points of
    view. Some respondents called for a ban on OHVs on national forests and
    grasslands, while others objected to any limits on OHV use. Many
    respondents, including several national OHV user groups, endorsed the
    concept of managing OHV use on a designated routes basis. Concerns were
    expressed about the agency's funding, commitment, and ability to
    enforce designations.
                    need for special firefighting allocation
        Question. Last year, the Committee was able to provide a special
    allocation of $400 million to deal with the skyrocketing costs of the
    firefighting program and the impacts of heavy borrowing. These funds
    were available only after the agency had expended all of its regularly
    appropriated funds. The agency needed to tap this allocation for $150
    million in what was a pretty light fire season compared to what we have
    experienced over the last 5 years.
        Was having this special allocation effective in terms of preventing
    the need to borrow from non-fire accounts?
        Answer. The emergency supplemental funding for fire fighting
    allowed the agency to execute emergency fire suppression
    responsibilities without disrupting other agency programs. As you know
    we spent $726 million in fire suppression, which exceeded the amount
    appropriated by $125 million. We were able to make use of the emergency
    contingency rather than transfer from other appropriated accounts and
    helped lessen inefficiency and program disruptions caused by mid-season
    fire transfers.
        Question. When the agency doesn't have to borrow funds from other
    programs is it able to determine how much more of the regular program
    of work can get done? For example, was the Forest Service able to offer
    more board feet for sale, or treat additional acres for hazardous
    fuels?
        Answer. To underscore the benefits of avoiding fire transfer we
    note that we significantly exceeded key performance targets including
    Timber Volume offered (+110 percent), Hazardous fuels acres treated
    (+113 percent), Noxious weeds acres treated (+154 percent), Grazing
    allotment NEPA (+110 percent), and miles of Roads and Trails maintained
    (+152 percent). We do not believe we could have experienced this same
    level of performance if we had to transfer funds for Fire Suppression.
        Question. Does the agency believe that a similar mechanism is
    needed for fiscal year 2006 to prevent the massive borrowing that has
    happened in recent years?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2006 the President's budget is $700 million
    for suppression. The Forest Service will also have any remaining
    unobligated balances available for fire suppression. If a severe fire
    season occurs in fiscal year 2006 resulting in suppression costs that
    exceed available funding, additional funds will be redirected from
    other agency programs. The agency is working aggressively to contain
    suppression costs by developing effective and efficient wildfire
    suppression methodologies that provide for public and firefighter
    safety, while striving to minimize the need for transfers from other
    programs.
                             back country airstrips
        Question. The Committee has heard concerns that our nation's parks
    and forests are being closed off to visitors from the air who utilize
    airstrips on public lands known as back country airstrips. These same
    airstrips are also critical for pilots flying over rural areas like
    Montana, who either encounter an emergency or have to wait out less
    than desirable weather.
        What is the Forest Service's position as it relates to protecting
    aircraft access and for preserving back country airstrips?
        Answer. Backcountry airstrips are generally managed for ``emergency
    use only'' with the understanding that sporadic use will occur. Over
    the years, the Forest Service has recognized that some level of
    maintenance is necessary at these airstrips for them to continue to
    function as emergency airstrips. Annually, Forest Service staff
    inspects each backcountry airstrip to assess current conditions and
    determine any maintenance needed to keep them serviceable. Forest Plan
    direction provides for continued maintenance of these airstrips in
    order to keep them functional.
        For example in the State of Idaho, the Forest Service is currently
    working closely with the state in several areas. We are working with
    the Idaho Transportation Department, Division of Aeronautics and the
    Idaho Airstrip Network Steering Committee on an Idaho Airstrip Action
    Plan, part of the transportation plan for the entire state, that
    includes all backcountry airstrips administered by the Forest Service.
    We are working with the Idaho Division of Aeronautics on a landing
    strip classification system which will provide the public with basic
    information on each landing strip in terms of facilities, maintenance,
    and adjacent facilities and activities. We are also working with the
    Division of Aeronautics in development of an ``Operations and
    Maintenance Plan'' format for landing strips located in the Frank
    Church River of No Return Wilderness, leading to a consistent and
    collaborative approach in management of these backcountry airstrips.
        Question. How many of these airstrips have been closed in the past
    5 years?
        Answer. The Forest Service has not closed any backcountry airstrips
    to public access in the past five years.
        Question. Do you have any plans for closing airstrips in the
    future?
        Answer. At this time, the Forest Service does not have any plans to
    close backcountry airstrips.
                             new fire technologies
        Question. The Committee is aware of several new kinds of
    technologies that are being tested and considered for wider use by the
    fire program. One of these is an enhanced infrared sensor system called
    FIREWATCH. Please provide the Committee a more detailed discussion of
    the technical aspects of the FIREWATCH system. In particular, describe
    the enhanced vision capabilities of the infra red sensors during
    moderate to heavy smoke conditions.
        Are the mapping capabilities compatible with other software systems
    already deployed by the USFS/BLM?
        Answer. The FIREWATCH aerial supervision/remote sensing program was
    developed to fulfill aerial supervisory needs and improve incident
    management situational awareness. The aircraft is a Bell 209 Cobra
    helicopter that has been completely rebuilt, rewired, and has all
    weapons systems removed. The aircraft is equipped with many integrated,
    technologically advanced systems. These systems will assist the Air
    Tactical Group Supervisor (ATGS) in supervising aircraft over an
    incident, and will also gather and transmit real-time information for
    incident management to enhance operational efficiency.
        The aircraft is equipped with state-of-the-art high tech systems:
      --Two separate infrared sensors
      --Digital low light color camera
      --Laser range finder
      --Laser illuminator
      --Type 1 ATGS communication system
      --Live infrared sensor, color camera video. And audio are transmitted
            through a television quality airborne microwave transmission
            system
      --ARCGIS (ESRI shape file) interagency fire program compatible
            mapping data system
      --Real-time satellite map data transmission capability and/or USB
            Mass Storage Device
      --Geographically referenced inertial navigation system
        The FLIR is integrated to work with an Avalex moving-map program
    that can display street, topographic, and aeronautical maps. The
    infrared sensor provides the capability to see fires through smoke and
    haze day or night. Since the infrared imager is integrated with the
    onboard mapping system, it is able to very accurately determine the
    position of items of interest, which are observed on the ground. By
    directing the sensor along the perimeter of a fire the system can
    accurately map the fire. Immediate delivery of map data is made
    possible through a data transmission kit equipped satellite phone.
    Video and infrared data and all cockpit audio are also recorded on an
    Avalex system digital video (DVD) recorder. The aircraft is equipped
    with a multi-channel microwave transmitter capable of down linking real
    time color or infrared camera images to a portable microwave receiver
    and/or data recovery van.
    FIREWATCH Benefits to Incident Management
        Visibility.--The Bell 209 seating arrangement allows the ATGS a
    full 300+ degree horizontal and unlimited vertical field of vision.
        Maneuverability.--Capability of hovering and slow flight provides
    the aerial supervisor a superior platform for analyzing critical
    situations. Target determination, reconnaissance, and situational
    interpretation are greatly enhanced, therefore allowing more accurate
    interpretation of situations for firefighters.
        Human Aiding Technology.--First identified by the Tactical Aerial
    Research Management Study (TARMS) as a future component to enhance the
    aerial supervisory mission, advanced technology provides incident staff
    real-time information critical for situational awareness and cost
    effective decision-making. Live video (color camera or infrared sensor)
    and audio can be sent via microwave to an incident command post for
    immediate interpretation by incident staff. Infrared capability allows
    the image of a fire's perimeter to be viewed regardless of smoke.
    Transmission of map data can be emailed in flight or delivered by
    removable hard drive (USB Mass Storage Device). FIREWATCH can deliver a
    portable ``briefcase'' downlink receiver; this monitor enables tactical
    ground firefighters to receive FIREWATCH live video transmissions while
    actually ``on the line''. DVD recordings and map data can be delivered
    to incident planning staff for interpretation to determine effective
    and efficient fire planning.
        Direct Communications.--The helicopters ability to operate locally
    and land at an incident provides the opportunity for aerial supervisors
    to meet directly with incident staff. Eye-to-eye discussion and
    delivery of real-time intelligence can be an invaluable strategic
    asset.
        Speed.--The Cruise speed of the Bell 209 Cobra is similar to many
    fixed wing air tactical aircraft in use today (cruise speed 160 statute
    miles per hour), and mission flight endurance of up to 3.3 flight
    hours.
        Crew Comfort.--A fully functional heating and air conditioning
    system reduces fatigue and provides the flight crew a very comfortable
    working environment for extended flights.
        Cost.--The Bell Model 209 FIREWATCH helicopter provides
    capabilities normally provided to incidents by two aircraft for the
    cost of one. Normally an aerial supervisory aircraft is ordered for an
    incident, and then a second aircraft is ordered to provide remote
    sensing information (Aircraft equipped with infrared sensor and/or
    mapping capability). Intelligence gathering missions normally do not
    require the commitment of an aircraft for a full day, but often, full
    day costs are incurred. FIREWATCH is staffed and operated by fully
    qualified Air Tactical Group Supervisors (ATGS) that can provide relief
    Aerial Supervisory coverage between intelligence gathering missions,
    consequently reducing the requirement for a relief ATGS. Occasionally,
    smoke inversion may limit aircraft operations, but FIREWATCH helicopter
    operations may continue. FIREWATCH can reduce incident costs by
    fulfilling helicopter coordinator duties.
        Question. In testing, did the real time mapping capabilities meet,
    or exceed, expectations?
        Answer. In initial testing and in the first season of fielding the
    FIREWATCH system, it clearly exceeded expectations. Furthermore,
    acquired system improvements will increase speed, integration, and
    capabilities of the mapping system. The agency is presently working on
    a system that will allow FIREWATCH information to have real time
    computer-online capability. This capability will be on web-sites to
    fire managers as well as public service for emergency information.
        Question. Please provide the Committee a detailed discussion of
    other platforms besides helicopters to which the FIREWATCH suite could
    be applied and whether the system could be ``modularized'', or shared
    between various platforms?
        Answer. The FIREWATCH system initially used a military surplus AH-1
    Cobra airframe as a surrogate. The AH-1 airframes were readily
    available, inexpensive, and could be rapidly outfitted. The focus
    throughout the initial fielding was, however, to design a system that
    could readily be installed and fielded on any other airborne platform.
    As a result, the FIREWATCH system is totally modularized and can be
    fielded on practically any other airborne platform. Installation design
    provides for readily transferring the system from one aircraft to
    another. While installation on a specific aircraft may require FAA
    approval, numerous aircraft and airframes will be able to accommodate
    FIREWATCH.
        Question. What are the comparative costs and cost savings
    associated with deployment of the FIREWATCH system on multiple
    platforms?
        Answer. The comparable equipment cost for the technology suite
    installed in the FIREWATCH aircraft will be similar for any aircraft
    platform. The conceptual design of the FIREWATCH technology suite
    included the objective of compatibility for installation in any future
    aerial platform. Cost for research and development have already been
    borne in the engineering of the first FIREWATCH aircraft. No further
    major development costs would be necessary on other aerial platforms.
        Question. To date the FIREWATCH system has only been deployed in R-
    5 California but it appears this coming year the heavy fire incidents
    are likely to fall in other parts of the west, primarily the Northern,
    Intermountain, Pacific and Northwest Regions. Does the agency plan to
    test the FIREWATCH system in these other parts of the country?
        Answer. Yes. FIREWATCH is considered to be a national resource
    available to any Federal, state, or local agency. FIREWATCH recently
    responded to a request from the Department of the Interior, Office of
    Surface Mining, to determine locations of underground coal seam fires
    with its infrared sensor and mapping systems.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
                                 forest legacy
        Question. In fiscal year 2003, 2004, and 2005, how many
    applications did the Forest Service receive for Forest Legacy proposals
    and what was the total dollar amount requested? For each of these
    years, how many applications was the Forest Service able to fund?
        Answer. Below is a table identifying the number and funding level
    for all proposed and funded projects for fiscal year 2003, 2004, and
    2005, including new state start-ups.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Number of
                              Year                                           Amount of      Number       Amount
                                                              proposals      proposals      funded    appropriated
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2003....................................................       129       $229,371,725       43       $64,682,000
    2004....................................................       119        265,375,541       44    \1\ 67,298,000
    2005....................................................        81        162,026,975       39    \2\ 59,496,000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Of which $6,914,000 is from prior year funds.
    \2\ Of which $7,198,000 is from prior year funds.

     northern forest lands council--northeast state foresters association
                                   reporting
        Question. Last year was the tenth anniversary of the publication of
    the Northern Forest Lands Council's ``Finding Common Ground: Conserving
    the Northern Forest.'' The Forest Service was instrumental in convening
    the Council and publishing the report. It also has been the key federal
    partner in implementing the report's recommendations. The Northeast
    State Foresters Association published a report assessing the region's
    progress in meeting those recommendations. Is the Forest Service
    following up on that assessment and how can the Forest Service help the
    region address recommendations that NEFA identified as unmet?
        Answer. The Forest Service's Northeastern Area (NA) office has been
    integrally involved in the efforts spearheaded by NEFA (North East
    State Foresters Association) at the ten year anniversary of the
    original Northern Forest Lands Council report. In these efforts NEFA
    analyzed changed conditions in the Northern Forest region, assessed how
    well the original 37 recommendations had been implemented, and
    recommended what still needed to be done.
        In the last two years NA provided NEFA 4 grants totaling $89,900 to
    do the assessment and the subsequent follow-up work. That $89,900 was
    matched with $89,900 in nonfederal contributions. In addition NA has
    provided a liaison on the NEFA team, the field representative from its
    Durham, NH Field Office. NEFA has not yet published the final
    assessment but will shortly. The most recent grant provides NESFA
    $35,000 in funds, matched with an equal amount of nonfederal support,
    to publish, distribute, and spread the word about the assessment,
    including briefing the 4 governors (Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, and
    New York) who named team members to the assessment ``Forum'' working
    group. The Forest Service's Durham Field Office public affairs
    specialist will assist NEFA in designing and implementing an outreach
    strategy to notify the public that the assessment is complete.
        As the draft NEFA report notes, the assessment efforts at the 10th
    year anniversary were done with a tiny fraction of the dedicated $5
    million in federal, state, and other resources that attended the
    original Northern Forest Land Council's work. NA will continue to
    support the work of NEFA, within the limits of its annually
    appropriated funding in programs such as Forest Stewardship, Economic
    Action Programs, Forest Health, and Urban and Community Forestry.
        The draft assessment report recommends that the governors of Maine,
    New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York embark on an initiative that
    provides a sustained focus on the challenges and opportunities common
    to the Northern Forest geographies of the 4 states.
        Recommendation 1.--Invest public and private resources to develop
    and implement community and economic development strategies across the
    region to reinvigorate the rural economies of the Northern Forests.
        Recommendation 2.--Continue public and private investment in
    conservation and forest stewardship efforts.
        Recommendation 3.--Support private forest landowners in practicing
    sustainable forest management while encouraging public access to
    private land for recreation.
        Recommendation 4.--Create a collaborative regional effort to ensure
    the implementation of the initiatives in the assessment report with the
    governors initiating a continuing coordinating mechanism to provide a
    sustained focus on the challenges and opportunities common to the
    Northern Forest geographies of the four states.
        The scope of such an initiative far exceeds the expected program
    funding the Forest Service receives in the applicable programs.
    However, we will continue to address unmet needs identified in the
    Northern Forest Lands Council 10th Anniversary Forum Final Report a bit
    at a time as provided by our current levels of program funding.
                green mountain national forest land acquisition
        Question. The Forest Service has recommended that $400,000 be
    reprogrammed from the Green Mountain National Forest's land acquisition
    account for other projects outside the Forest. How will this
    reprogramming affect the Green's land acquisition program? In
    particular, are there pending projects that will be delayed because of
    the reprogramming or lack of funds?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act of
    2005, Public Law 108-447, reduced the Land Acquisition program's
    unobligated balances by $11million. The Eastern Region's share of this
    reduction was $1.9 million. The Region analyzed each Forest's carryover
    balances and proportionately assessed those forests that could not
    expend all of their carryover balance during fiscal year 2005. It was
    determined that the Green Mountain National Forest's contribution to
    the reduction would be $400,468 based on equitable forest shares of
    available carryover within the Region. It is not expected that this
    assessment will delay any pending projects in fiscal year 2005 on the
    Green Mountain.
                      northeastern research station budget
        Question. What is the impact of the President's fiscal year 2006
    budget recommendation for the Northeastern Research Station,
    particularly in the area of recreation research?
        Answer. The President's fiscal year 2006 budget request for the
    Northeastern Research Station proposes no recreation research. Funding
    is directed to higher priority programs such as Forest Inventory and
    Analysis.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan
                                  leafy spurge
        Question. In fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004, the Interior
    bills contained $300,000 for leafy spurge control in North Dakota in an
    effort to address the weed problem on the grasslands. Last year, for
    fiscal year 2005, that amount was increased to $350,000.
        Please tell the committee what progress has been made thus far with
    these funds? For example, how many acres have been treated? Which
    entities have been doing this work? And how many more acres remain to
    be treated?
        Answer. Along with Forest Service staff, the following entities
    have participated in the treatment of noxious weeds: Sheyenne Valley,
    Little Missouri, McKenzie County and Grand River Grazing Associations;
    Billings, McKenzie, Slope, Golden Valley, Ransom and Richland County
    Weed Control Boards; Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, State of North
    Dakota, and U.S. Department of Agriculture. Most of the treatment of
    noxious weeds through chemical application has been by the Grazing
    Associations and County Weed Control Crews. The Forest Service has been
    most heavily involved in the movement of leafy spurge beetles and other
    methods of weed control.
        The Dakota Prairie Grasslands (DPG) noxious weed program is an
    integrated approach to weed suppression and eradication, and includes
    herbicide control, biological control, goat and sheep grazing,
    mechanical and re-vegetative treatments, and education and prevention.
    In 2002, 13,694 acres of noxious weeds were treated across the DPG. In
    2003, 16,536 acres were treated, and in 2004, 10,958 acres were
    treated. Future treatment needs cannot be accurately described in terms
    of acres remaining to treat. The target species is aggressive and
    persistent, and a long-term treatment strategy involving successive
    treatments over an extended period is most effective. The DPG is
    working on a definitive weeds inventory; but it requires time and
    funding to implement. The benefits of fully implementing this type of
    inventory needs to be weighed against diverting funds from immediate
    treatment needs.
        Question. I am also concerned that this work is not going to be
    continued in fiscal year 2006. Under the President's request, the
    Vegetation and Watershed account is up by $4.1 million, but your budget
    justification doesn't specify any set amount for leafy spurge control
    on the grasslands. Does the President's fiscal year 2006 budget request
    contain the $350,000 needed to continue this work?
        Answer. The war on weeds will be a part of our program in fiscal
    year 2006 and well into the future. Leafy spurge is a very difficult
    species to eradicate. Older plants will be the focus of non-chemical
    suppression efforts, such as goat grazing, while young/new infestations
    are targeted for aggressive herbicide control. Biological control will
    also be used to reduce and control spurge populations.
                               grazing allotments
        Question. The Forest Service is in the process of completing its
    scientific review of grazing allotments on the Dakota Prairie
    Grasslands (DPG). The Scientific Review Team's final report is due out
    in the near future and early estimates predict grazing activities on
    the grasslands could be cut by 15 to 35 percent.
        One of the reasons associated with the sharp cuts is that the
    management planning strategy has moved from livestock emphasis to
    ecosystem restoration. The management plan emphasis is included in the
    Dakota Grassland Plan and the move from a livestock emphasis to an
    ecosystem restoration plan has already been appealed by the ranchers
    and the ranchers lost. I believe we can have both and that developing
    an appropriate management plan is not an either/or proposition.
        Often ranchers get unfairly criticized for what those in some
    sectors refer to as ``abusing the land.'' However, as someone familiar
    with ranching, I think the ranchers themselves are the best people to
    ensure that the land they graze remains environmentally sound because
    it directly affects their livelihoods and economic situations.
        Recently the Forest Service proposed a new rule that would put
    social and economic interests on the same level as environmental
    interest when developing management plans. I believe this common-sense
    approach is needed because too often we dismiss economic and social
    consequences that impact local towns and communities.
        My question is this: Will the Forest Service review the DPG
    Management Plan, taking into account social and economic impacts, as
    described in the new rule? And if not, why not?
        Answer. The National Forest Management Act requires consideration
    of social and economic aspects in planning. The current Dakota Prairie
    Grassland (DPG) Management Plan was completed under the 1982 planning
    rule. At the time of the DPG's plan revision these elements were
    considered and displayed.
        The new planning rule provides an option for national forests and
    national grasslands to amend a plan under the 1982 rule for three more
    years. Therefore, any conditions that may precipitate a plan revision
    or amendment on the DPG would take into account social and economic
    impacts regardless of which planning rule is followed.
        As a final point, any future project-level planning would need to
    consider social and economic impacts on a site-specific basis,
    regardless of which rule the plan was written under.
                             firefighting borrowing
        Question. For several years in a row, Congress has not appropriated
    enough money for fighting fires. As a result, the Forest Service was
    forced to borrow money from its non-firefighting accounts to supplement
    the firefighting budget. Congress was then forced to come back and
    reimburse the Service for its extra costs. Not only is that an
    extremely inefficient way of doing business, but since we have not
    reimbursed the full amount that was borrowed, some of the Service's
    programs were being cut to absorb the difference.
        This past year, fiscal year 2005, Congress addressed the problem by
    adding $394 million for fire suppression activities, in addition to the
    $649 million in the base account. The president's budget is seeking an
    increase of $51 million in suppression funds for fiscal year 2006, but
    that still puts the request at only $700 million. That's at the 10-year
    average, but I'm concerned with what happens if next year turns out to
    be another $1 billion plus fire year. What other proposals does the
    Forest Service have to help alleviate this problem?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2005 the agency has approximately $1.2
    billion available for emergency suppression. This amount includes an
    annual appropriation of $649 million; supplemental appropriations of
    $394 million; and carryover from fiscal year 2004 of $313 million, less
    a $149 million pay back to K-V. We anticipate this amount will be
    sufficient for fiscal year 2005. In fiscal year 2006 the President's
    budget is $700 million. The Forest Service will also have any
    unobligated balances available following the fiscal year 2005 fire
    season. If a severe fire season occurs in fiscal year 2006 resulting in
    suppression costs that exceed the funding available, additional funds
    will be redirected from other agency programs. The agency is working
    aggressively to contain suppression costs to developing effective and
    efficient wildfire suppression that provides for public and firefighter
    safety, and striving to minimize the need for transfers from other
    programs.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Burns. I thank the members for attending this
    morning. I thank the panel for appearing this morning. The
    subcommittee will stand in recess to reconvene at 9:30 a.m.,
    Thursday, March 10, in room SD-124. At that time we will hear
    testimony from the Honorable Gale A. Norton, Secretary of the
    Interior.
        [Whereupon, at 10:55 a.m., Thursday, March 3, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Thursday,
    March 10.]

      DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2006

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 2005

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 9:29 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Conrad Burns (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Burns, Stevens, Cochran, Allard, Dorgan,
    Leahy, and Feinstein.

                           DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                            Office of the Secretary

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

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS

        Senator Burns. We will call the subcommittee to order.
        We have got a lot of work going on this morning. We have
    got a couple of members here who are in the middle of markups,
    and we have got markups along with those fellows over there.
        I am going to forego my opening statement right now. The
    chairman of the full committee is here. I guess not the full
    committee. But Mr. Stevens is here.
        Because he has a markup starting over in Commerce, where
    Senator Dorgan and I are supposed to be in a little bit, and
    then you have got a markup in Budget, and I understand that is
    taking up your time for Senator Allard.
        So I will call on Mr. Stevens, if you have an opening
    statement and want something for the record, you are free to do
    that at this time.

                    OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. I accept your
    yielding to me on a matter of age. All right?
        Senator Burns. I was afraid to say that.
        Senator Stevens. Madam Secretary, I will see you later this
    afternoon, but I have come over to specifically put in the
    record some questions I would ask you to respond to. I am
    really very seriously worried about the budget and how it
    affects my State. As I told you, we had 703 fires totaling 6.5
    million acres that burned last year, and the effort to fight
    those fires was just absent. So I would hope that you respond
    to that.
        The other thing that worries me considerably is--you know,
    most of my friends here do not understand this, but I was one
    of the original co-sponsors of the Endangered Species Act. We
    have listed the spectacled eider and the Stellers eider. These
    two species have now been listed as threatened, but the money
    for dealing with endangered species and threatened species in
    Alaska is reduced by $1 million. I just do not understand that.
    I do not ask you to answer now, but I just hope you would
    answer for the record and work with us as we try to correct
    some of these things.
        We are besieged this year more than ever before with
    attacks because of our pork, the add-ons, the changes we make
    in the budget. I think we need to reprioritize the budget and I
    hope you will assist us in this regard to take care some of the
    meaningful problems in our States.
        I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Burns. Senator Allard, you are in the middle of a
    markup upstairs right now, I guess.

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

        Senator Allard. We are and actually we have moved it over
    to the Capitol because we have a lot of votes this morning too
    on the floor.
        I just want to personally welcome the Secretary here. We go
    back a ways in Colorado. I just want to state for the record I
    think she is doing a great job and have appreciated working on
    many issues very important to Colorado and the western States.
        There is no doubt, Mr. Chairman, that this is going to be a
    very tight budget year. While we go through this budget on
    Interior, I think we have to be very deliberative and very
    careful the way we move forward on that. I want to be a
    positive force in our efforts to make sure that we can restrain
    spending. We need to do that because of the deficit
    accumulation, but also we need to do it very thoughtfully.
        So I just wanted to welcome her briefly and thank you, Mr.
    Chairman. This is my first subcommittee and I am looking
    forward to working with you and the other members, Mr.
    Chairman, and I will submit my full statement for the record.
    Thank you very much.
        Senator Burns. Without objection, that statement will be
    made part of the record.
        [The statement follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Senator Wayne Allard
        Mr. Chairman, Thank you for holding this hearing today. I am
    pleased to have a chance to discuss the projected budget for the
    Department of Interior. I'd like to extend a special welcome to
    Secretary Norton. Gale and I go way back, and I think that she has done
    an exceptional job in handling an agency that is very important to
    Colorado, and the nation.
        Specifically I want to thank you for the work that you, and the
    rest of the Administration, have done to protect state water rights,
    and to foster an atmosphere of cooperation--rather than oppressive
    mandates--with regard to the potential listing of ``endangered
    species.''
        We all know that this is going to be a tough budget year. The
    President had difficult decisions to make in his projected budget
    request. While I realize that difficult adjustments must be made, I
    think that we must be careful and deliberative when making these
    adjustments.
        I am going to have to leave early to participate in the Budget
    Committee mark-up, but I look forward to working with you, Mr.
    Chairman, and the rest of the Committee, to see that worthy projects
    and programs continue to be funded in a responsible manner.

        Senator Burns. I have got a short statement here that I
    will open up with this morning and I will turn to my friend
    from North Dakota.
        Good morning and welcome, Madam Secretary, to this
    subcommittee.
        The budget, it looks like, presents several challenges, as
    you have heard from two members of this committee. Like most
    agencies in Government, you have been charged by your President
    and his eyeshades over at OMB to write a budget that helps
    reduce the size of the deficit. I do not envy your task, even
    though it is an important one. Neither do I envy the task that
    lies before this subcommittee, as we begin to put the
    appropriations bill together.
        The bottom line is that the request under this
    subcommittee's jurisdiction is about $600 million below last
    year's discretionary spending, and that is without factoring in
    hundreds of millions of dollars that it takes just to keep pace
    with pay increases and other fixed costs. Maybe we better start
    looking down there and see how much dead wood you have got
    around the Department of the Interior to find some savings. If
    you can find some, I would appreciate any information that you
    could forward to this subcommittee. But our fixed costs total
    about $159 million in the Department of the Interior alone.
        All of this translates into some pretty stark math within
    your request. You have elected to zero out the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund State assistance program for a savings of
    around $90 million. You have reduced Payments in Lieu of Taxes
    by $27 million. You have reduced funding for a variety of
    Indian education programs, such as Tribally Controlled
    Community Colleges and the Johnson-O'Malley grants. And you
    have proposed to terminate the rural fire assistance program,
    cut in half the Save America's Treasures program, and reduce by
    $28 million the Mineral Resource programs within the U.S.
    Geological Survey.
        I do not say all this to imply that cutting or terminating
    programs is necessarily bad. Obviously, we have to make some
    tough choices in order to control Federal spending and weed out
    the programs that are not working so well. I think what we are
    interested in is what is behind the choices that you have made.
        Your budget also made room for a number of significant
    increases. Funding for historical accounting of Indian trust
    accounts is up $78 million. Let me sort of have a little word
    about this. I do not know whether we are getting anywhere or
    not. This looks like we are just pouring money down a black
    hole, and between you and judges and everything else, it has
    got most of us up here on the Hill sort of confused.
        You have asked for an additional $21 million for Private
    Stewardship and Landowner Incentive programs, $58 million for
    abandoned mine lands, and $20 million for the troubled LANDSAT
    program. You have requested $12.5 million for a new Preserve
    America program.
        What we hope to achieve today is a better understanding of
    why some of these items were viewed as higher priorities than
    those that were cut. I do not anticipate that the budget
    resolution that Congress will soon adopt will provide any great
    relief to this committee. So I will have to wrestle with many
    of these same questions and tradeoffs. We hope that you can
    help us with your testimony and as we work in the weeks ahead
    to come down with a budget and appropriation that we can live
    with. So I would appreciate your being as candid as you
    possibly can in this area.
        I want to thank you again because I certainly appreciate in
    the past that we have worked together on many programs and we
    have worked our way through them. I appreciate that
    cooperation. But we seriously have a huge challenge ahead of us
    today.
        By the way, I will give you some idea of what is ahead of
    us today from a time standpoint. These are the questions. There
    are four questions on each page. So I hope you have maybe
    packed a lunch or something. We will work our way through it.
        Now I would turn to my good friend and ranking member on
    this committee, Senator Dorgan.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN

        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
        Madam Secretary, welcome.
        The chairman has raised a number of issues that I would
    also echo. I think funding for tribal colleges, the
    recommendation really just retracts the last 2 years of
    progress that we have made, zeroing out the funding for the
    United Tribes Technical College, a college which you visited in
    Bismarck, and also Crownpoint in New Mexico is something I
    certainly do not support.
        The cuts in funding in a number of areas. Payments in Lieu
    of Taxes, for example, I think is difficult and troublesome.
    There are just a number of areas I think that we need to work
    through.
        I do not understand this historic preservation fund called
    Preserve America. You are cutting heritage area funding. You
    are cutting Save America's Treasures funding, and then to
    create a new essentially non-Federal program with Federal money
    to accomplish the same goals. My guess is, my hope is that we
    will strike that as we did last year.
        We want the Agency to do well. I notice in your testimony
    you anticipate opening ANWR to drilling. Let me just make an
    observation about that. Every 25 years or so we go through this
    angst about an energy plan and our response to it is to dig and
    drill. So every 25 years, we will select some other pristine
    spot and drill there and dig someplace else, and we will not
    have enhanced our country's energy future at all. We need to
    move to a different construct for energy.
        But I think, as you know, the issue of drilling in ANWR is
    controversial. I respect those who support drilling in ANWR,
    but I personally think all that does is just repeats the same
    old, tired arguments that we do every 25 years that never
    actually makes America less vulnerable. We are more vulnerable
    than ever. Now 60 percent of our oil comes from off our shores,
    much of it from troubled parts of the world. The solution is
    not to drill in ANWR. The solution is to go to a hydrogen fuel
    cell economy and stop running gasoline through carburetors. The
    President has taken a baby step in that direction which I
    support. I would support a much more aggressive and bold step.
        There is a lot in this budget to chew on, as the chairman
    indicated. We want to work with you. We want the Department of
    the Interior to do well, to function effectively and
    efficiently. I hope that perhaps we can spend a little time
    talking about our trust responsibility with respect to Indian
    education as well at this hearing.
        But as the chairman indicated, we are going to have
    probably an abbreviated hearing because of a markup going on in
    the Commerce Committee.
        But, Madam Secretary, you have been doing this now for some
    long while. We are glad you are back with us and look forward
    to talking to you about these issues. Ms. Scarlett, and is it
    Mr. Trezise?
        Mr. Trezise. Yes.
        Senator Dorgan. Thank you for being with us as well.
        Senator Burns. Thank you very much.
        Senator Leahy.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY

        Senator Leahy. Mr. Chairman, I will have questions. I could
    not help but think when Senator Dorgan was talking about
    opening up the Arctic Refuge, they are assuming $2.4 billion
    from lease sales. I will be interested in hearing how much you
    are going to sell it for. We did a quick calculation. To make
    that, you would have to be selling these leases for around
    $4,000 to $6,000 an acre on the North Slope. I think they have
    averaged around $50 per acre. So I will ask the specific
    question just how you reach that amount.
        Also I will have questions on the fisheries budget because
    I notice that, notwithstanding a very clear congressional
    requirement, you have cut back very considerably from what the
    Republicans and Democrats on this committee and the Congress
    had voted for. But I will hold those for the questions, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Senator Burns. Thank you, Senator Leahy.
        Madam Secretary, we look forward to hearing your statement
    and, once again, welcome to the subcommittee.

                    SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. GALE A. NORTON

        Secretary Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
    members of the committee. I am happy to be here this morning
    along with Lynn Scarlett who is our Assistant Secretary for
    Policy, Management and Budget and our nominee for Deputy
    Secretary, as well as John Trezise who heads our budget
    operations.

                               COBELL LITIGATION

        Before highlighting our priorities, I would like to provide
    some information about the Cobell litigation. We received a
    ruling on February 23 from Judge Royce Lamberth. He
    reinstituted the injunction that he issued in September 2003.
    It ordered the Department of the Interior to perform an
    expansive accounting of individual Indian trust accounts and
    assets. This order requires us to go back to 1887 to verify
    every single transaction that has taken place since that time.
    This undertaking involves finding and indexing millions of
    canceled checks, invoices, leases, ledgers, and other
    documents. It is the equivalent of going back to your great
    grandfather's financial accounts and trying to find every piece
    of paper that underlies those transactions.
        Many of the necessary documents are currently housed in
    Federal archive facilities. Many other records are held by
    those who have leased Indian lands like oil and gas companies,
    timber companies, farmers, and ranchers. The judge has ordered
    us to develop a plan for subpoenaing these records from the
    private sector.
        Other records are held by Indian tribes or individual
    Indians. These records will presumably also need to be
    acquired.
        We would need to index and electronically image these
    documents so they can be effectively used by the accountants.
    The Department has estimated that the total cost of this
    accounting work would be $10 billion to $12 billion. That
    includes no payments to anyone. That is just purely for the
    accounting work. To put that in perspective, the entire annual
    budget for the Bureau of Indian Affairs is $2.2 billion. Though
    our budget contains an increase to carry out the Department's
    plan for historical accounting, the Department's budget was
    obviously not constructed to address these requirements for
    2005 or 2006.
        As you may recall, the September 2003 order from Judge
    Lamberth was stayed by the Court of Appeals and by a
    congressional appropriations rider. The Court of Appeals later
    held that the congressional action invalidated Judge Lamberth's
    2003 order, but it declined to address the underlying merits of
    Judge Lamberth's order.
        We are working with the Department of Justice on the
    courses of action that are available to us. It is my
    understanding that we have filed a motion for stay with the
    Court of Appeals.

                   TRUST MANAGEMENT AND HISTORICAL ACCOUNTING

        Our efforts to improve trust management and to do
    historical accounting have necessarily been a high priority. We
    have a chart that shows the Department's combined
    appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Office
    of Special Trustee which have increased 8 percent during our
    term, compared to 2 percent growth in the Department's overall
    budget. Within these agencies, programs directly related to
    trust have increased by 97 percent.
        The chart we have here shows that the unified trust budget
    is now 24 percent of the combined spending in Indian country,
    as compared to 1996 when it was 9 percent.

        The 2006 budget proposes $591 million for Indian trust
    management. Interior is aggressively pursuing historical
    accounting activities. Our results to date indicate that there
    are differences involving both overpayments and underpayments,
    but they tend to be infrequent and small. A net of about $1.5
    million in differences has been found, involving a throughput
    of over $15 billion, which includes both tribal and individual
    funds. That is considerably less than the amount of funding we
    have spent to identify those discrepancies.
        There is a vast gap between our findings in looking at the
    historical accounting and our legal positions about what types
    of accounts and how far back in history we should go, compared
    to the plaintiffs' allegations that we owe $176 billion. The
    vast difference has made ordinary settlement elusive.
        The litigation focuses to a large degree on what
    instructions Congress gave Interior in the 1994 Indian Trust
    Fund Management Reform Act and earlier statutes. This situation
    perhaps presents an historic opportunity to address this
    problem by fixing some longstanding problems in Indian country
    like fractionated land ownership that hampers economic
    development. We perhaps have the opportunity to modernize
    antiquated arrangements that cause us to spend over $100 to
    manage an account with 50 cents or spend an average of $5,000
    per probate for probate accounts with as little as 11 cents.
        I am pleased that Chairmen McCain and Pombo are making this
    a high priority and I hope that the appropriators will also
    continue their interest so that we can reach a bipartisan
    solution.

                                BUDGET OVERVIEW

        Beyond Indian trust responsibilities, Interior's mission is
    multi-faceted and complex. Our overall 2006 request for
    programs is slightly less than 1 percent below the 2005 level.
    Our proposed budget continues the funding provided for park
    operations in 2005 and funds fixed costs. At the level proposed
    in our 2006 budget, park operations funding will be 25 percent
    higher than in 2001.

                   HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND HERITAGE TOURISM

        In addition to enjoying outdoor recreation on public lands,
    more and more Americans are visiting historical and cultural
    sites. The National Park Service offers several programs that
    focus on historic preservation and heritage tourism. The 2006
    budget contains $66 million for historic preservation and
    heritage tourism including $12.5 million for Preserve America.
    Initiated by the President and First Lady, Preserve America
    recognizes community efforts to develop sustainable uses for
    their sites and to develop economic and educational
    opportunities related to heritage tourism. To date, over 200
    communities in 34 States have been designated as Preserve
    America communities.

                               ENERGY DEVELOPMENT

        Interior is one of the few Federal agencies that takes in
    more money than it spends. The key generator of revenue is
    responsible energy development. In 2006, Interior will help
    meet America's energy needs by providing appropriate access for
    exploration and development on Federal lands and portions of
    the Outer Continental Shelf, expediting permitting and rights-
    of-way processing and encouraging development and use of clean,
    renewable energy. The 2006 budget provides $530 million for
    energy programs through appropriations and user fees, an
    increase of $22 million.
        The budget assumes enactment of legislation to open the
    1002 area of the coastal plain in the Arctic National Wildlife
    Refuge to oil and gas exploration and development. The U.S.
    Geological Survey estimates that the entire ANWR assessment
    area contains a mean of 10.4 billion barrels of technically
    recoverable oil. That is a very significant amount.
        We have a chart that shows the estimate for the ANWR area
    in comparison with other onshore areas. The ANWR area is the
    column that is furthest to the left. It is far larger than any
    of the other areas, and yet the geographic area is far, far
    smaller. The potential daily production from this area alone is
    larger than the current daily onshore oil production of any
    other State. The currently available estimates project that
    $2.4 billion in revenue will come from the first bonus bid
    lease sale in 2007. The Congressional Budget Office recently
    did its own calculations and estimated that sales would produce
    bonus bids of $5 billion between 2007 and 2010.

                                   USER FEES

        Consistent with the Government's policy to charge for
    Government services where the direct beneficiaries can be
    identified, the 2006 budget for the Minerals Management Service
    includes $19 million in new fees charged to offshore energy
    producers.
        The Bureau of Land Management will also increase its fees
    to energy companies for onshore permit processing from $2
    million in 2005 to $11 million in 2006. The proposed BLM energy
    budget would enable them to reduce the backlog of applications
    for permits to drill pending over 60 days from nearly 1,700 to
    120 by the end of 2006.

                            COOPERATIVE CONSERVATION

        Protecting wildlife and habitat is one of Interior's most
    important functions. Over the past 4 years, Interior has
    promoted cooperative conservation by joining with citizen
    stewards to conserve open space, restore habitat for wildlife,
    and protect endangered and at-risk species. We are supporting
    these conservation efforts through grant and cost-sharing
    programs that emphasize local initiatives and partnerships.
    From 2002 through 2005, our conservation partnership programs
    have provided $1.7 billion for conservation investments, and
    that is shown on this chart. As you can see, we have
    significantly increased the grant programs for conservation.

        In the first 3 years of President Bush's administration,
    for example, we restored, protected, or enhanced over 1.4
    million acres of prairie and upland habitat through just two of
    these conservation programs: our Partners for Fish and Wildlife
    program and our Coastal program.
        The 2006 budget includes $379 million for cooperative
    conservation grant and challenge cost-share programs. These
    grant programs help us protect wildlife and habitat alongside
    productive farming and ranching. They support conservation
    efforts that help avoid the need to list species as endangered
    or find cooperative ways to recover endangered species.

                        ABANDONED MINE LAND RECLAMATION

        The Department of the Interior also does restoration work
    to reclaim abandoned mine lands. Today more than 3 million
    Americans still live less than 1 mile from dangerous abandoned
    coal mines. We want to work with Congress to update the Surface
    Mining Act. Our 2006 budget facilitates congressional action by
    providing money to expedite cleanup of high priority sites, but
    also providing $58 million to fairly address longstanding
    commitments to States and tribes that have already achieved
    their reclamation goals. The administration's approach would
    remove risk to 140,000 people annually.

                                 WILDLAND FIRE

        Interior is also reducing risks to communities adjacent to
    public forests and rangelands that face potential for
    catastrophic wildfires. Through the President's Healthy Forests
    Initiative and the bipartisan Healthy Forests Restoration Act,
    we are reducing hazardous fuels, thinning trees and brush, and
    removing dead wood and invasive plants. Over the past 4 years,
    together with the Forest Service, we have thinned about 12
    million acres of public lands. The 2006 budget provides an
    increase of $10 million for hazardous fuel reduction projects.
    Working with the Forest Service, we expect to complete more
    than 4 million acres of projects in 2006.

                            STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTING

        Stewardship contracting provides a new kind of partnership
    enabling those working with us to retain wood products in
    exchange for the service of thinning trees, underbrush, and
    other vegetation. This public/private partnership helps us
    expand our ability to address hazardous fuels.

                                    SCIENCE

        Science is a foundation for the Department's land
    management decisions, supporting all of our activities. The
    U.S. Geological Survey budget includes an increase of $20
    million in land remote sensing to continue to collect and
    archive satellite imagery of the United States. The 2006 budget
    proposes $5 million for the USGS to work in partnership with
    the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to enhance
    our tsunami early warning system to protect U.S. coastal
    residents in the States and territories.

                             MANAGEMENT EXCELLENCE

        I want to conclude my discussion by briefly addressing our
    efforts to manage Interior more effectively and efficiently.
    Behind all of our programs, out of the limelight, rests a
    management foundation through which we strive to improve
    program efficiency. The Financial Business and Management
    System will integrate financial management, procurement,
    property management, and other systems. Today we have over 120
    different property databases and 26 different financial
    management systems. Our managers often operate with dozens of
    different information management systems, each needing
    different passwords and training. The 2006 budget includes $24
    million for the new system, an increase of $10 million.
    Ultimately we anticipate being able to eliminate some 80
    different information systems, saving us time and money.
    Through this and other innovations, our bureaus work hard to
    achieve management excellence.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Our 2006 budget supports our vision of healthy lands and
    waters, thriving communities, and dynamic economies. We look
    forward to working with Congress to advance these goals. Thank
    you.
        [The statement follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Hon. Gale A. Norton
        Good morning. I am pleased to be here to discuss the fiscal year
    2006 budget for the Department of the Interior. I appreciate the
    opportunity to highlight our priorities and key goals.
        The Department of the Interior's mission is complex and
    multifaceted. Our 70,000 employees contribute to the Nation's
    environmental quality, economic vitality, and the well being of
    communities. Our mission encompasses resource protection, resource use,
    recreation, and scientific, educational, and other services to
    communities.
        The Department's geographically dispersed responsibilities are
    inspiring and sometimes challenging. Through our programs, we have
    close connections to America's lands and people. We protect some of the
    Nation's most significant cultural, historic, and natural places. We
    provide access to resources to help meet the Nation's energy and water
    needs, while protecting natural and cultural resources. We provide
    recreation opportunities to over 477 million people annually on our
    parks, refuges, and other public lands. We serve communities through
    science, wildland firefighting, and law enforcement. We fulfill trust
    and other responsibilities to American Indians, Alaska natives, and the
    Nation's affiliated island communities.
        Four principles shape our 2006 budget. First is the power of
    partnerships to leverage resources and achieve results. Second is the
    imperative of fiscal constraint to maintain a dynamic economic context.
    Third is an emphasis on investments that will help Interior work
    smarter, more efficiently, and more effectively. Fourth is the
    importance of funding activities and programs linked to core
    Departmental responsibilities.
                                budget overview
        Performance lies at the center of the President's 2006 budget
    request. The President's proposal also demonstrates the fiscal
    restraint necessary to halve the deficit by 2009 and maintain the
    Nation's dynamic economy.
        The 2006 budget request for current appropriations is $10.8
    billion. Permanent funding that becomes available as a result of
    existing legislation without further action by the Congress will
    provide an additional $4.2 billion, for a total 2006 Interior budget of
    $15 billion.
        For programs funded by this Subcommittee, the 2006 request includes
    $9.8 billion, a decrease of $69.7 million, or 0.7 percent below the
    2005 level. Excluding contingent emergency fire funding provided in
    2005, the 2006 request is an increase of $28.9 million or 0.3 percent
    over 2005.
        The budget projects receipts collected by the Department in 2006 to
    be $13.8 billion, an increase of $914 million and equivalent to 141
    percent of the Department's current appropriations request to this
    Subcommittee.
        Interior manages over 500 million acres and some 40,000 facilities
    at 2,400 locations. These responsibilities engage Interior as a
    principal manager of real property and other assets that require
    ongoing maintenance, direct services to public lands visitors, and
    ongoing activities to ensure public access, use, and enjoyment. As a
    result, a key goal of the Department's 2006 budget is to fund pay
    increases and other nondiscretionary cost increases for health
    benefits, workers and unemployment compensation payments, rental
    payments for leased space, and operation of centralized administrative
    and business systems. Providing for these costs will allow the
    Department to maintain basic services while continuing to improve
    efficiency and effectiveness to better serve the public.
        The budget includes $158.6 million for nondiscretionary, fixed-cost
    increases. Of this total, nearly three-quarters, or $115.7 million,
    funds higher pay costs. The budget assumes a January 2006 pay increase
    of 2.3 percent.
        Our budget also includes a number of key initiatives that will help
    us achieve our goals. Key activities include our efforts to:
      --Pursue responsible energy development;
      --Expand opportunities for cooperative conservation;
      --Enhance recreation opportunities on Interior lands;
      --Increase forest and rangeland health;
      --Continue the clean up of abandoned mine lands;
      --Advance trust reform; and
      --Reduce risks resulting from natural disasters.
        In his February 2 State of the Union Address, the President
    underscored the need to restrain spending in order to sustain our
    economic prosperity. As part of this restraint, it is important that
    total discretionary and non-security spending be held to levels
    proposed in the 2006 budget. The budget savings and reforms in the
    budget are important components of achieving the President's goal of
    cutting the budget deficit in half by 2009 and we urge the Congress to
    support these reforms. The 2006 budget includes more than 150
    reductions, reforms, and terminations in non-defense discretionary
    programs, of which four involve Interior programs. The Department wants
    to work with the Congress to achieve these savings.
                               energy development
        ANWR Exploration and Development.--Our 2006 budget continues our
    quest to achieve healthy lands and water, thriving communities, and a
    dynamic economy. Predictable, readily available supplies of energy at
    reasonable costs underlie both community well-being and economic
    action.
        In 2006, with Congress' assistance, Interior will help meet energy
    needs by providing appropriate access for exploration and development
    of the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and
    portions of the Outer Continental Shelf; expediting permitting and
    rights-of-way processing; and encouraging development and use of clean,
    renewable energy.
        Interior's 2006 budget provides $530 million for energy programs
    through annual appropriations and user fees, an increase of $22
    million.
        The budget assumes enactment of legislation to open a portion of
    the coastal plain in the ANWR to oil and gas exploration and
    development, with the first lease sale planned for 2007. The U.S.
    Geological Survey estimates that a mean expected volume of 10.4 billion
    barrels of technically recoverable oil can be expected if Congress
    lifts the ban on development in ANWR. At peak production, daily
    production from this area could be larger than the current daily
    onshore oil production of Texas.
        The budget assumes the first ANWR lease sale would produce an
    estimated $2.4 billion in bonus bids in 2007, the same estimate we have
    used for several years. It is based on conservative assumptions. The
    Congressional Budget Office recently estimated the first lease sale
    would produce bonus bids of $4 billion.
        ANWR exploration and development would occur within a 1.5 million-
    acre area of the 19 million-acre refuge. Actual energy development
    would occur on no more than 2,000 acres, or one-hundredth of one
    percent of the refuge. Through increased knowledge, experience, and
    technological advances, the footprint of energy development will be
    dramatically reduced from older development sites on the North Slope.
    For example, use of seasonal ice pads for exploration will limit site
    disturbance, and extended-reach drilling will reduce the number of
    sites by allowing development of over 50 square miles of subsurface
    resources from one single point on the surface.
        The budget includes $1.6 billion for resource use to better meet
    the increasing demands for water resources, to carry out the National
    Energy Policy, and to maintain appropriate access to other resources on
    public lands. Key initiatives include:
        Minerals Management Service.--The 2006 budget proposes $290 million
    for MMS, a $12.6 million increase over 2005. This total includes a
    request for $167.4 million in annual appropriations and $122.7 million
    in offsetting collections. The proposed budget will enhance services
    and programs that protect the environment and offshore workers. It will
    also enhance methods to collect, account for, and disburse revenue from
    Federal and American Indian lands. The $12.6 million net increase
    compared to 2005 includes a $19.0 million increase in offsetting
    collections and a $6.4 million decrease in annual appropriations.
        BLM Oil and Gas Processing.--The 2006 budget will increase the
    Bureau of Land Management energy and minerals program from an estimated
    2005 funding level of $108.5 million in appropriations and user fees to
    a 2006 funding level of approximately $117.6 million. This net increase
    will enable BLM to accelerate the processing time for applications-for-
    permits-to-drill and reduce the permit application backlog pending for
    over 60 days from 1,681 to 120 by the end of 2006.
                              resource protection
        The 2006 budget calls for $2.6 billion for resource protection
    programs that improve the health of landscapes and watersheds, sustain
    biological communities, and protect cultural and natural heritage
    resources. In August 2004, President Bush signed an Executive Order on
    Cooperative Conservation requesting that agencies strengthen efforts to
    work cooperatively with States, Tribes, local governments, and others
    to achieve conservation goals.
        Over the past four years, the Interior Department has encouraged
    cooperative conservation through various grant programs, administrative
    actions, and policies. These efforts emphasize innovation, local
    action, and private stewardship. They achieve conservation goals while
    maintaining private and local land ownership. They foster species
    protection through land management and cooperative, on-the-ground
    habitat improvements, complementing traditional funding of ESA
    regulatory programs.
        Key initiatives in resource protection include:
        Cooperative Conservation Programs.--Through partnerships, Interior
    works with landowners and others to achieve conservation goals across
    the Nation and to benefit America's national parks, wildlife refuges,
    and other public lands. The 2006 budget includes $381.3 million for the
    Department's cooperative conservation programs. These programs leverage
    limited Federal funding, typically providing a non-Federal match of 50
    percent or more. They provide a foundation for cooperative efforts to
    protect endangered and at-risk species; engage local communities,
    organizations, and citizens in conservation; foster innovation; and
    achieve conservation goals while maintaining working landscapes.
        Our budget proposes funding for the Landowner Incentive and Private
    Stewardship programs at a total of $50.0 million, an increase of $21.4
    million from 2005. Through these programs, our agencies work with
    States, Tribes, communities, and landowners to provide incentives to
    conserve sensitive habitats in concert with traditional land management
    practices such as farming and ranching, thus maintaining the social and
    economic fabric of local communities.
        Our budget proposes to fund challenge cost-share programs in BLM,
    FWS and NPS at $44.8 million. These cost-share programs better enable
    Interior's land management agencies to work together and with adjacent
    communities, landowners, and other citizens to achieve common
    conservation goals. The 2006 proposal represents an increase of $25.7
    million.
        The challenge cost-share program includes $21.5 million for
    projects that are targeted to natural resource conservation. In 2004,
    the Congress provided $21.2 million for these cost-share grants.
    Leveraged with matching funds this provided a total of $52 million for
    on-the-ground projects including more than $19 million for projects to
    eradicate and control invasives and weeds.
        For example, in New Mexico, the Bosque del Apache refuge is working
    with the local community to restore riparian habitat along the Rio
    Grande River by eliminating tamarisk on over 1,100 acres.
        We also propose level or increased funding for a suite of other FWS
    cooperative programs: the Partners for Fish and Wildlife program, the
    Coastal program, the Migratory Bird Joint Ventures program, the North
    American Wetlands Conservation Fund, the State and Tribal Wildlife
    grants program, and the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation
    Fund. These programs support a cooperative approach to conservation
    that emphasizes voluntary partnerships with private landowners, local
    governments, Tribes, and community organizations.
        Sustaining Biological Communities.--Targeted increases in FWS and
    BLM will focus new resources on the recovery of endangered, threatened,
    and at-risk species and increase interagency efforts to curtail harmful
    invasive species. We propose a programmatic increase of $1.9 million
    for general activities in the Fish and Wildlife Service ESA recovery
    program and $7.0 million in BLM to strengthen and expand efforts to
    conserve and restore sagebrush habitat to maintain sage-grouse
    populations. An increase of $2.3 million in FWS, BLM, and USGS will
    support invasive species work on an eco-regional basis.
        Klamath River Basin.--The 2006 budget commits $62.9 million toward
    finding long-term solutions to water issues in the Klamath Basin and
    proposes an 8.4 percent increase for Interior Department programs in
    the basin. In the short-term, water-supply shortages will continue to
    present challenges. As of mid-February, the snow pack in the upper
    Klamath River basin was 47 percent below average. With depleted
    groundwater supplies and expected continued drought conditions, the
    risks to endangered and threatened fish in the basin persist. We also
    anticipate impacts to the people and communities dependent on the
    river, including upper basin irrigators and downstream Indian and
    commercial fishermen.
        The Bureau of Reclamation is currently putting together a water
    bank of over 100,000 acre-feet to help meet water needs this calendar
    year for coho salmon. Efforts are also underway to recover listed
    species and improve conditions by restoring the water-retention
    capability of the riparian and adjacent habitat. The budget request
    includes $7.5 million for the FWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife
    program for these efforts; $6.0 million for land acquisition to acquire
    the Barnes Tract, which will provide nursery and other habitat for the
    endangered fish and increase water in Upper Klamath Lake in most years;
    and $1.2 million to fund pumping necessitated by the removal of
    Chiloquin Dam, which will improve fish migration and spawning. To move
    this project forward, a reprogramming letter proposing to construct the
    replacement water system for Chiloquin Dam will be submitted to the
    Subcommittee soon.
        Finally, the budget request includes $500,000 for a FWS prototype
    program to acquire and transfer water rights to the wetlands in the
    Klamath Basin refuges. These key wetlands on the Pacific Flyway depend
    entirely on return flows from the Klamath Irrigation Project. The
    wetlands need a reliable source of clean water as a hedge against
    droughts and to provide a base amount of water to which the return
    flows can be added.
        Everglades Restoration.--Within the 2006 request for NPS
    construction is $25 million for the Modified Water Deliveries Project,
    a key to restoring natural flows in the Everglades. Under a new
    agreement between the Department and the Corps of Engineers, the cost
    to complete the project will be shared by NPS and the Corps. The 2006
    budget for the Corps includes $35.0 million for the Mod Water project.
    Over the period 2007 to 2009, the Corps will contribute an estimated
    additional $88.0 million and the NPS an additional $41.0 million. The
    2006 NPS contribution consists of $8.0 million in new funding and $17.0
    million redirected from unobligated balances for Everglades land
    acquisition not currently needed for high-priority acquisitions.
        Abandoned Mine Lands.--Today, more than 3 million Americans live
    less than 1 mile from dangerous abandoned coalmines. Consistent with
    the Administration's 2005 reauthorization proposal for the 1977 Surface
    Mining Control and Reclamation Act, the 2006 budget supports the
    Administration's vision to reauthorize the AML program. The
    Administration's approach would remove risk to 140,000 people annually.
        Our budget provides $147.5 million in AML grants to expedite clean
    up of high-priority sites and another $58.0 million in AML grants to
    fairly address long-standing commitments to States and Tribes that have
    already achieved their reclamation goals. Under the funding formulas in
    the 1977 Act, AML funding is increasingly directed to States with
    significant coal production, but few, if any, abandoned mines. The
    Administration's approach would direct new AML funding to reclaim
    unhealthy and unsafe abandoned mines and provide to States that have
    already completed mine reclamation repayment of their statutory share
    of AML fees collected under the 1977 law.
                      recreation and historic preservation
        Lands and waters managed by Interior offer unparalleled outdoor
    recreational opportunities. The bureaus of Land Management,
    Reclamation, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service
    manage an inspiring and diverse collection of natural wonders. For
    example, in 2003 our National Wildlife Refuges attracted 2.2 million
    hunting visits and 6.6 million fishing visits. The FWS looks for
    opportunities to add new or expand existing public hunting and fishing
    programs. There are currently 308 national wildlife refuges that are
    open to hunting and 270 refuges that are open to sport fishing.
        Overall, the budget includes $1.3 billion in investments for
    recreation programs that will improve visitor services and access to
    recreation opportunities.
        This total includes an increase of $33 million to respond to
    growing demands for recreational activities on public lands, to provide
    a safer environment for refuge visitors, and to ensure continuous
    enhancements to visitor services at parks. In addition, the budget
    provides $82 million in the operating accounts of BLM, FWS, and NPS to
    cover increased pay and other fixed costs and maintain existing
    performance and service levels to the public.
        The Federal Lands Enhancement Recreation Act.--Passed by the 108th
    Congress and signed into law by the President on December 8, 2004, the
    Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act will enable Interior land
    management agencies to improve recreation and visitor amenities on
    public lands. The Act provides a 10-year extension of the recreation
    fee program piloted with the Recreation Fee Demonstration program. The
    Act establishes important parameters for the program to ensure that
    fees are charged only in appropriate locations and revenues are
    appropriately spent on infrastructure and services that directly
    benefit the public.
        The Department is working closely with the U.S. Department of
    Agriculture on key implementation issues, such as development of long-
    term, multi-agency fee guidance, and the creation of the new ``America
    the Beautiful Pass,'' which will cover entrance and standard amenity
    fees for the five agencies authorized under the Act. The Departments
    are committed to creating a dynamic program responsive to the public
    and Congress during the implementation process.
        In 2006, the Department will continue to transition from the
    Recreational Demonstration Program to the provisions of the new Act.
    Working with the Congress, the Department has established a set of
    principles to guide the program during the transition period.
    Specifically:
      --No new fee areas will be created.
      --Agencies will conduct an interim evaluation of existing fee sites
            based on the new criteria and prohibitions.
      --The Golden Eagle, Golden Age, and Golden Access Passes, and the
            National Park Pass will continue to be sold until the America
            the Beautiful Pass is available.
      --Existing Golden Eagle, Golden Age, and Golden Access passes and
            National Park passes will be ``grandfathered in'' under their
            existing benefits and will remain valid until expired.
      --Specific site, forest and regional passes, such as southern
            California's Forest Service Adventure Pass, will continue to be
            available.
        The Act includes criteria and directions that address issues raised
    by the public and members of Congress regarding recreation fees. For
    example, the Act prohibits fees for BLM and the Forest Service for
    general access to national forests and grasslands, access to overlooks
    and scenic pullouts, and areas with low or no expenditures for
    facilities or services. The use of Recreation Resource Advisory
    Committees required by the Act will ensure public input on decisions
    about expanding the fee program by providing the public and local
    communities an opportunity to make recommendations to the BLM or the
    Forest Service on specific recreation fee sites and fees. Public notice
    and participation provisions will guide the Department's efforts to
    conduct a program that is accountable and transparent. Under the Act,
    the vast majority of recreation sites will continue to be free.
        Park Maintenance Backlog.--Through President Bush's commitment to
    address the maintenance backlog in parks, over the past four years more
    than 4,000 projects were undertaken to maintain, repair or replace park
    facilities. The 2006 budget includes $716.6 million for construction
    and park facility maintenance, an increase of $29.0 million. Included
    within the increase are an additional $22.2 million for NPS
    construction and $3.4 million in the repair and rehabilitation program
    to repair high-priority historic buildings. Including funds in the
    President's proposal for reauthorization of the Transportation Equity
    Act for the 21st Century, total NPS deferred maintenance funding will
    exceed $1.1 billion in 2006. The 2006 request will bring funding for
    park maintenance over five years to $4.9 billion, as pledged by then-
    Governor Bush in 2000.
        Preserving Cultural Landscapes.--More and more Americans are
    visiting historic and cultural sites across the Nation. In 2002, 81
    percent of adults in the United States included at least one cultural,
    historic, or heritage activity in their vacation plans. Linking
    historic preservation to educational and economic opportunities ensures
    sustained commitment to those places that bring alive our nation's
    cultures and history.
        Through its Preserve America initiative, the Administration is
    recognizing and encouraging heritage tourism as a significant economic
    development and educational activity. Over 220 localities have been
    designated Preserve America Communities, serving as a focus for civic
    pride and a catalyst for preservation. The Administration proposes
    $12.5 million in competitive grants to encourage community preservation
    of our cultural, historic, and natural heritage through education and
    heritage tourism.
        Overall, the budget proposes $66.2 million for the Historic
    Preservation Fund, which includes funding for Preserve America, as well
    as $15.0 million for Save America's Treasures, and $38.7 million for
    grants to States and Tribes. The budget includes an additional $5.0
    million for National Heritage Areas.
                              serving communities
        With its broad-ranging responsibilities, Interior's activities
    touch the lives of all Americans. For example:
      --Interior's U.S. Geological Survey, the nation's premier earth
            sciences agency, generates scientific information that helps
            inform decisions about land and water management. Its hazards
            monitoring helps reduce risks to communities associated with
            earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, mudslides, and volcanoes.
      --Through performing its responsibilities to Native Americans, Alaska
            natives, and other communities, Interior helps educate children
            and enhance the economic well being of these communities.
      --Interior's implementation of the President's Healthy Forests
            Initiative and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act is enhancing
            forest and rangeland health and reducing risks to communities
            from catastrophic fires.
        Interior's budget includes $5.1 billion to serve communities by
    improving Indian trust management and services to Tribes and individual
    Indians; providing resources for Indian education and other social
    services, advancing the Healthy Forests Initiative and related wildland
    fire activities; strengthening law enforcement; and enhancing
    scientific and hazards warning information for our agencies and the
    public. Key initiatives include:
        Trust Programs.--The budget provides $591.4 million to continue the
    Department's ongoing efforts to reform management of its fiduciary
    obligations to Tribes and individual Indians, to continue historical
    accounting efforts for trust funds, and to reduce the exponentially
    growing costs of maintaining fractionated interests of Indian lands.
    Within this total, the President's budget proposes to increase funding
    for historical accounting from $57.2 million to $135.0 million. An
    increase of $9.6 million would strengthen efforts to address the
    current backlog of unresolved probate cases.
        On February 23, the Cobell court issued an order reinstating the
    historic accounting structural injunction previously issued on
    September 23, 2003, directing the Department to conduct a far more
    expansive accounting and requiring that it be completed under even more
    constrained time lines than the Department had planned. Preliminary
    estimates developed by the Department estimate the costs to comply with
    the order at between $10 to $12 billion. The new injunction requires
    extensive work beyond what is currently budgeted in 2005 or proposed in
    2006 to be completed by January 6, 2006. In addition to the completion
    of accounting for all judgment and per capita accounts back to 1887 and
    the completion of the accounting for all transactions in land-based
    accounts back to 1985, the court order directs the indexing of all
    trust-related records located at federal facilities in Albuquerque, New
    Mexico, and Lee's Summit, Missouri, the collection of all relevant
    trust records held by third parties, the systems tests related to
    electronic data gaps, and the systems conversion from the Integrated
    Records Management System to the Trust Funds Accounting System. The
    Department's budget for 2005 or 2006 is not constructed to address
    these requirements. The Department is in continuing discussion with the
    Department of Justice on the course of action available to the
    Department.
        BIA Detention Centers.--The budget includes increases of $16.7
    million for detention centers in Indian country. Of the total, $7.3
    million will support detention operations at four new centers currently
    under construction with Department of Justice funding and for facility
    operations and maintenance at 19 detention centers built with DOJ
    grants since 2001. The balance of the increase addresses substandard
    facility conditions in older BIA detention facilities highlighted in a
    recent report by Interior's Inspector General. The budget for detention
    center improvement and repair will nearly double, with an additional
    $4.4 million. An increase of $5.0 million will support contracts to
    place arrested and convicted persons in non-BIA detention facilities
    that meet national standards when adequate BIA facilities are
    unavailable.
        Indian Education.--To complement BIA efforts to implement the No
    Child Left Behind Act, the 2006 budget proposes $2.0 million to pilot
    leadership academies at four BIA schools. Leadership academies in
    public school systems have been successful in raising the academic
    performance of school children and motivating them to continue their
    education.
        To continue improving facility conditions at BIA schools, the
    budget includes $173.9 million for education construction. This amount
    will fund replacement of the Porcupine Day School in South Dakota and
    the first replacement phase of the Crownpoint Community School in New
    Mexico. It will also fund four major facilities improvement and repair
    projects. In order to allow focus on the 34 school replacement projects
    funded in prior years that are in design phases or under construction,
    the education construction budget reflects a reduction of $89.5 million
    from 2005.
        Healthy Forests.--The 2006 budget supports the President's Healthy
    Forests Initiative with a $211.2 million budget for hazardous fuels
    reduction in the wildland fire program, a net increase of $9.8 million
    over the 2005 enacted level. The hazardous fuels budget includes a
    program increase of $10.3 million for fuels projects, partially offset
    by a scheduled $2.5 million reduction in funding for development of the
    LANDFIRE vegetative mapping and imaging system.
        Funding in the wildland fire program, together with funds for
    forest and range improvement in the land management agencies and the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs, will provide approximately $313.0 million in
    2006 to reduce the build-up of hazardous fuels in the Nation's forests
    and rangelands, reduce the risk of catastrophic fire to communities,
    protect threatened and endangered species, and support other activities
    under the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003.
        Wildland Fire.--In addition to funding additional hazardous fuels
    reduction projects, the 2006 wildland fire budget includes increases of
    $15.7 million to fund suppression operations at the 10-year average and
    $5.0 million to maintain the 2004 aviation fleet reconfiguration. In
    total, the 2006 budget for wildland fire management is $756.6 million,
    a net increase of $23.9 million over 2005, not including $98.6 million
    in 2005 contingent emergency funding.
        Rural Fire Assistance.--The 2006 budget for Wildland Fire continues
    partnerships with local fire departments, proposing an increase in the
    Preparedness program to provide advance training to local fire fighters
    to help build a ready reserve of local firefighters that can support
    extended attack and thereby improve the effectiveness of Federal
    cooperation with local firefighting agencies. Rural fire assistance
    grants, which provided funds to local fire departments for equipment
    and basic training, are eliminated as a separate funding source in
    anticipation that equipment and training needs of local fire
    departments will be met through the much larger Forest Service and FEMA
    fire assistance programs.
        Tsunami Warning System.--As part of a $37.5 million, two-year
    commitment by the Administration to expand U.S. tsunami detection and
    monitoring capabilities, the 2006 budget includes $5.4 million for USGS
    facilities and operations to provide more robust detection and
    notification of earthquakes that could trigger tsunamis. The President
    has submitted a 2005 budget supplemental request proposing $8.1 million
    for USGS to begin work on these enhancements. The balance of the
    funding for the tsunami warning system is in the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration's budget.
        Landsat.--The 2006 budget requests $7.5 million for USGS to begin
    work on an upgraded ground-processing system to acquire, process,
    archive, and distribute data from a new generation of satellite-based
    land image sensors. The first of two Landsat Data Continuity Mission
    sensors will be flown on a NOAA polar orbiting satellite scheduled for
    operation in 2009. To continue the 30-year unbroken record of data on
    the Earth's continental surface collected by the Landsat program, the
    budget also contains a $12 million increase to support continued
    operation of the Landsat 7 satellite in 2006 and to repay a planned
    reprogramming for 2005 Landsat 7 operations. Although Landsat 7 data
    remain valuable and usable, revenue from commercial sale of the data
    that normally supports the Landsat program has sharply decreased as a
    result of the failure of the satellite's scan line corrector.
        Payments in Lieu of Taxes.--PILT payments are made to local
    governments in lieu of tax payments on Federal lands within their
    boundaries and to supplement other Federal land receipts shared with
    local governments. The 2006 budget proposes $200.0 million for these
    payments. The 2006 request is 60 to 97 percent higher than the PILT
    payments during the 1990s, but is a reduction of $26.8 million from the
    record high 2005 payment level.
                      program terminations and reductions
        As part of the President's effort to halve the budget deficit by
    2009, the 2006 budget for the Department makes difficult choices to
    terminate or reduce funding for programs that are less central to the
    Department's core missions, have ambiguous goals, duplicate activities
    of other agencies, or require a lower level of effort because key goals
    have been achieved. Terminations and reductions include lower priority
    and one-time earmarks enacted in 2005. Other terminations and
    reductions include:
        LWCF State Grants.--The 2006 budget terminates funding for Land and
    Water Conservation Fund State grants, a reduction of $89.6 million from
    the 2005 level. LWCF State grants support State and local parks that
    have alternate sources of funding through State revenues and bonds. As
    the nation strives to trim the Federal deficit, focusing on core
    Federal agency responsibilities is imperative. A 2003 PART review found
    the program could not adequately measure performance. The 2006 budget
    continues funding for the administrative portion of the grant program
    at $1.6 million, which will be used to review the accountability and
    performance of grants provided in previous years.
        Jobs-in-the-Woods.--The budget proposes to discontinue BLM's Jobs-
    in-the-Woods program, which was created in the early 1990s as a
    temporary program to assist displaced timber workers in the Pacific
    Northwest by offering resource-based job opportunities to improve water
    quality and restore Oregon's coastal salmon populations. As most
    workers have transitioned and timber sales are increasing, the budget
    proposes to focus resources on programmatic priorities, including
    offering the full allowable sale quantity under the Northwest Forest
    Plan and supporting the Plan's requirement that late-succession
    reserves be managed to stimulate old growth characteristics.
        USGS Minerals Resources Program.--The budget reduces funding for
    the USGS Minerals Resources program by $28.5 million. The budget
    continues funding for minerals surveys and studies relevant to ongoing
    Federal energy, land management, regulatory, and remediation
    activities. Funding is reduced for studies and information gathering
    for regional and local activities more oriented to the interests of
    States, local governments, and universities, all of whom are
    significant users of information generated by the Minerals Resources
    program.
        Johnson-O'Malley.--The budget includes a reduction of $8.8 million
    for the Johnson O'Malley grant program. These grants for Indian
    children attending public schools do not currently address a focused
    goal for academic achievement and duplicate similar funding made
    available by the Department of Education. The budget provides $7.8
    million for grants to continue the highest-priority components of this
    program.
        NPS Statutory and Contractual Aid.--The budget does not continue
    funding for $11.2 million in Statutory and Contractual Aid activities
    that are secondary to the primary mission of the National Park Service.
                              mandatory proposals
        Accompanying the 2006 budget are several legislative proposals that
    affect receipt or spending levels in 2006 or in future years. These
    proposals, which will be transmitted separately from the budget for
    consideration by the Congress, include:
        Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act.--The budget proposes
    to amend the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 to
    return 70 percent of the receipts from land sales under the Act to the
    Treasury, where receipts from land sales have historically been
    deposited. The Act, as amended by Public Law 107-282, authorizes the
    disposal through sale of approximately 49,000 acres of federal land in
    Clark County, Nevada. Five percent of the proceeds are provided to the
    State of Nevada for use in the State's general education program and 10
    percent are provided to the Southern Nevada Water Authority for water
    treatment and transmission facility infrastructure in Clark County. The
    remaining 85 percent of funds are deposited in a special account to
    acquire environmentally sensitive lands in Nevada; make capital
    improvements to areas administered by NPS, FWS and BLM in Clark County;
    develop a multi-species habitat plan for Clark County; develop parks,
    trails and natural areas and implement other conservation initiatives
    in the county; and reimburse BLM for costs incurred in arranging sales
    and exchanges under the Act.
        The receipts generated by these land sales so far have been nearly
    eight times higher than anticipated, with future revenue projections of
    almost $1 billion per year. When SNPLMA was originally passed, proceeds
    from land sales under the bill were estimated at roughly $70 million
    per year. Sale proceeds were $530.5 million in 2004 and are estimated
    to be $1.2 billion in 2005.
        When the law was enacted, there was general agreement that a
    substantial portion of the revenues generated would be spent to acquire
    and conserve other lands around Nevada. However, as land sale receipts
    under the Act have increased in the last few years, the available
    funding has outpaced land acquisition needs. These funds are
    increasingly being dedicated to local projects--and many more projects
    than originally anticipated are being formulated without the
    accountability of further consideration by the Congress.
        The budget proposes that, beginning in 2006, 70 percent of all
    revenues from these lands sales would be returned to the Treasury, with
    the percent of receipts deposited in the special account set at 15
    percent. The amount of revenue currently provided to the State and to
    the water and airport authorities would not change. Total combined
    revenues retained in the State would total 30 percent, with revenues
    for 2006 for these purposes projected at $292.3 million, an amount four
    times larger than original projections in 1998 at time of enactment of
    the legislation.
        BLM Range Improvement.--The budget for BLM proposes to discontinue
    mandatory appropriations from the Range Improvement Fund totaling $10.0
    million annually. Instead, revenues will be deposited to the Treasury.
    To address rangeland improvement needs, the discretionary budget
    request for BLM includes $6.0 million to focus on projects to improve
    rangeland health conditions, such as weed control, essentially
    replacing funding provided through the Fund. These projects are part of
    the Department's cooperative conservation request and will be matched
    by partners. Other operational increases for BLM, including $7.0
    million for sagebrush habitat and sage grouse protection and $1.3
    million for invasive weed control, will also support rangeland
    improvement goals.
                             management excellence
        As public demands for Interior services increase--from Indian
    children who need schools to visitors who seek more outdoor
    recreational opportunities on our public lands--Interior must continue
    to enhance service and spend dollars wisely. Behind all our programs,
    out of the limelight, rests a management foundation through which we
    strive to improve program efficiency and effectiveness. The Departments
    and its bureaus continue to implement performance improvements.
        Our 2006 budget includes investments in tools to enable our
    employees to do their jobs more efficiently and generate cost savings
    by implementing standardized systems.
        The Department currently uses 26 different financial management
    systems and over 100 different property systems. Employees must enter
    procurement transactions multiple times in different systems so that
    the data are captured in real property inventories, financial systems,
    and acquisition systems. This fractured approach is both costly and
    burdensome to manage. We have underway an integration of our financial
    and business management systems to streamline and modernize basic
    administrative activities.
        Our budget proposes an increase of $9.5 million to support
    continued implementation of the Financial and Business Management
    System that will integrate financial management, procurement, property
    management and other systems. Through this effort, we will reengineer
    administrative processes throughout the Department. As the new system
    becomes fully operational, we will retire over 80 legacy systems and
    replace their functions with standardized business processes within the
    new, integrated system. In 2006, the National Park Service and Fish and
    Wildlife Service are scheduled to transition to the new system.
        The 2006 budget includes a $7.0 million increase for continued
    implementation of the Enterprise Services Network. The network
    leverages the existing BIA Trustnet, expanding it Department-wide, to
    provide secure, state-of-the-art internet and intranet connections and
    a fully functional operational center for data communications. In
    addition to providing better services for many Interior offices, the
    system will provide a uniformly secure environment, standardized and
    efficient 24-hour/7-day operations, and improved technical support.
                                   conclusion
        The budget plays a key role in advancing our vision of healthy
    lands, thriving communities, and dynamic economies. Behind these
    numbers lie people, places, and partnerships. Our goals become reality
    through the energy and creativity efforts of our employees, volunteers,
    and partners. They provide the foundation for achieving the goals
    highlighted in our 2006 budget.
        This concludes my overview of the 2006 budget proposal for the
    Department of the Interior and my written statement. I will be happy to
    answer any questions that you may have.

        Senator Burns. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Now we have been
    joined by the chairman of the full committee. Senator Cochran,
    do you have any statement or anything that you want to add to
    this illustrious group?

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

        Senator Cochran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to
    join you this morning and greet the Secretary of Interior,
    commending her for her strong leadership at the Department and
    congratulating her for her continued service as Secretary. We
    appreciate your willingness to do this very difficult but
    important job.
        I look forward to hearing more about the budget request and
    also any requests that you want to tell us about in connection
    with the supplemental request that is coming up. I understand
    there may be supplemental funds in the 2005 year needed by the
    Department of the Interior, and since that is coming up pretty
    soon, I would like to know what the specifics are about that
    request.
        Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        We have been joined by Senator Feinstein, a valuable member
    of this panel, and we welcome you this morning.

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
    have a number of questions. I will hold for my turn, but I just
    wanted to say two things.
        The first is I want to thank the Secretary for her help
    with CALFED and particularly Jason Peltier. I want to thank him
    for his help and Bennett for his help as well. It is very much
    appreciated. Thanks to members of this committee and other
    places, we got the bill through both houses and signed. I am
    really quite delighted. So thank you.
        I also want to welcome Lynn Scarlett and I want her to know
    because she is soon to be Deputy Secretary, that I would have
    introduced you yesterday if I could have. You are from a great
    city in my State, and I certainly want to welcome you and look
    forward to working with you.
        Those are my comments. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Burns. Thank you.
        We will probably never make it through all these questions.
        Secretary Norton. I think I am glad to hear that.
        Senator Burns. By the time we do that, we will all be
    vested if you just walked into the Congress, I will tell you
    this.

                          WILD HORSE AND BURRO PROGRAM

        But there is something that has been sort of my topic here
    and the source of many of my phone calls is the Wild Horse and
    Burro program. As you know, we have grappled with this program
    many, many years. I know there were a lot of people who had
    their reservations about this. Could you update us on the sale
    program? Because I understand you have been through one now, I
    think, maybe more. You might update us.
        The Department has taken great steps and has worked very
    hard that these horses be sold under the right circumstances
    and for the right reasons. Could you bring us up to date on
    what is happening in that particular program?
        Secretary Norton. Mr. Chairman, we have been working hard
    with the Wild Horse and Burro program to find creative ways to
    address our wild horse population. Obviously,we have the horses
    that are on the range and we are looking at things like birth
    control for those, as well as trying to keep to appropriate
    management levels.
        For those that are in our adoption program or long-term
    care, we are doing things like, for example, working with
    Indian tribes to see if some of those would be interested in
    having some horses for their lands. We are working with
    ranchers. There was one that recently, it is my understanding,
    took about 200 wild horses with the idea of working on further
    adoptions through his own initiative.
        We believe that there are people who would be interested in
    horses both in expanded attempts to try and get the young
    horses for gentling; as well as some people that just have open
    lands and would be happy to welcome these horses.
        We are working with some additional flexibility we have,
    because of your actions, to see that the horses go to good
    locations. We do recognize the sale authority that you have
    provided. Our activities right now are focusing on trying to
    find creative ways to avoid having those horses be in long-term
    Federal care, which is very expensive.
        Senator Burns. Well, it was my intention all along. I think
    America's imagination will get these horses taken care of. This
    old business of everybody thought they would all go to
    slaughter was crazy. I know better than that. Those people who
    would proclaim that know very little about the livestock
    business, to be right honest with you.

                             RECREATION FEE PROGRAM

        Recreation Fee program. Let us shift gears here a little
    bit. Last year in the omnibus appropriation bill, the Congress
    extended the Recreation Fee program on a long-term basis. I
    fought this move along with other members of the subcommittee
    because I believe authorizing committees of jurisdiction were
    the appropriate bodies to deal with this legislation, but we
    did not prevail.
        You are aware, Madam Secretary, that there is still some
    disagreement out in the land about whether these fees are
    appropriate, on what activities they should be collected, and
    how the collection should be spent.
        Are there things in last year's authorizing bill that will
    help address some of these concerns, and how will the new
    program be different than the fee program that has existed for
    the past several years?
        Secretary Norton. We certainly, Mr. Chairman, did recognize
    the concerns that were raised by a number of people about fees
    being charged in inappropriate places or having fees be used
    for things that were not really providing the visitor services
    that we need. We learned from the demonstration project what
    things work and what things do not.
        In the new authorizing legislation, there are specific
    requirements about what kinds of facilities need to be provided
    to people to justify the charging of fees. I know we are going
    through our specific areas to make sure that they are in
    compliance with the new legislation. I understand the Forest
    Service is also going through that exercise.
        In addition to that, the legislation establishes recreation
    resource advisory councils so that we have members of the
    public reviewing any new fees being charged in new areas and
    providing us direct feedback on whether those were a good ideas
    or not. We would have to report if we wanted to charge a fee
    despite the recommendation of that advisory committee.
        This is a work in progress and we understand that public
    support for fees can be very good if people feel like they are
    getting their money's worth. It is very, very rare for this to
    happen, I think anywhere in life for people to say you ought to
    charge more. But I have had people stand up in public meetings
    that we have done and say, ``you do not charge enough for your
    public lands. I pay a whole lot more for any other form of
    recreation for my family than when going to visit a national
    park.''
        We want to be sure, though, when we do that, to see that
    the fees are being used for appropriate activities and to
    demonstrate to people that they are being used appropriately.
    We want to continue working with you, with Members of Congress
    that might have complaints on a local level about fees to see
    that we are carrying forward this very important management
    tool in a responsible way.
        Senator Burns. Well, I thank you. I will just answer, not
    as a Senator but as an auctioneer, take the money.
        For those who want to give more, let them spend more.

                              BLACKFOOT CHALLENGE

        I will have one more question, and this is really important
    in my State. This is probably one of the largest actions that I
    have had the privilege of working on. The Blackfoot River
    watershed is an extraordinary place up in Montana. If you have
    not been there, I would certainly invite you, along with Ms.
    Scarlett, to join me up there this summer.
        The great strength of this valley is its community of
    citizen stewards led by the Blackfoot Challenge. It exemplifies
    the spirit of cooperation and conservation that you, the
    President, and I are working to encourage and we support. We
    have been working hard to help the challenge achieve its goal
    of conserving this remarkable place and the community that
    lives there. I have been pleased the President requested
    funding to support this community-led initiative in both the
    2005 and 2006 Forest Service budget.
        I am concerned, however, that your Department has not been
    supportive of this project as it should have been, despite the
    participation of the local BLM and Fish and Wildlife officials
    from the get-go. Can you explain to me why the Department has
    yet to recognize the conservation opportunities that the local
    community, the Forest Service, and the Congress have clearly
    recognized? I am particularly concerned that the BLM, an agency
    whose mission I strongly support, has not been acting in
    support of this project?
        Secretary Norton. I would be happy to look into that. It
    sounds like an ideal project for many of our cooperative
    conservation grants. So there may be some opportunities for
    them to apply for competitive grants.
        [The information follows:]
                              Blackfoot Challenge
        Secretary Norton. The Blackfoot River Watershed Land and Water
    Conservation Fund LWCF project is part of a multi-phase land
    acquisition project. In order to implement the project, BLM is
    conducting appraisals, land use planning, and environmental clearances
    for the project. During fiscal year 2004, the Bureau carried over $2.9
    million in funding appropriated for the project. The Phase I
    Acquisition was completed in February 2005 with the acquisition of
    2,500 acres. During fiscal year 2005, an additional $4.9 million was
    appropriated for the purchase of approximately 4,000 acres. The BLM
    will complete the appraisal on the Phase II Acquisition by the end of
    fiscal year 2005, and has completed the appraisal on the Phase III
    Acquisition.

        Secretary Norton. Also, the Bureau of Land Management, the
    Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service have
    challenge grant programs that are essentially available to our
    managers to apply for assistance to help fund projects that are
    working in cooperation with local communities. We very strongly
    support that type of multi-agency, public/private, Federal,
    State, local kind of approach, and our grant programs are
    really designed to encourage and facilitate those activities.
        Senator Burns. Well, as you know, this was a homegrown
    agreement and it has got a lot of moving parts to it. There is
    no doubt about that.

                         CONSERVATION EASEMENT PROGRAMS

        Last fall your Fish and Wildlife Service Director, Steve
    Williams, announced the start of planning for the conservation
    easement programs to protect working landscapes and natural
    resources along the Rocky Mountain front and also in this
    particular place. I hope this program will be a fine example of
    cooperative conservation by ranchers, conservationists, and the
    Service.
        When do you expect this long-delayed planning effort to be
    completed? Do you have any idea?
        Secretary Norton. I am sorry. We do not have that
    information with us, but we will be happy to provide it.
        [The information follows:]
          Proposed Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Easement Program
        The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to expand its existing
    conservation easement program to include a new project area along the
    Rocky Mountain Front, in north-central Montana. The proposed Rocky
    Mountain Front Conservation Easement Program would authorize the
    Service to use Land and Water Conservation Fund monies to purchase
    easements from willing sellers on up to 170,000 acres of private land.
    The goal of the Program is to work proactively with private landowners
    to protect important habitat and maintain connectivity between core
    blocks (``biological anchors'') of public and private conservation
    lands.
        The Program would not authorize any fee title acquisition. A local
    landowner advisory council, consisting of ranchers, business owners and
    government officials from Lewis & Clark, Teton, and Pondera Counties,
    strongly support a conservation easement approach as a means of
    conserving the historic ranching heritage on the Front.
        The Front is a high-priority conservation area for the Service and
    its partners in the conservation community, including the State of
    Montana, the Boone and Crockett Club, and The Nature Conservancy,
    because it is the only remaining landscape in the Continental United
    States with a complete, intact and functional assemblage of large
    mammalian carnivores, including the grizzly bear, gray wolf, wolverine,
    and lynx.
        The Preliminary Project Proposal for the Program was approved by
    the Service's Mountain-Prairie Regional Office in April, 2002 and
    forwarded to the Director's office for approval. The Director approved
    the PPP in October, 2004. This approval provided the Service's Regional
    Office with the authority to proceed with detailed planning to consider
    the establishment of the easement program. Since October, the regional
    planning team has met with the Montana Congressional delegation,
    conservation and sportsmen's groups, federal agencies, state and local
    governments, tribes, and various local business interests. The team has
    also held three public scoping meetings at various locations near the
    project area.
        The Regional Office is currently developing an Environmental
    Assessment, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, to
    analyze the effects of establishing an easement program on the Front.
    The Region's goal is to complete the EA in the Spring of 2005. Per
    current Service policy, the EA, FONSI and associated documents will
    then be submitted to the Director for his concurrence.

        Senator Burns. Oh, good. That is that big packet that is
    going to show up on your doorstep.
        Senator Dorgan.
        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

                                TRIBAL COLLEGES

        Madam Secretary, let me ask, as you might expect me to ask,
    about tribal colleges. As I indicated, the proposed cut in
    funding for tribal colleges really will wipe out the 2 years of
    progress that Senator Burns and I and other Members of the
    Congress have made on tribal college funding. Can you describe
    why these cuts are being proposed?
        Secretary Norton. We have had to make some tough choices,
    as we have looked through our Department for ways to handle our
    Indian trust responsibilities, as well as to meet the overall
    needs with a tight budget. What we have done is to look to
    other Departments, in part, and the cooperation that we can do
    with other Departments to see how those issues can be
    addressed.
        Since 1996, the student count at tribal community colleges
    has increased by 41 percent. At the same time, our funding will
    have increased by 61 percent through the 2006 budget. The
    President's budget provides about $9,500 per student at
    tribally controlled universities, funded by the BIA and the
    Department of Education, and the average community college
    receives about $6,600 in revenue from all sources.
        We are working, first of all, with the Department of Labor.
    They have a jobs program that provides about $250 million to
    community colleges across the country. We met with them and
    talked about how we can make sure that the colleges that we are
    involved with are eligible for that and involved in that. The
    Assistant Secretary that deals with those programs has agreed
    to have our Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, or the
    person acting in that capacity, to be on the selection
    committee as grants are being made for those programs.
        We also have talked with the people at United Tribes
    Technical College to see if there are some opportunities for
    using their facilities and working together on training that we
    need for our employees in the Bureau of Indian Affairs and
    Office of Special Trustee; and to see if there are ways we can
    work with their graduates because I think they have some skills
    that we need.
        Senator Dorgan. Madam Secretary, I wonder if my staff could
    work with your staff. We have a very different view of support
    of these students. You are suggesting the support is nearly
    double the support of students in community colleges. My
    figures show it is about 50 percent, half. So there is a very
    wide disagreement here. I would like my staff to engage with
    your budget folks and see if we can understand what the facts
    are there.
        Secretary Norton. I would appreciate that.
        [The information follows:]
                             Tribal College Funding
        The Department has provided information to the Senator's staff on
    the per-student funding at tribal colleges. Additional information can
    be provided upon request.

                            STATESIDE GRANTS PROGRAM

        Senator Dorgan. Land and Water Conservation grants. Your
    budget would eliminate the State-side assistance grants through
    the LWCF. The Senate budget actually includes slightly over $1
    billion for those same grants, but that is paid for by the ANWR
    revenues. On the other hand, your recommendation for
    eliminating the grants, I believe, is saying that that money is
    more appropriately funded through State revenues or bonding I
    guess. Is that correct?
        Secretary Norton. Actually a variety of our conservation
    grants that are funded through the Land and Water Conservation
    Fund. The State grants are just one aspect of that. We strongly
    support having various programs that are funded through the
    Land and Water Conservation Fund that all go toward open space,
    environmental protection, and so forth.
        As to the State assistance grants, there was a study done
    by the Office of Management and Budget that reviewed that
    program.
        Senator Dorgan. Is this PART?
        Secretary Norton. Yes, it is.
        Senator Dorgan. The infamous PART study.
        Secretary Norton. Yes. It is the PART study.
        We have been enthusiastic about that program, but as we
    looked at it more closely, we found that it did not do as good
    a job in having clearly defined goals and in meeting those
    goals as some other programs. Our other programs allow us to
    see that environmental needs are really prioritized. It has
    allowed us to deal with endangered species such as sage grouse.
    It has allowed us to restore wetlands, things that are not
    really captured within that State-side program.
        Senator Dorgan. As you know, the PART studies have been
    very controversial. Would you think maybe we should have a PART
    study of the Office of Management and Budget?
        Secretary Norton. I will let you all decide that.

                         BIA SCHOOL REPLACEMENT FUNDING

        Senator Dorgan. Let me ask about BIA school replacement
    funding. As you know, that is another situation that many of us
    care deeply about. 184 schools are operated by the BIA, 48,000
    kids. There is a very substantial cut in replacement funding.
    My understanding is that it is because there are carryover
    funds, and yet, for example, in the National Park Service there
    are much greater carryover funds. Yet, their construction
    funding is actually up when, in fact, BIA school construction
    funding is cut rather dramatically. Can you describe the reason
    for that?
        Secretary Norton. Over the last 4 years, we have obtained a
    total of over $1.1 billion in funding for construction of
    Indian schools and have been working to see that those schools
    are actually constructed. We now have 34 schools that have been
    funded through our programs. Only nine have been completed. Our
    focus right now is really working with the tribes on getting
    the construction completed.
        We, nevertheless, are continuing funding at a level that is
    nearly three times as high as it was in the late 1990's. We are
    providing very substantial funding for repair work at the
    schools. It is not quite $1 million per school on average but
    it is a very high level of funding. So we are going to be
    working through time to address this issue and to try to be
    sure that we continue to work towards better quality schools
    for our Indian children.
        Senator Dorgan. You know, one-third of those schools are
    defined as in ``poor quality.'' So my concern, Mr. Chairman, is
    that cutting the construction funding at a time when fully one-
    third of those schools for young Indian children run by the BIA
    are poor quality schools. I really think we need to try to
    continue that funding process.
        Well, Madam Secretary, my colleagues I know want to ask
    questions. Senator McCain and I have a bill over in Commerce
    that is being marked up, and I need to go over there.
        I would like to submit some additional questions. Again,
    while we might disagree from time to time on some issues, I
    appreciate your service to our country, and I hope that you
    will accept the questions that I will just submit in writing in
    order to save some time this morning.
        Senator Burns. Thank you, Senator Dorgan.
        Senator Leahy.
        Senator Leahy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

                  ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE LEASE SALES

        Secretary Norton, I had mentioned the Budget Committee's
    language which says that we will get $2.4 billion in revenues
    in 2007 from lease sales on the Arctic Refuge. How much will
    the leases have to sell for to reach that $2.4 billion?
        Secretary Norton. I do not have that number handy. I assume
    your calculation is fairly correct.
        If I can explain the process that we would go through and
    also that resource.
        Senator Leahy. And if you might also point out, if they
    would have to sell for between $4,000 and $6,000 per acre, when
    the average has been around $50 per acre, why that sudden jump,
    or is it kind of smoke and mirrors as a way to use the budget
    resolution as a way to get through ANWR in a way it might not
    get through otherwise?
        Secretary Norton. The figures you are using for comparison
    are from the National Petroleum Reserve. There we have an area
    of 23 million acres that has a resource estimated amount that
    is smaller than the amount of oil that is predicted to be in
    the 1.5 million acres of ANWR that would be considered for
    energy exploration. So, in effect, you have more oil in one-
    twentieth of the acreage than you have in the National
    Petroleum Reserve.
        Senator Leahy. Even if you made it 20 times, it still does
    not get anywhere near the $4,000 to $6,000.
        Secretary Norton. Actually we have areas in the National
    Petroleum Reserve where we have received about $1,000 an acre.
        Senator Leahy. Here you would have to get $4,000 to $6,000,
    and a number of the companies have pulled out of the industry
    lobbying firm that is pushing for this drilling. I just wonder
    how these figures come. I really would like a very clear
    answer. In doing that, what kind of a split does that assume
    with Alaska?
        Secretary Norton. First of all, the Congressional Budget
    Office did its own analysis and their analysis reached a higher
    number than ours did. My understanding is the split with Alaska
    would be the 50/50 split that is the arrangement through the
    Mineral Leasing Act with all of the other States in which----
        Senator Leahy. Governor Murkowski said Alaska will sue the
    Federal Government if they do not get 90 percent.
        Secretary Norton. I understand that the 90/10 split is a
    popular position in Alaska, but certainly everything I have
    heard from the Congress is a 50/50 split.
        Senator Leahy. Would the administration fight Governor
    Murkowski on that?
        Secretary Norton. Yes. Our understanding is the appropriate
    approach is a 50/50 split, or whatever Congress designates in
    the legislation, but that is what we assume it would be.

                              FWS FISH HATCHERIES

        Senator Leahy. Well, I am glad to hear you say whatever we
    designate in the legislation.
        It raises another area. I am thinking back at the beginning
    of the administration, one of the catch phrases your Department
    used was it put the fish back in the Fish and Wildlife Service,
    something I certainly agree with and I expect most of us would.
    I was informed last year that region 5 faced such severe budget
    shortfalls that the Pittsford Hatchery on the New Hampshire-
    Vermont border would close. Salmon production at the White
    River Hatchery in my State would be cut by more than 60
    percent. Similar cuts are proposed for other hatcheries in the
    region. It decimated efforts to restore Atlantic salmon to the
    Connecticut River.
        Now, Chairman Burns and Senator Dorgan put in extra funds,
    and reprogramming language allowed the Service to avoid these
    cuts, and I appreciate that. Then the Department ignored
    congressional direction in the 2005 appropriations bill to
    increase the base fisheries budget in 2006.
        So do we have a commitment to keep these facilities running
    at the 2005 level, as the appropriations bill had said?
        Secretary Norton. Our overall approach on the fisheries
    budget has been an increase. There was a $4 million increase
    last year, and our budget for 2006 includes an additional
    increase of $2.7 million for hatchery operations and
    maintenance. The reductions in the fisheries program were in
    congressional earmarks. Offsetting these reductions, we also
    have significant increases in competitive wildlife grant
    programs of $38 million and in partnership cost-share programs
    of $37 million.
        Senator Leahy. Does that mean you will or will not ignore
    the congressional direction in the 2005 appropriations to
    increase the base fishery budget in 2006?
        Secretary Norton. I believe we have increased the base
    fisheries budget, and I believe the answer I just gave you is
    indicative of an increase.
        Senator Leahy. So your commitment is these facilities will
    keep running at the 2005 level?
        Secretary Norton. I do not have information about specific
    facilities and how the Fish and Wildlife Service is allocating
    that.
        Senator Leahy. Would you answer for the record then whether
    they will be kept at the 2005 level, which is basically what
    the congressional directive was?
        Secretary Norton. Do we have information about the Vermont
    facilities?
        Mr. Trezise. Senator Leahy, we will have to submit specific
    numbers for the record. A portion of the 2006 increase that we
    have requested has not been allocated to individual hatcheries.
    It is certainly, though, as I understand it, the intention of
    the Fish and Wildlife Service to use that increase across the
    system to maintain hatchery operations at least at the 2005
    level.
        Senator Leahy. So they would be kept running at the 2005
    level?
        Mr. Trezise. It is my understanding that is the Service's
    intention, yes.
        [The information follows:]
                   New England National Fish Hatchery Funding
        Final fiscal year 2006 allocations to both Pittsford and White
    River NFH's will be dependent on actual appropriation amounts received,
    but assuming the Service receives the same level of base funding in
    fiscal year 2006 as was received in fiscal year 2005, plus requested
    pay uncontrollable funding, the Service intends to fund both Pittsford
    and White River NFH's at the same levels as in fiscal year 2005.
        The fiscal year 2006 President's Budget request includes a net
    increase of $2.111 million in Hatchery Operations; within this amount,
    $44,000 is requested to partially restore the across-the-board
    rescissions received in the fiscal year 2005 appropriations, and $2.231
    million is requested to implement 34 high priority FONS projects which
    are identified in the budget request. Offsetting reductions include a
    technical adjustment to shift $158,000 to Fish and Wildlife Management
    Assistance and $6,000 in expected savings through improved vehicle
    management. An additional $796,000 is also requested for pay and
    uncontrollables. The funds requested to offset the fiscal year 2005
    rescissions and for pay and uncontrollables will be used across the
    system to maintain hatchery operations at the 2005 level to the extent
    possible. The funds requested to implement the 34 high priority FONS
    projects will be allocated to the specific stations implementing those
    projects. Neither Pittsford nor White River National Fish Hatcheries
    have been identified as receiving any of these funds.

        Senator Leahy. Then we have the potential effects of cuts
    to the fishery budget at the Lake Champlain management office.
    One of the things they do is control sea lampreys in the lake,
    something Vermont and New York have worked on. We have finally
    turned the corner in controlling the invasive species that is
    devastating our salmon and lake trout population. Vermont,
    Governor Pataki, and others have worked hard on this. Governor
    Douglas in Vermont, Governor Pataki in New York. Can we assure
    them that the Department will not cut its support for this
    program?
        Mr. Trezise. Senator Leahy, base funding for the operation
    of the office is continued in the 2006 budget at the same level
    as in 2005.
        Senator Leahy. And can you answer specifically for the
    record whether there will not be cuts in this critical program?
        Mr. Trezise. We will have to answer for the record.
        [The information follows:]
                            Lake Champlain Fisheries
        The Service is committed to its partnership with New York State
    Department of Environmental Conservation and Vermont Fish and Wildlife
    Department in the Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Management
    Cooperative, which manages the fish and wildlife resources of Lake
    Champlain. Sea lamprey management is central to the Cooperative's long-
    term effort to restore native species and improve recreational
    fisheries worth an estimated $200 million annually.
        The Service and its State partners implement a multifaceted
    approach to controlling parasitic sea lamprey populations by installing
    barriers to spawning migrations, trapping migrating adults and applying
    target-specific pesticides, known as lampricides. To guide these
    control efforts, the Service conducts quantitative sea lamprey
    assessment surveys and numerous presence/absence surveys in tributaries
    and delta areas throughout the basin. In addition, the Service supports
    extensive regulatory/permit requirements and places high priority on
    the development and investigation of sea lamprey control techniques
    that may provide useful alternatives to lampricides, engaging a variety
    of stakeholders to further the science of sea lamprey management.
        Approximately 70 percent of the Service's Fish and Wildlife
    Management Assistance program budget on Lake Champlain is focused on
    sea lamprey management and associated restoration of native fish
    species. Direct management of sea lamprey accounts for approximately 50
    percent of the Service's Fish and Wildlife Management Assistance
    program budget, while related salmonid assessment and restoration
    activities account for an additional 20 percent.
        Final fiscal year 2006 allocations to the Lake Champlain Fish and
    Wildlife Resources Office will be dependent on actual appropriation
    amounts received, but assuming the Service receives the same level of
    base funding in fiscal year 2006 as was received in fiscal year 2005,
    plus requested pay uncontrollable funding, the Service intends to fund
    this office and its sea lamprey management activities at the same
    levels as in fiscal year 2005.

                                ANWR LEASE SALES

        Senator Leahy. Madam Secretary, I am not trying to play
    games on the lease sales and the amount. Obviously, your
    Department is going to have to have specific figures of what
    those lease sales are going to be. Can you supply for the
    record, as soon as possible, specifically what your Department
    estimates the lease sales will be?
        Secretary Norton. That information is included within the
    budget.
        The other point that I should make is that before lease
    sales would occur, there would be additional very high-tech
    seismic work done in that area. So everyone would have a much
    better understanding of exactly what resources are there and
    where they are located. So that could make a difference either
    positively or negatively.
        Senator Leahy. And I understand that, and that is fair. But
    somebody had to make some estimates to get to $2.4 billion.
        Secretary Norton. Those are the same figures that have been
    used for about a decade and have not been adjusted upward with
    the new increases in the price of oil.
        Senator Leahy. I understand. But you will keep us posted if
    those figures are changing or if those figures are still valid
    in your Department? Maybe I should ask the question this way.
    Are those figures still valid in your Department today and will
    you let us know if they change?
        Secretary Norton. We believe those are valid figures, and
    we would let you know if those change, but I do not anticipate
    any change during this current year.
        Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Burns. Thank you, Senator Leahy.
        Senator Cochran.

                             NATCHEZ TRACE PARKWAY

        Senator Cochran. Madam Secretary, we are very pleased that
    in May we are going to celebrate the completion of the Natchez
    Trace Parkway, which spans the distance between Natchez,
    Mississippi and Nashville, Tennessee. There are a lot of living
    history sites along the way, and it is a beautiful parkway. I
    mention that in hopes that you may be able to come to the
    celebration. There are going to be two events in Mississippi:
    one in Clinton, Mississippi very near Jackson, which is one of
    the areas that was last completed along the parkway; and at
    Natchez, which, of course, is the southern terminus of the
    parkway, but is also the site of the Natchez Historical Park,
    which enhances the pleasure of those who visit that area of our
    State. It is a great achievement.
        It was started by authorizing legislation 67 years ago. I
    remember it because that is the year I was born. It has taken
    that long to finish the parkway. But it is due to the hard work
    of a lot of people along through the years and many in the
    administration have taken an active part in it.
        I was just thinking about one of the highlights, the
    establishment of the National Historical Park at Natchez.
    Manuel Lujan was the Secretary of Interior at that time. He
    came to Natchez and spoke at the dedication of one of the
    facilities that had been included in the parkway, one of the
    antebellum homes, Melrose, which provides visitors an
    opportunity to understand a little bit about the way of life
    back in the early days of that region of the country, one of
    the earliest settled areas of the new United States, as a
    matter of fact.
        I bring that up to mention that the Department's continued
    support for maintenance and the pleasure of visitors who come
    to see that area would be deeply appreciated. The
    superintendent of the parkway, Wendall Simpson, is an
    outstanding individual whose has devoted a lot of time and
    effort and hard work to the completion of the project, but also
    to the enhancement of the beauty, maintaining the parkway. It
    has really been a great thing to observe over the years, and it
    is culminating in the final completion of the parkway.
        I will get you the dates. So you will have a look at your
    calendar. I hope you will be able to come down and help us
    celebrate this great occasion.
        One of the interesting things too about the northern area
    of the parkway is, as you get up into Tennessee, you come to a
    site where Meriwether Lewis, from the famous Lewis and Clark
    Expedition, died. There is a marker there to commemorate his
    death and his life, and his contribution to the exploration of
    the new United States at the request of Thomas Jefferson. This
    is an area that is rich in history and significance for many
    reasons, and I am sure that at some point we will probably see
    a request coming in for a facility to be located up there in
    the Tennessee area so people can enjoy the significance of that
    part of the parkway as well.
        Well, that is enough of the parochial interests. I wanted
    to bring that to your attention and let you know about how
    proud we are of the work of the Department in that area. And
    thank you and your colleagues at the Department for their help
    in making this a reality.
        Secretary Norton. Thank you very much. I recently read a
    book that was set in that area, and I do look forward to seeing
    it. I have heard so much about how beautiful that is.

                     MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION COMMISSION

        Also, I want to personally thank you for your work on the
    Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. You are a very
    dedicated member of the Commission and have put a lot of your
    personal time into seeing the success of the work of that
    commission. I appreciate that.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you. It is a pleasure working with
    you on that Commission. You chair it. You are the chairwoman.

                          HOLT COLLIER WILDLIFE REFUGE

        We are also happy that recently we celebrated a new opening
    of a wildlife refuge. We dedicated the Holt Collier Wildlife
    Refuge, the first wildlife refuge to be named for an African
    American. He is the fellow who took Theodore Roosevelt on the
    bear hunt down in the Mississippi Delta where the bear was
    lassoed because he was about to get away, and they said, shoot
    the bear, Mr. President, and he would not shoot the bear
    because they had a rope around his neck. Some cartoonist in New
    York put that in the newspaper in a story about it, and hence,
    the teddy bear. An enterprising toy store owner decided to
    capitalize on the notoriety of Teddy Roosevelt.
        So we had a great celebration the other day at the
    Mississippi Museum of Natural History where we dedicated this
    new refuge. But it is one of many throughout the country that
    help serve the purpose of wildlife habitat protection, and part
    of the funds that people pay for duck stamps and the privilege
    of hunting migratory birds is to go into a fund where we set
    aside certain amounts to protect wildlife habitat. This is one
    of the newest areas in our State that joins the refuge system.
    Fittingly enough, it is a part of the Theodore Roosevelt
    Wildlife Refuge system in our State. We are very proud of that
    connection with the former President.

                         TSUNAMI WARNING SYSTEM FUNDING

        Let me ask you a question about the supplemental. I had
    some notes from my staff indicating that there would be a
    request for additional funds for supplemental funding for a
    tsunami warning system, and that involves the USGS, U.S.
    Geological Survey, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration. Is that something that the Department is
    involved in in some way? Could you tell us what your needs are
    in connection with this supplemental request?
        Secretary Norton. The U.S. Geological Survey provides half
    of the equation in trying to determine tsunamis. We are the
    ones that monitor earthquakes all over the world and are able
    to quickly determine the size, intensity, and location of the
    earthquakes, and then that information is given to the National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that has wave monitors
    and so forth that then can provide tsunami warnings.
        Since the very tragic situation in the Indian Ocean, we
    have focused on our activities, as well as those of NOAA, to
    determine how we can be most effective both internationally but
    also in protecting our own coastline.
        From the Department of the Interior perspective, we want to
    make sure that our National Earthquake Center, which is in
    Golden, Colorado, is staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and
    that we are able to quickly provide information. We are also
    looking at other enhancements to our system.
        Lynn, would you like to add something on that?
        Ms. Scarlett. Yes. As part of that effort, I believe in the
    supplemental there is a proposal for the Department of the
    Interior and USGS for about $8 million, with an additional $5
    million in our 2006 budget request that would amplify that.
        Senator Cochran. Is that fund that you are requesting the
    $8.1 million--that is consistent with my information as well.
    Is that needed in this fiscal year or should it be made a part
    of the next year's appropriation? What is the urgency? How will
    the money be spent if it is provided in the supplemental?
        Mr. Trezise. Senator Cochran, most of that money is for
    technology upgrades, both hardware and software, that need to
    be initiated now so that we can get them in place as soon as
    possible, and certainly in 2006, to have a higher level of
    ability to monitor and disseminate information on earthquakes.
        Senator Cochran. Will this protect the United States and
    its territories, or will it protect other areas such as in the
    Indian Ocean?
        Secretary Norton. There are protections that will assist
    with both. In many parts of the world, there are earthquake
    monitors that exist that provide information to our system, but
    they are not directly wired into our system to get information
    in real time. You have to have somebody go out and check and
    send in the information. So being able to have immediate access
    to that will help worldwide.
        We also want to look more closely at our own coasts and
    especially in the Gulf of Mexico area to see that we are
    enhancing our ability in those areas. The most vulnerable areas
    are actually our territories as opposed to the U.S. coastline,
    but we want to see that we are looking at the Gulf of Mexico.

                        HEALTHY FORESTS RESTORATION ACT

        Senator Cochran. My final comment is about your cooperation
    and leadership in the implementation of the Healthy Forests
    Restoration Act, which we passed here in Congress. We thank you
    for your leadership in implementing that legislation. We hope
    that you will let us know about the levels of funding that you
    may need to help ensure that we continue to do a good job of
    stewardship not only with our U.S. forest lands but also to
    assist private landowners in helping to protect their lands,
    and that is part of this restoration act as well. Thank you
    very much.
        Secretary Norton. Thank you.
        Senator Burns. Thank you, Senator Cochran.

                             CONTRACT SUPPORT COSTS

        In the area of contract support costs in the recent court
    decision, the court ruled that tribes have not been fully
    reimbursed for self-determination contracts that they have
    entered into with the Indian Health Service and the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs. Can you give us a short synopsis of the Supreme
    Court decision and how that impacts the Department of the
    Interior?
        Secretary Norton. As you mentioned, that is a very recent
    decision. Our lawyers in the Solicitor's Office are taking a
    close look at that decision. Their preliminary analysis is that
    the decision will not require significant retroactive payments
    by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
        As the subcommittee is aware, for a number of years, the
    Interior Appropriations Act has contained bill language that
    caps the amount of funding available for contract support for
    both BIA and the Indian Health Service. The Cherokee Nation
    case involved claims for contract support from IHS for a period
    before the legislative cap was put in place. The Office of the
    Solicitor indicates that there are no pending cases against BIA
    involving claims for contract support for years prior to the
    legislative cap.
        Senator Burns. Will this budget that we are talking about
    here impact this 2006 fiscal year? And should there be any left
    for the 2005?
        Ms. Scarlett. I do not believe we anticipate an impact for
    2006 nor for 2005.

                            PRESERVE AMERICA PROGRAM

        Senator Burns. I, like Senator Dorgan, am concerned about
    Preserve America. We have several programs out there right now,
    as you well know, that deal with American heritage spots, and
    now we have added another one here. Give me your idea. How come
    we cannot assume that there is a lot of redundancy here, and
    how will this new program be different than the ones that we
    already have in existence?
        Secretary Norton. Preserve America differs from our other
    programs in a couple of ways.
        First of all, the Save America's Treasures Program is a
    very good program and we do continue that program, although we
    would propose reducing funding. That program focuses on bricks
    and mortar.
        We also have the heritage area program which is somewhat
    more akin to Preserve America in focusing on heritage tourism
    and on local efforts to try to incorporate historic
    preservation into tourism and into commercial activities.
        The Preserve America program is a competitive grant
    program. It does not create the kind of ongoing Federal funding
    relationship that is created by the heritage area program. It
    is something that is available to more communities and is more
    focused on assisting community efforts. It does more to really
    bring in a public/private partnership for protection of our
    historic heritage.
        Senator Burns. We may have a little discussion about that
    later on, but we will try and work our way through it.

                             RURAL FIRE ASSISTANCE

        In the Bureau of Land Management, rural fire assistance. I
    am very concerned about this. You have proposed an elimination
    of that program administered by the BLM. The budget justifies
    this cut by arguing that the Forest Service and FEMA have
    similar programs. I must point out to you that the Forest
    Service account for State and local fire assistance was cut by
    $22 million. We just had the chief up here the other day and
    talked about that. The FEMA assistance grant has been cut by
    almost $100 million. So what you have done here sort of impacts
    this whole thing. So can you explain the rationale for
    eliminating your program?
        Secretary Norton. Our program was yet another grant
    program, a very small one in comparison with the other
    programs. It seemed like a duplication of effort with what the
    other larger programs were already doing. We work very closely
    with the Forest Service on all aspects of our forest fire
    activities.
        We are also working with FEMA very closely. As you know, a
    lot of their program funds originally went to things that were
    related to homeland security and they have put in place a lot
    of activities and funding for that. We also have an MOU with
    them and we are working to refine that to have their much
    larger funding--this year the program is funded at $500
    million--to have some of that be available for rural fire
    assistance. So we felt like overall from the Federal
    Government, it was a more efficient way to deliver those grant
    funds.
        Senator Burns. If you--I am sorry, Ms. Scarlett. Would you
    like to comment?
        Ms. Scarlett. I might add to that. We also have $1.9
    million within the preparedness program that would also go
    towards rural fire assistance directly from the Department of
    the Interior, and then we would be augmenting that by working
    with the funds that the Secretary noted from FEMA.
        Senator Burns. If you could do a report on how you think
    interacting with the other agencies such as FEMA and the Forest
    Service and sort of lay that out for the concerns of the
    committee. We are looking at probably the lowest snowpack that
    I have ever seen in the State of Montana, and we are not any
    better off in the plains where most of the BLM land is. And of
    course, in Montana most of the forests are with the Forest
    Service. If we do not have a very good April, May, and June, I
    fear we are in deep trouble. So that is why I am concerned
    about this. If you could give us some idea on how you will
    interact, understanding the conditions of the northern high
    plains.
        I realize down in Colorado that is your home country, that
    jet stream just went south this year and it stayed down there,
    and when it does not whip up and down in your weather patterns,
    some places get caught off about that. But if you could have
    some sort of a report to us on how that interaction is going to
    happen and the dollars involved, I think it would allay a lot
    of concerns that this committee might have.
        [The information follows:]
                             Rural Fire Assistance
        The requested information on how the Department of the Interior's
    Wildland Fire Management program will work with FEMA and the Forest
    Service so that RFDs continue to receive federal assistance follows.
        The National Fire Plan represents a long-term commitment and
    investment to help protect communities, natural resources, and most
    importantly, the lives of firefighters and the public from the risks of
    wildland fire. Rural fire departments are a vital resource in assisting
    the Department in meeting its fire management responsibilities. The
    program will continue to support these critical relationships through a
    variety of means.
        The Rural Fire Assistance program was authorized in the Department
    of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001, Public
    Law 106-291, to enhance the fire protection capability of rural fire
    departments (RFDs). The program provides funds to rural/volunteer fire
    departments that serve small, rural communities to purchase training,
    equipment, and fire prevention activities. Funds are provided on a
    cost-shared basis. Participating bureaus include Bureau of Indian
    Affairs, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service. Since 2001, the program has provided $50 million
    in grants that have been used to train more than 12,000 firefighters,
    provide PPE to more than 100,000 firefighters, and conduct over 1,000
    workshops in small communities.
        The Department is committed to continuing to enhance RFDs' capacity
    to protect communities from wildfire while increasing their level of
    safety. The 2006 budget request includes $1.9 million in new
    preparedness funding to further wildland fire training for RFDs. The
    ready reserve proposal would strengthen initial attack and develop
    extended attack capabilities by training 1,000-2000 firefighters each
    year and equipping them with personal protective equipment (PPE).
    Communities will benefit by having skilled cadres of local firefighters
    available to reduce loss of property and natural resources.
        The Wildland Fire Leadership Council (WFLC) was established in
    April 2002 to implement and coordinate the National Fire Plan and
    provide leadership to address interagency differences to ensure
    seamless delivery of a coordinated fire protection program. Members
    include senior officials from the federal fire agencies, bureau heads,
    and state, tribal and county representatives. In January 2003, WFLC
    members from DOI, USDA, FEMA and the National Association of State
    Foresters signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to promote
    consistent and systematic federal assistance to fire departments and
    support national efforts to improve firefighter safety, protect
    property, and save lives with respect to catastrophic wildland fire.
        Under this agreement, partnering agencies developed a collaborative
    approach to review competitive applications for grant awards as well as
    discuss the various program parameters. While our relationship has been
    enhanced, the partnering agencies have also provided the public better
    information about our collaborative work.
        The next step in furthering this collaboration is to enhance the
    existing MOU. Talks between the partnering agencies are underway, and
    have focused on means to emphasize the small rural departments that are
    vital to wildland fire initial attack success. In particular, the large
    FEMA Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) program has a number of
    components that would be suitable to serve RFDs that perform wildland
    firefighting duties. This program seeks to support organizations that
    lack the tools and resources necessary to protect the health and safety
    of the public and their emergency response personnel with respect to
    fire and other hazards. Grants may also be used for training,
    equipment, and PPE, as well as fitness and wellness, and structure
    modifications not funded by RFA.
        Discussions for MOU revision have included the following points:
      --Provide additional information to FEMA on wildland firefighting
            priorities and needs. This information could possibly be
            incorporated into annual guidance issued for prospective grant
            applicants or as website links.
      --Further formalize DOI, Forest Service and FEMA peer review of FEMA
            awards. The existing MOU encourages sharing information about
            pending grant applications among the various partnering
            agencies, as well as coordinating application reviews. Efforts
            to further integrate all partners in the peer review process in
            some cases are restricted by authorizing statutes. For example,
            federal employees are prohibited from participating with
            members of fire service organizations for the purpose of
            determining criteria for awards. However, peer review panel
            chairs must be federal employees. Final language refining the
            level of federal participation appropriate in the criteria
            development process will be carefully considered.
      --Share additional website information. This exchange will likely
            take the form of additional links between partners' websites,
            and should be readily accomplished.
      --Coordinate educational efforts for grant workshops. These efforts
            will further ``one-stop- shopping'' so that grant workshops
            provide more information about the breadth of resources
            available to RFDs.
        Within the larger AFG program are several smaller components that
    could be suitable for RFDs seeking assistance for wildland fire
    training and equipment. Fire Prevention and Firefighter Safety (FPS)
    grant applications will be accepted in September 2005. This 5 percent
    set-aside could be used for things like planning, coordinating,
    community awareness and Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs).
    The Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) grant
    program (new in 2005) will be open in June: guidance is still pending.
        The Department recognizes constraints on the various federal grant
    programs. Efforts to best utilize scarce resources, further community
    protection and safety, and enhance RFDs' capacity to reduce the loss of
    property and natural resources provide the opportunity to evaluate the
    effectiveness of our overall interagency program delivery. We look
    forward to continued discussions with partnering agencies and expect to
    finalize an enhanced MOU by summer.
        The following table summarizes agency fire grant appropriations
    from fiscal year 2001-fiscal year 2005.

        Senator Burns. This is going to be my last question and
    then I am going to send this whole thing down to you.

                             RANGE IMPROVEMENT FUND

        In the area of range improvement funds, I noticed you
    eliminate those monies. As you know, we work very closely in
    range improvement with the Society of Range Management, which
    is a rancher-funded organization, and use that. We still have
    work to do in habitat and riparian areas. That is how we really
    averted the sage grouse controversy because a lot of people
    took it at its word up front and went to work on that. A lot of
    States did, anyway, working with our grazers and our recreation
    people. I have some concern about that.
        Also, I know this is hard to understand here in Washington,
    D.C., but you ought to go to some of these glitzy kind of
    receptions and somebody walks up to you and says what are you
    working on today, and you say weeds. See how fast you are
    standing there by yourself.
        A lot of folks do not know the invasive weeds or noxious
    weeds that we have to contend with. That was part of this fund.
    So I am kind of concerned about that because we still have a
    weed problem.
        Secretary Norton. Mr. Chairman, our proposal is one that
    would continue our funding for those programs at the current
    level, working through our challenge cost-share program and
    deferred maintenance funding. What our proposal does is move
    away from mandatory funding for those purposes. We certainly
    recognize the importance of invasive weeds. I have my own share
    of understanding about cheat grass and things like that. We do
    recognize that is important. This is just a change in the way
    in which the funding is structured.
        Senator Burns. For years and years and years, groups have
    sought to eliminate grazing on public lands. The other day we
    saw where they actually paid a sheepman to come in and mob off
    the side of the mountain in order to get rid of weeds. That is
    the best control we have. They were so glad that they had come
    up with that idea, that grazing those things off is better than
    using chemicals or spray or hand eradication or anything like
    that. They came up with this idea they were going to use sheep
    to do it. Gosh, I wish I had thought of that.
        Senator Feinstein.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

                        RURAL AND COMMUNITY FIRE FUNDING

        Madam Secretary, I want you to know that I share the
    chairman's concerns about the rural and community fire funding.
    I too would like to see that report. I think we have got big
    problems, not having to do with your Department, but certainly
    the other Department with respect to seeing that those
    hazardous fuels monies could really go where the need is,
    particularly in the urban interface areas, which are more
    expensive to treat. That is really not your problem, but it is
    my problem.

                               LESLIE SALT PONDS

        I wanted to talk with you about something you said, and
    that is the subject of private/public partnerships. In my
    State, I think one of the best private/public partnerships was
    something that I had something to do with, and that was the
    private/public partnership that we hope will result in the
    largest wetlands restoration in our State. That is the
    conversion of the Leslie Salt Ponds in San Francisco Bay back
    into wetlands. The bay has lost 90 percent of its wetlands
        We put together a private/public partnership of $100
    million to buy those salt ponds from Cargill. My understanding
    is that the conversion is going rather well. As a matter of
    fact, as I fly home and we fly on the landing pattern over the
    salt ponds, I see them bit by bit changing back into wetlands
    and bay waters. It is indeed very exciting. We have had great
    cooperation from the Hewlett, the Packard, the Gordon Moore
    Foundation, the Richard Goldman Foundation, the State in
    putting up the money, and the Federal Government put in $8
    million of that $100 million.

                      DON EDWARDS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

        A problem has arisen with the Don Edwards National Wildlife
    Refuge with the addition of 9,600 acres to that refuge. It is
    my understanding that Fish and Wildlife has said that that
    would cost another $540,000 in O&M. It is also my understanding
    that the President's budget proposes to remove $532,000 fiscal
    year 2005 appropriations for conservation work on the refuge. I
    think these are important dollars.
        So my question is, how will the Fish and Wildlife Service
    make up this $532,000 cut?
        Secretary Norton. I am enthused about the Don Edwards
    Wildlife Refuge, having once been a resident of the San
    Francisco Bay area.
        Senator Feinstein. You have been out there and you have
    seen what we are doing.
        Secretary Norton. Yes. That is a spectacular piece of
    property.
        We view that as a prime place for the Partners in Fish and
    Wildlife program and for some of our other conservation
    programs. We are requesting a $12 million increase for the
    general program activities in the partners program and believe
    that the Don Edwards Wildlife Refuge restoration would be a
    great example of the kinds of things that we could do with that
    program.
        We also have funding that we are working through with the
    U.S. Geological Survey for some research at the wildlife
    refuge. So what we would propose to do is work with our
    existing, funded programs to address the work in that area.
        Senator Feinstein. So far you are batting 1,000. Let us see
    if it continues.

                           USGS ASSISTANCE TO REFUGES

        I also understand that two important sources of 2005
    funding for USGS assistance to refuges totals about $900,000,
    and that will no longer be available in fiscal year 2006. Now,
    it is my understanding that these monies are used really to do
    critical studies on mercury and other pollutants in refuge
    areas. To be specific, this is $195,000 in USGS science support
    funds and $750,000 from the California Coastal Conservancy.
    Now, that is not your problem, but I understand those monies
    are no longer going to be available.
        So my question is, what will happen with some of those
    critical studies that need to be done?
        Ms. Scarlett. Senator, with the USGS we have what is called
    a Priority Ecosystems program from which monies went to this
    work. Also the State of California funded the research that you
    are identifying. That program is funded in 2006 at the same
    level as 2005, and we would anticipate that the science
    projects at Don Edwards would, likewise, in 2006 be eligible
    for funding.
        The other portion of funds came from what is called a USGS
    Quick Response program. That is funded at $350,000 in 2006. The
    distinction there, we would need to look at whether the Don
    Edwards Refuge would be eligible for the criteria set under
    that Quick Response program.
        Senator Feinstein. May I ask, Madam Secretary, then that
    you work with us so that we know?
        Secretary Norton. We would be happy to do that. I would
    also point out that we have significantly increased the
    operations funding for the Fish and Wildlife Service over the
    last several years and view that also as being available to
    help with that Don Edwards Refuge.
        Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much.

                            LWCF FUNDS REPROGRAMMING

        Now a question on the reprogramming of Land and Water
    Conservation funds. It is my understanding that last year's
    omnibus included a provision that rescinded $10 million in
    unobligated BLM Land and Water Conservation funds. I am
    concerned that an Interior plan to allocate to California a
    disproportionate share of the rescinded funds, and by that I
    mean that $7 million out of the $10 million would be taken out
    of California projects. That could make acquisitions very
    difficult, and specifically the Cathton property near Palm
    Springs, which Representative Bono and I wrote to you about. I
    do not know if you saw the letter but we wrote very recently.
        So my question is, how does the Department plan to ensure
    that these cuts are made fairly and the burden is shared
    equally across other States?
        Secretary Norton. I would like to ask Lynn Scarlett to
    address that in some detail.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
        Ms. Scarlett. Yes. Thank you, Senator.
        At issue was $16.8 million in specific projects earmarked
    by the Congress but for which $6.8 million were provided. My
    understanding is that the Bureau of Land Management looked at
    its unobligated acquisitions across the Nation and looked at
    its existing priorities and determined which of the $10 million
    in unobligated balances it would then utilize for those
    programs authorized in the 2005 budget.
        I believe that reprogramming actually has already been
    undertaken. I think it has already been approved, if I am not
    mistaken.
        Mr. Trezise. Notification has been submitted to the
    subcommittees, yes.
        Ms. Scarlett. With the particular property that you have
    mentioned and the distribution of those unobligated balances
    for the State of California. If, as Congress reviews our
    reprogramming request, we need to go back and look at that, we
    certainly would do so.
        Senator Feinstein. I appreciate that. And you remember
    where you are from.
        Senator Burns. I will remind her.
        Senator Feinstein. Good.

                             DESERT PROTECTION ACT

        I am glad the chairman is here because I want to talk to
    you just for a minute about the Desert Protection Act. That is
    a bill that I wrote. We were intimately familiar with it. It is
    a big park and wilderness bill. When the bill was written, we
    were aware that there were certain grazing operations on
    national park land. I went down and I looked at them.
        This was really kind of the old West still existing in the
    desert. I remember visiting the Blair family. They live 50
    miles from the nearest school, 75 miles from the nearest store.
    Kathy Blair took her children to school both ways. That is 100
    miles a day driving. They had their own generator way out in
    the middle of the desert. They had about 500 head of cattle.
    His father, his grandfather had worked that.
        I wrote the bill specifically with the intent that the
    existing grazing would continue at the existing level. What I
    have noticed now are efforts to do away with the water, make it
    more difficult. There were only five ranchers left. Rob Blair
    wants to move out. It is just too hard now. Senator Burns
    helped me with some language on, one, to make it even clearer
    as to what the intent was.
        I believe that the Park Service should make every effort to
    allow the existing ranchers who wish to do so to continue to
    ranch within the confines of the bill's language.
        Now, this language can come into conflict with the
    Endangered Species Act involving the desert tortoise. I
    recognize that.
        But I guess what I want to ask you, offering a grazing
    permit, but withholding water facilities is an empty gesture.
    Will you commit to allowing the return of the previous water
    facilities under this temporary grazing permit?
        Secretary Norton. Senator Feinstein, I appreciate you
    bringing this to my attention. I have a prepared response from
    my staff, but I am concerned, as you are, about some of the
    questions that are raised. I want to find out some more about
    this and how much of this is necessitated by endangered species
    requirements and how much might be just not having an
    appreciation for the grazing heritage of the area. I do
    understand that there is one particular permit that has--not
    the individual you mentioned--that has some specific problems.
    But I would like to take a look a little more closely myself at
    the issues that you have raised.
        Senator Feinstein. Yes. So you know the legislative
    history, this was a tough bill to do. It was filibustered on
    the floor. The desert is not like Yellowstone. It is not like
    Yosemite. It is totally different. I mean, we have got millions
    of acres in this bill, at least 7-8 million acres. It has got
    everything there. The thrust of the bill was that no private
    property owner be displaced, no eminent domain. Everything
    would be willing seller/willing buyer. And existing grazing
    could continue sort of in the tradition of the old West.
        I know what happens. I understand it. I know the
    environmental thrust is, well, get these grazers, make it more
    difficult so they will move out, and there will be just
    wilderness with nothing else. But that has not been its
    history. I think there is a richness in its history. So the
    bill was written to protect that historic richness, and that is
    really what I want to share directly and publicly with you.
        Secretary Norton. Thank you very much. I will look into it
    some more.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you, and would you let me know?
        Secretary Norton. All right.
        Senator Feinstein. Great. Thank you.
        CALFED. One part of the CALFED water program----
        Senator Burns. Will the Senator yield just for a comment?
        Senator Feinstein. Certainly.
        Senator Burns. I can remember that issue. I would advise
    the Secretary that there are some things that go on out there
    that you are unaware of. Using the endangered species, I think
    it is a weak answer. I think those people just come up with
    reasons to make it tough. I will tell you, if you find somebody
    that is doing that and they cannot substantiate it, fire them
    because some of these people in the Park Service are just
    absolutely dedicated to a different idea of what makes this
    country work than Senator Feinstein and I. So do not look at
    nothing. Just do what the legislation says. I mean it. I get
    upset when these people come up and give some damned
    bureaucratic answer that does not mean a thing. Maybe I get
    really upset about that.
        I know what she was trying to do and we tried to do it just
    exactly the way it should have been done in the first place.
    Now we find other reasons. That is weak. Enough said.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate your
    support very, very much.

                                     CALFED

        Let me speak about CALFED. The one program that is within
    the jurisdiction of this subcommittee is the Fish and Wildlife
    Service's programs. In restoring habitat for endangered salmon,
    I understand there are proposals to concentrate funding on
    projects that provide the greatest increases in fish
    populations per dollar expended.
        What I would like to ask is that you provide me with a list
    of the most potentially promising ecosystem restoration
    projects in California and how these projects will advance us
    toward the fish doubling goals of the CVPIA. I think those are
    good goals. When we put together the CALFED bill, again, we
    were very serious in the ecosystems restoration and fish
    restoration. So it would be helpful if I were to technically
    know which are the most promising restoration areas for fish.
        Secretary Norton. That seems like an excellent question,
    and we will try to answer that as well as we can.
        [The information follows:]
     California Ecosystem Restoration Projects Relating to Central Valley
                            Anadromous Fish Doubling
        Much of the restoration to date, conducted by the Fish and Wildlife
    Service under the authority of the Central Valley Improvement Act
    (CVPIA) and CALFED Bay-Delta program, has been focused on physical
    restoration to improve habitat conditions within the system. While
    these efforts have made significant progress towards the doubling goal,
    the Service believes increasing instream flow for fish passage,
    spawning and rearing is critical if the doubling objective is to be
    achieved. Habitat restoration remains a critical component, and coupled
    with instream flow for fish passage, can advance the goal of anadromous
    fish restoration. Three programs within the Service are focused on
    water acquisition for instream flow; the CVPIA 3406 b(3) Water
    Acquisition Program (WAP), the CALFED Environmental Water Program
    (EWP), and the CALFED Environmental Water Program. The CVPIA b(1)
    Anadromous Fish Restoration Program (AFRP) serves as the primary
    habitat restoration program. All of these programs undergo extensive,
    stakeholder processes that identify priority projects and streams
    targeted for funding.
                       current fiscal year 2005 projects
        The Service receives money annually through the Bureau of
    Reclamation to implement the Central Valley Project Improvement Act.
    The Bureau of Reclamation assesses a mitigation fee on water and power
    beneficiaries of the Central Valley Project. Fee collections comprise
    the Restoration Fund from which the Bureau of Reclamation allocates
    funds to the Service for restoration purposes. The programs and funding
    amounts described below will assist in advancing the anadromous fish
    doubling goal during fiscal year 2005:
        $5,181,000 was provided to the Service for the Anadromous Fish
    Restoration Program. Section 3406(b)(1) of the CVPIA directs the
    Secretary of the Interior to develop and implement a program that makes
    all reasonable efforts to at least double natural production of
    anadromous fish in California's Central Valley streams on a long-term,
    sustainable basis. The major resulting program is known as the
    Anadromous Fish Restoration Program. Since 1995, the AFRP has helped
    implement over 195 projects to restore natural production of anadromous
    fish.
        $617,000 was provided to the Service for the Clear Creek
    Restoration Program. The Clear Creek Fish Restoration Program was
    established to implement restoration within the Clear Creek watershed
    as provided for under section 3406(b)(12) of the Central Valley project
    Improvement Act. The Service and Reclamation have worked closely with
    California Departments of Fish and Game and Water Resources, the
    National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, county and local
    agencies and organizations, stakeholder groups, and the general public
    to provide planning and implementation of restoration actions in the
    Clear Creek watershed. The Clear Creek Coordinated Resource Management
    Planning group and the Clear Creek Technical Team work directly with
    local entities to achieve Clear Creek Fish Restoration Program
    objectives.
        $581,684 was provided to the Service for the Anadromous Fish Screen
    Program. The primary objective of the Anadromous Fish Screen Program is
    to protect juvenile Chinook salmon, steelhead trout, green and white
    sturgeon, striped bass and American shad from entrainment at priority
    diversions throughout the Central Valley. Section 3406(b)(21) of the
    Central Valley Project Improvement Act requires the Secretary of the
    Interior to assist the State of California to develop and implement
    measures to avoid losses of juvenile anadromous fish resulting from
    unscreened or inadequately screened diversions on the Sacramento and
    San Joaquin Rivers, their tributaries, the Delta and the Suisun Marsh.
                               long term projects
        The following projects are also high priorities, however they are
    projected to take a decade to complete.
               water acquisition for instream flow top priorities
        Clear Creek.--Generate medium high flows to recreate basic
    geomorphic processes and improve habitat quality and quantity for
    spring-run Chinook salmon and steelhead. The ten year program includes
    monitoring.
        Deer Creek.--Combine water use efficiency and ground water exchange
    to provide 50 cfs at critical times to allow unimpaired passage of
    spring-run and steelhead. The ten year agreement includes monitoring.
                       habitat restoration top priorities
        Habitat restoration projects are implemented through a competitive,
    public request for proposals that includes extensive program,
    scientific, and budget review. Public notification is required before
    projects are funded, and environmental compliance (consistent with the
    Natural Community Conservation Planning Act, National Environmental
    Policy Act; State and Federal endangered species acts, etc.) is also
    necessary. A single entity cannot double natural production of
    anadromous fish throughout the Central Valley, partnerships are needed.
    Voluntary collaboration to achieve mutual goals and objectives will
    accelerate accomplishments, increase available resources, reduce
    duplication of efforts, encourage innovative solutions, improve
    communication, and increase public involvement and support through
    shared authority and ownership of restoration actions.
        The habitat projects below have a high potential for contributing
    to the CVPIA anadromous fish doubling goal.
        Clear Creek.--Stream channel and flood plain restoration projects
    to restore ecosystem function and increase spawning and rearing habitat
    and thereby increase fish production.
        Sacramento River--Improve passage at Red Bluff Diversion Dam for
    salmon, steelhead, and sturgeon.

        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.

               HEADWATERS FOREST RESERVE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

        If I may, just a couple more. The BLM's California office
    believes that about $1 million annually for the next 5 years is
    needed to implement the headwaters forest reserve resource
    management plan.
        What I would like to ask is, if you have a position with
    respect to full implementation of the headwaters plan, would
    you tell us? And how much is in the 2006 budget on this issue?
        Secretary Norton. It is my understanding that we are on
    track with the implementation of that program. We have $1.2
    million that is allocated for implementation for 2005 and 2006.
    We do view that as an important goal.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.

                       HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION PROGRAM

        Let me just ask a question along the lines of the dialogue
    that you and Senator Burns had. The BLM hazardous fuels
    reduction program is also important for California.
    Particularly, we rely on the $2 million of annual grants for
    local fire safe councils to implement community protection
    measures. I attended a Tahoe summit, which I hope one day you
    will be able to attend, where all of the jurisdictions around
    Lake Tahoe got together to do their fire plans. The point I
    guess is that these grants I think are important. The planning
    is going on all throughout the State.
        Do you plan to continue these grants?
        Secretary Norton. Our overall program that this is funded
    from is the hazardous fuels program, and that has an increase
    of $9.8 million for this year.
        The California Fire Safe Council is a very good program and
    we support the work that they are doing. The allocation of
    financial support to particular States and local programs is
    something that is done as we weigh the needs and the merits of
    each of those programs later on in the year. But we do support
    the overall work of the program. I cannot give it a specific
    dollar amount, but it is the kind of collaborative effort that
    we think makes a lot of sense.
        Senator Feinstein. Terrific. Thank you very much.

                                 LAKE BERRYESSA

        Now, I guess a few days ago, we were visited by supervisors
    from Napa County who are having problems with the recreational
    facilities at Lake Berryessa, which is currently managed by the
    Bureau of Reclamation. I guess what I would like to ask is if
    you will work closely with our office and the county
    supervisors in looking at the options, as you undertake the EIS
    process for a new visitor services plan. Particularly
    Supervisor Dillon of Napa County was back here, and there have
    been two extensions of public comment. My understanding is the
    plan has been recently released for more public comment.
        The county provides the police and public services at
    Berryessa, which amounts to about $800,000 a year, and
    currently there are about 1,300 privately owned trailers on the
    west shore of the lake, and there is limited public access. So
    the trailer owners want the no-action alternative. That is kind
    of where we are. I do not know what the bureau's position is on
    this, but we have got a conflict.
        Secretary Norton. We understand this is a situation with a
    long history. We are very committed to going through the NEPA
    process and would be happy to work with you as we continue on
    that process. Reclamation expects to have their final
    environmental impact statement and record of decision in the
    summer or fall of this year. You are correct that we have asked
    for additional public comment.
        Senator Feinstein. Terrific. Now, just one last one and
    then I am finished.

                                PARK OPERATIONS

        The $55.5 million increase in the President's request for
    park operations is almost entirely, we understand, for fixed
    costs, including pay and benefit costs to cover current Park
    Service employees. I think it is great that these costs are
    finally being budgeted for, but I understand there are no
    programmatic increases for operations. How are you going to
    manage?
        Secretary Norton. The way in which our park funds are
    usually allocated is to each park individually. Within that
    they allocate it to the kinds of programs that they think are
    most significant for that individual park. We have increased
    funding. There was a significant increase in funding for 2005,
    and we continue with increases for 2006.
        We are also trying to look at ways in which we can operate
    more effectively system-wide. Some of our regional directors
    have been looking at what I think are good ideas, trying to
    look at efficiencies, including those between parks. For
    example, if we have two neighboring parks that each want to
    have a new archaeologist on staff, they look to see whether we
    might be able to share an archaeologist between the two parks.
    I think there are some things like that that may be helpful as
    well.
        We want to be sure that we are continuing to tackle the
    maintenance backlog and our request provides the funding for
    that, as well as for enhancing our visitor services.

                    MARIJUANA PROPAGATION IN NATIONAL PARKS

        Senator Feinstein. Finally, I just want to give you a
    challenge. There is a lot of marijuana being grown in national
    parks, and particularly the King's Canyon Sequoia National
    Park. I would like to bring that to your attention, if I might.
        Secretary Norton. I have heard about some of those
    situations. We do have some additional staffing to try and deal
    with that. Last year at Sequoia King's Canyon there were 15
    arrests of individuals who were cultivating marijuana gardens
    within the park's boundaries. It is obviously a situation where
    we need to work very closely with the DEA and with other law
    enforcement agencies, as well as use our increased staffing for
    this.
        Senator Feinstein. Thanks for being on top of it. I
    appreciate it. I very much appreciate your cooperation and your
    responses. Thank you so much.
        Secretary Norton. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Feinstein. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Burns. Thank you, Senator Feinstein.
        I am going to send a whole bunch of questions down there
    for you. We will work our way through this thing one way or the
    other. Working with you is a delight anyway, and I appreciate
    your patience today and your appearance here.
        I do have an announcement just for the record. The
    Department of Energy hearing is canceled for next week, but our
    next hearing will be with the EPA folks, Senator Feinstein.
    That will be on April 14.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
        Senator Burns. We will get those schedules out to the rest
    of the members of this panel.

                       ADDITIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Again, the record will be left open, and if you would
    respond to those questions for the record, I would certainly
    appreciate that.
        Secretary Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Burns. Thank you and thank you to your good staff.
    You have wonderful staff. They have been very cooperative in
    working our way through this. I certainly appreciate that too.
    Thank you.
        [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
                    state assistance (``stateside'') program
        Question. Your budget request proposes to zero out the Stateside
    program, which provides grants to states for recreation development and
    land acquisition. The rationale seems to be that the program does not
    have adequate performance measures, and might be viewed as more of a
    state or local responsibility.
        Can you elaborate on the reasons for your proposing not to fund the
    program?
        Answer. As the Administration strives to reduce the Federal
    deficit, focusing on high-priority direct Federal responsibilities is
    imperative. The reduction in State Conservation grants will allow NPS
    to focus on park activities while helping to reduce the deficit.
        Question. Does your request represent a temporary reduction from
    the Administration's point of view, or are you proposing to terminate
    the program?
        Answer. Budgets are prepared on an annual basis. Funding
    availability changes, priorities are reevaluated, and other factors
    differ from year to year. The Administration proposes that the State
    Conservation grants program receive no new grant money in fiscal year
    2006. Funding in fiscal year 2007 and beyond will be determined as part
    of the regular budget formulation and review processes that precede
    those budgets.
        Question. In tight budget times I'm the first to admit that we need
    to focus on the primary responsibilities of the Federal government. I
    note, however, that other state grant programs escaped the budget
    knife. The State and Tribal Wildlife Grant program, for example, is
    increased from $69 million to $74 million. One could certainly argue
    that management of fish and game not listed under the ESA is a state
    responsibility.
        Can you explain the disparate treatment of these two programs?
        Answer. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's State and Tribal
    Wildlife Grant program directly supports the Service's mission of
    working with others to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife,
    and plants and their habitats; and is an important component of the
    Department's cooperative conservation initiative. The long-term goal of
    the State and Tribal Wildlife grant program is to stabilize, restore,
    enhance, and protect species and their habitat that are of concern--
    this includes listed, at risk, and other species. A significant number
    of species currently protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
    reside, for all or a portion of their lives, on private lands.
    Additionally, many more species living on private lands are either at
    risk or potentially at risk of being listed under the ESA. Through the
    State and Tribal Wildlife grant program, the species and their habitats
    that are in the most need of conservation benefit. These efforts help
    the nation avoid the costly and time consuming process that occurs when
    a species' population plummets and needs additional management
    protection through the Endangered Species Act and other regulatory
    protections. Since many issues related to wildlife conservation are not
    contained by jurisdictional or administrative borders, the program also
    helps to ensure that the Fish and Wildlife Service and the States
    coordinate efforts to conserve threatened and endangered species,
    manage migrating birds, and prevent other species from becoming listed
    on the Endangered Species list.
        All States are nearing completion of their Comprehensive Wildlife
    Conservation Plans. These plans will have prioritized lists of
    conservation actions that will help States stabilize or increase their
    wildlife populations in a strategic, cost-efficient manner that is
    based on sound science. In order to ensure that species are benefiting
    from the conservation actions, all States will have in place strong
    monitoring programs. Because of this focus on local input,
    prioritization of actions, and monitoring, the Department is confident
    that the funds requested for this program will generate significant on-
    the-ground results.
        In contrast, the National Park Service's LWCF State grants program
    funds improvements to State and local parks that are more appropriately
    funded through State funding. Furthermore, a PART review in 2003 found
    that this program could not measure performance or demonstrate results.
                                preserve america
        Question. Your budget once again includes funds ($12.5 million) for
    a new ``Preserve America'' program to provide grants to communities to
    develop heritage tourism.
        As you know, there is already intense competition for funds in the
    arena of historic preservation and heritage programs. States and
    tribes--charged by Congress with administration of the Historic
    Preservation Act--are seeking additional funds to maintain current
    operations and allow for new tribal programs. Congress last year
    authorized three new heritage areas, and has many more proposals
    pending. The Save America's Treasures program is highly competitive.
    And we now have targeted, authorized programs for Historically Black
    Colleges and California Missions, with other legislation pending.
        Why do we need to create another new program in this arena?
        Answer. Preserve America embodies the Administration's commitment
    to heritage tourism and historic preservation as economic engines
    capable of driving local and regional economies. The Administration's
    fiscal year 2006 budget request of $12.5 million for Preserve America
    grants, which is only one component of the Preserve America initiative,
    would offer a new type of Federal preservation funding that would
    support local, state, and tribal heritage tourism initiatives,
    promotion and marketing programs, and development of directly related
    interpretive and educational programs.
        Federal preservation funding needs to evolve to reflect the
    increasingly important role that historic preservation and heritage
    tourism will play in community economic revitalization in the 21st
    century. Since the 1980s, increasing numbers of communities have begun
    rehabilitating their historic downtowns, encouraging reinvestment in
    their communities. Communities are also using preservation to encourage
    heritage tourists to visit (and spend their money). These trends are
    creating new jobs and new revenue while preserving the historic
    properties that help give communities their unique sense of place and
    history.
        Despite the growing importance of preservation and heritage tourism
    to community revitalization throughout the country, no nationwide
    Federal assistance is focused specifically on this issue. Other
    programs are much broader in scope--such as the historic preservation
    grants-in-aid to States and Tribes--or much narrower--such as programs
    for Historically Black Colleges and Universities. The Save America's
    Treasures program funds critical ``bricks and mortar'' projects, but
    not creation of management strategies and partnerships for linking
    preservation with heritage tourism. Funding for National Heritage Areas
    does address such issues, but is restricted to a limited number of
    discrete geographic areas. Preserve America Grants will fill a void by
    directly assisting communities nationwide in using and promoting their
    historic assets in ways that will spur economic development. In
    addition, Preserve America grants would place special emphasis on
    significant and creative private-public partnerships that could serve
    as models to communities.
        Question. What is the Federal role that isn't currently being
    fulfilled?
        Answer. Tourism is a key ingredient in the national economy, and a
    significant component of many local economies. It is the third largest
    retail sales industry, amounting to about $528.5 billion in 2002.
    Tourism is also one the Nation's largest employers, with 7.2 million
    direct employees and nearly 10 million indirect employees. Heritage
    tourism, including visiting historic sites and museums, ranked third
    among tourism activities and destinations, following shopping and
    outdoor activities. Nationally, in 2005, annual revenues from cultural
    and heritage tourism are expected to reach $200 billion.
        While we readily recognize that historic preservation contributes
    to heritage tourism, which in turn contributes to the economy, it is
    also important to recognize that the effects are circular: heritage
    tourism is a very important contributor to the preservation of the
    nation's historic resources. In many cases, the anticipated revenues
    from heritage tourism become the economic engine that drives the
    initial investment in preservation and rehabilitation of those historic
    resources that will become tourism destinations. By focusing on this
    circular effect, Preserve America grants will strategically carry out
    the National Historic Preservation Act mandate that the Federal
    Government will ``use measures, including financial and technical
    assistance, to foster conditions under which our modern society and our
    prehistoric and historic resources can exist in productive harmony and
    fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and
    future generations.''
        The Administration's Preserve America grants will assist local,
    State, and tribal jurisdictions to capitalize on this new economic
    reality. The Federal Government can play a critical role by providing
    seed money to support planning, development, implementation, or
    enhancement of innovative activities and programs in heritage tourism,
    adaptive reuse, and ``living history'' programs that can be replicated
    across the country. The Administration's proposed Preserve America
    grants would provide needed program incentives and the investment
    opportunities to produce such local models.
        At a time when State and local governments, including counties and
    municipalities, are bearing much of the State fiscal difficulties,
    local tourism in general and heritage tourism in particular can help
    local governments develop their own revenue streams through sales and
    bed tax revenues and other indirect income derived from the tourist
    service economy. This economic value also translates into more,
    improved historic preservation activity and appreciation for the
    Nation's history as well as its heritage resources. The grants would
    also help other levels of government with important program start-up
    funds and the related tools they need to improve their efforts.
        Question. Why are Preserve America grants proposed to be
    distributed through a new national grant-making structure, as opposed
    to being administered by the state historic preservation offices?
        Answer. It is appropriate to target Federal investment in this new
    program through a nationally-competitive approach, rather than through
    the State allocation formula. While the formula for allocating annual
    operating funds to State Historic Preservation Officers is an
    appropriate and effective method of assistance for those State
    functions set out in the National Historic Preservation Act, the
    Federal Government has often recognized that specifically targeted
    preservation efforts--such as grants to Historically Black Colleges and
    Universities, or the Save America's Treasures grants--are more
    effectively focused through a centralized program. Preserve America
    grants fall under the category of specifically targeted efforts that
    will benefit from a focused national competition.
        Both State Historic Preservation Offices and Tribal Historic
    Preservation Offices are proposed among eligible applicants for
    Preserve America grants, in addition to designated Preserve America
    Communities and Certified Local Governments seeking Preserve America
    Community designation.
                financial and business management system (fbms)
        Question. The Department is in the midst of a major acquisition for
    its Financial and Business Management System. While we haven't given
    you 100 percent of what you've requested for this project, our
    investment to date is very substantial.
        My fundamental question is what steps are you taking to ensure that
    this major system acquisition doesn't wind up like so many others in
    government, which is to say in the trash can?
        Answer. The Department has used a planning and implementation
    process that is guided by investment control processes, put in place a
    governance process and management structure to ensure adequate
    oversight, monitoring, risk management, and test and user acceptance.
        First, the Department undertook an extensive planning process that
    modeled the current business processes (as is) and sought bids for
    design and deployment of an off-the-shelf system that would provide the
    Department with a system that meets its needs. Selection of a
    contractor followed an exhaustive and thorough evaluation of
    alternatives and full review and acceptance of a business case.
        The Department's project lead managers evaluated the projects
    completed by the contractor and made site visits to the Commonwealth of
    Pennsylvania. The managers evaluated the deployment of software by
    other Federal agencies to gain knowledge about best practices and gain
    understanding of potential risks.
        Once a contractor was selected, the Department put in place a
    governance structure for project decisions based on evaluation of risk.
    A full-time project management office was put in place to maintain
    continued project management. Deployment to bureaus of modules would be
    subsequent to testing and user acceptance. The Department contracted
    with an independent verification and validation IV&V contractor to
    provide oversight for the project, put in place a change management
    process, and created operational environments in which to develop,
    test, and operate the system.
        The project has a strong governance structure including an
    Executive Steering Committee of senior bureau business leaders and the
    Department's Chief Information Officer. They oversee the project and
    take management actions necessary to ensure that the investment
    benefits will be realized.
                        icon security--u.s. park police
        Question. Madam Secretary, for several years now we have been
    working with the U.S. Park Police to ensure that the funds we provide
    them are properly managed, and that the organization itself has a clear
    mission. This is more important than ever given the role the Park
    Police plays in protecting some of our icon parks.
        Can you give us a status report on these efforts? What changes have
    been made and what changes are underway?
        Answer. In August 2003 the Department directed a comprehensive
    internal effort to complete the task of clearly defining the mission,
    priorities, and responsibilities of the Park Police. Shortly after this
    internal review began, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on
    Interior and Related Agencies requested NAPA to follow up on its 2001
    recommendations and again assess USPP's mission and functions, the
    priorities and resources assigned to them, and the feasibility of
    adjusting current functions. Because this essentially became a parallel
    effort, the Department closely coordinated with NAPA, realizing that it
    was critical to incorporate NAPA guidance in our final efforts. NAPA's
    new methodology for assessing USPP operations and establishing
    priorities for USPP functions was of immense help in providing answers
    to significant budget and management concerns.
        Working closely with the NPS Deputy Director, the Acting USPP
    Chief, and NAPA, the Department has completed a thorough mission
    review. Implementation of the principle recommendations concerning
    mission clarification, responsibilities, and priorities are well
    underway. Many of the other NAPA recommendations are also completed,
    while some have made significant progress, but remain ongoing. The
    Department is continuing to follow up on all NAPA recommendations that
    are not yet completed. The internal review, Report to the Secretary,
    U.S. Park Police Mission Review, dated December 17, 2004, was provided
    to the Subcommittee and includes a detailed report on each NAPA
    recommendation.
        Question. Have we made it to the point where we're less likely to
    be surprised by mid-year reprogramming requests, or by actual force
    levels that don't match budget forecasts?
        Answer. We have reached the point where the Park Police can manage
    its Force and its finances at a high level of expertise. This
    confidence is realized by the work of the Park Police during the
    Department's mission review and the selection of Dwight Pettiford as
    the permanent Chief of the U.S. Park Police. Chief Pettiford, who was
    the acting Chief for about a year, was instrumental in helping to bring
    the Park Police mission review and operational priorities of the Park
    Police to closure. We also hired an experienced Chief Financial Officer
    for USPP in October 2004 who will assist the Chief to better manage the
    budget. The Department will also continue a high level of commitment
    into the future, helping the Park Police to finalize the remaining NAPA
    recommendations; reviewing and implementing the draft USPP Strategic
    Plan, which is under review by the NPS; reviewing the USPP draft
    staffing model upon its completion; and providing specific guidance for
    the 2007 budget formulation cycle.
                             recreation fee program
        Question. Last year in the omnibus appropriations bill Congress
    extended the recreation fee program on a long-term basis. I fought this
    move along with other members of this subcommittee because I believed
    the authorizing committees of jurisdiction were the appropriate bodies
    to deal with this legislation. But we did not prevail.
        You are aware, Madam Secretary, that there is still some
    disagreement out in the land about whether fees are appropriate, on
    what activities they should be collected, and how the collections
    should be spent.
        Are there things in last year's authorization bill that will help
    address some of these concerns? How will the new program be different
    than the fee program as it has existed for the past several years?
        Answer. The new Act provides for a nationally consistent
    interagency program with clear criteria for determining appropriate
    sites eligible for applying recreation fees, additional on-the-ground
    improvements to visitor services at recreation sites across the nation,
    a new national pass for use across interagency Federal recreation sites
    and services, and more public involvement in the program. Unlike the
    Fee Demo Program, which provided broad authority to charge fees, the
    Act specifically limits fees to sites that have a certain level of
    development and meet specific criteria. The Act includes additional
    safeguards against unwarranted expansion of the program by creating
    Recreation Resource Advisory Committees in every state or region and
    providing other public participation opportunities.
        Implementation of a well-run and streamlined recreation fee program
    that maximizes benefits to the visiting public is a top priority for
    the Departments. On December 17, nine days after FLREA was signed into
    law, the interagency Recreation Fee Leadership Council (Fee Council)
    convened and approved an Implementation Plan. The Fee Council, whose
    members include officials of both Departments, was created in 2002 to
    facilitate coordination and consistency among agencies on recreation
    fee policies. Our Implementation Plan includes the creation of a
    Steering Committee to oversee day-to-day implementation, as well as
    several technical working groups for each of the key areas. The Fee
    Council created the following technical working groups:
      --National Pass Working Group
      --Fee Collection/Fee Expenditure Working Group
      --Public Participation/Recreation Resource Advisory Committees (RAC)
            Working Group
      --Communications Working Group
        The Implementation Plan sets forth preliminary implementation
    timelines by identifying short-term, medium-term, and long-term tasks
    and designates staff with the lead responsibility to accomplish those
    tasks. The working groups are drafting guidance, developing detailed
    action plans, and discussing key issues to ensure compliance with the
    new law. One of the short-term tasks of the Fee Collection/Fee
    Expenditure Working Group is to ensure that all sites that charge
    recreation fees conform to the infrastructure and other requirements of
    the new law. Although this review continues, the following are examples
    of sites that have already made changes to their fees under FLREA:
      --Gavin's Point National Fish Hatchery (FWS) no longer charges an
            entrance fee.
      --Arapaho National Recreation Area (Forest Service) no longer charges
            an entrance fee for the entire area, but may charge a standard
            amenity recreation fee at localized developed sites.
      --At Imperial Sand Dunes (BLM), recreation fees for two overlooks and
            a trailhead were eliminated.
      --Quake Lake Visitor Center and Lewis and Clark Visitor Center
            (Forest Service) no longer charge for children under 16 years
            of age.
        Implementation efforts that will require longer timeframes to
    implement include establishment of RACs and the implementation of the
    America the Beautiful Pass. Successful implementation requires that we
    provide opportunity for public input. The RAC Working Group will need
    to closely coordinate on the nominations process with states, counties,
    and the numerous recreational, tourism, and other groups interested in
    serving on the RACs.
        A number of factors have led us to set a target date of 2007 for
    the America the Beautiful Pass, such as an interest in conducting
    ``listening sessions'' to provide public input on the pass, conducting
    marketing surveys, and developing a process for fulfillment and
    marketing proposals. We also are taking into consideration the long
    lead time needed for certain aspects of the pass, such as the image
    competition. We believe the America the Beautiful Pass has tremendous
    potential to provide visitors with a seamless visitor experience, allow
    interesting and creative partnerships with communities on visitor
    facilities and services, and educate visitors about the tremendous
    recreational opportunities on our Federal lands.
        We look forward to working with any interested parties and Congress
    as we move forward to implement this very important program.
        Question. Beyond the requirements of the law, what other steps are
    you taking to ensure that the Department doesn't overreach in charging
    fees, and that the fee money itself is spent in the most beneficial and
    appropriate way?
        Answer. The Departments view the passage of FLREA as the beginning
    of an important opportunity to create a sensible, visitor friendly,
    efficient recreation fee program. FLREA creates a dynamic program that
    we intend to implement in a way which will respond to lessons learned
    and build on success stories.
        We want to ensure that fees only are charged where enhanced visitor
    facilities or services are provided and that a majority of the fees are
    reinvested into visitor facilities and services at the site. Toward
    this end, we not only are implementing the explicit safeguards against
    unwarranted expansion found in FLREA, but also are developing guidance
    and processes that take into account specific agency and site
    differences. The agencies are working together to draft specific
    guidance, develop detailed action plans, including timelines, and
    discuss key issues.
        One of the short-term tasks of the Fee Collection/Fee Expenditure
    Working Group is to develop guidance on where fees may be charged and
    spent to enhance the visitor experience. Such guidance should work in
    concert with existing systems in the agencies that identify priorities
    and needs. For example, NPS has put in place a facility management
    system that ``grades'' facilities and other assets based on a facility
    condition index (FCI). Similarly, BLM is implementing the Facility
    Asset Management System (FAMS) to plan and track facility-specific
    maintenance needs and costs, to prioritize and monitor maintenance
    activities, and to prevent a recurrence of maintenance backlogs.
        We also understand that the public participation provisions in
    FLREA are a key component to creating a visitor-friendly recreation fee
    program. The Public Participation/RAC working group is developing
    detailed guidance to ensure the public is provided with opportunities
    to participate. In developing the RACs, we will closely coordinate on
    the nominations process with states, counties, and the numerous
    recreational, tourism, and other groups interested in serving on the
    RACs.
        We have begun providing opportunities to participate during the
    implementation phase of FLREA. In addition to responding to a number of
    specific inquiries on implementation, the National Pass Working group
    has hosted two ``listening sessions'' to provide the public and members
    of the recreation community with an opportunity to share ideas about
    the implementation of the America the Beautiful Pass. We anticipate
    keeping the public informed and seeking input on the implementation
    process through additional stakeholder meetings, Congressional
    briefings, and web postings.
                                relocation costs
        Question. I note from the budget justifications that you are more
    tightly managing various ``contingency accounts''. The National Park
    Service notes that relocation costs accounted for 25 percent of its
    contingency account expenditures in fiscal year 2004, for a total of
    close to $5 million. This is a significant amount.
        Has the Service or the Department recently reviewed its policies
    and procedures with an eye toward reducing relocation costs?
        Answer. Each year the National Park Service's Accounting Operations
    Center prepares an Agency Relocation Cost and Management Data analysis
    that is submitted through the Department to the Office of Management
    and Budget (OMB).
        The Department has undertaken a review of current relocation
    policies and practices with an eye to improving effectiveness and
    efficiency. Thus far we have examined the current practices, policies
    and costs, and are considering policy changes to the relocation service
    contract: the time allowed employees to conduct house hunting, the
    duration of temporary quarters, and the duration allowed for household
    goods storage.
        Question. If not, why not? If so, what changes have been made and
    what results have those changes had?
        Answer. The National Park Service complies with the relocation
    policies in Chapter 302 of GSA's Federal Travel Regulations. The costs
    of relocation have been rising in recent years, especially with respect
    to the ``homesale program'' and ``temporary quarters''. Home values in
    major metropolitan areas have appreciated by as much as 300 to 400
    percent in the last few years, increasing NPS costs for the homesale
    program. Large portions of the relocation program are fixed as a
    percentage of the value of the house.
        NPS managers pay the relocation costs of employees when they
    successfully compete for a park position in another location. In many
    cases, parks are limited in being able to fill positions in cases when
    the best (or only) candidate is too expensive to relocate.
        The NPS, in conjunction with GSA policy, offers an incentive to
    employees to sell their own home, thus decreasing the expense to the
    agency. Employees who sell their own home receive an incentive that is
    the lesser of 5 percent of the value of their home or the difference
    between the appraised and amended value of the home. This typically
    results in expenses to NPS that are between 4 and 9 percent less than
    if a contractor sells the home. With regard to covering temporary
    quarters and subsistence expenses, the NPS encourages employees to make
    advance house-hunting trips, enabling the NPS to limit the length of
    time employees reside in temporary quarters to 30 days. The Department
    plans to pursue its examination of options to reduce costs through the
    changes to relocation policies and practices.
                        safecom and disaster management
        Question. Last year this subcommittee prohibited the Department
    from transferring funds to implement the government-wide SAFECOM and
    Disaster Management programs, though we did not prohibit you from
    participating in these initiatives.
        What has been your involvement to date in these initiatives? Has
    your inability to contribute funding hampered your participation from a
    Departmental point of view?
        Answer. The Department has significant involvement in SAFECOM. This
    includes participation in the subcommittees, drafting and recommending
    standards and participation in the advisory committee. Several
    headquarters and field staff have also attended SAFECOM sponsored event
    such as the Federal Partnership for Interoperable Communications. The
    inability to provide funding to SAFECOM has not hampered Departmental
    participation in SAFECOM.
        For Disaster Management, the Department has initiated actions to
    provide emergency alert and notification messages in the Common
    Alerting Protocol (CAP) format, an open, non-proprietary standard data
    interchange format adopted by Disaster Management. Information to the
    public will be made available via the internet, and messages intended
    for other governmental users will be provided via the Disaster
    Management Interoperability Services (DMIS) system. The United States
    Geological Survey will implement CAP messaging during 2005 for
    earthquake notifications and for landslide and volcano advisories.
    Working with the Bureau of Land Management and the wildland fire
    community, CAP messages will be generated for a limited geographic area
    during 2005, with the intent of expanding coverage in 2006 as business
    rules for such warnings are addressed. Coordination will also begin
    with the Forest Service. The inability to provide funding to Disaster
    Management has not hampered Departmental participation in Disaster
    Management.
        Question. Please provide for the record a summary of all SAFECOM
    and Disaster Management funding requested in the fiscal year 2006
    budget for the Department, as well as a summary of total expenditures
    government-wide, by agency.
        Answer. The Department's 2006 request includes a total of $1.55
    million for SAFECOM and $680,000 for Disaster Management. Government-
    wide 2006 spending as reported in OMB's report for Information
    Technology spending for SAFECOM totals $22.8 million and for Disaster
    Management totals $12.3 million.
                               fleet expenditures
        Question. The Department spends some $160 million to maintain a
    fleet of more than 31,000 vehicles. Last year you proposed to achieve
    significant savings from improved fleet management, with projected
    savings of $11 million in fiscal year 2005 and $3.7 million in fiscal
    year 2006.
        What progress have you made toward these goals to date? Is it going
    better or worse than expected?
        Answer. In 2004 the Department began a collaborative initiative to
    improve fleet management, developed a strategic plan, and began to
    implement recommendations from a review of the program conducted by the
    Office of Inspector General. The initiative focuses on economic-based
    strategies, including implementation of life-cycle replacement
    schedules, disposal of underutilized vehicles, disposal of vehicles
    that have surpassed their lifecycle, use of fleet performance measures,
    energy-saving practices including an expanded use of alternate-fueled
    vehicles, and expanded leasing. The Department-wide strategy for
    improved fleet management includes migrating fleet management programs
    to a more standardized operational model that promotes energy-saving
    technologies, the development of fleet composition baselines and multi-
    year plans, improved performance metrics that address efficiency and
    effectiveness, vehicle and motor pool sharing, and purchase and lease
    arrangements that consider seasonal workforces. The Department's
    improvement plan will realize cost savings of 2-5 percent of the total
    budget.
        Question. What obstacles have you encountered?
        Answer. The dispersed nature of the Department's programs and
    offices and the variability in the needs for vehicles make it a
    challenge to implement more consistent and cost-effective vehicle
    operations. For example, many of the Department's fleet need to be able
    to cover rough terrain and as a result are equipped with features such
    as four-wheel drive. These vehicles cannot regularly consume the most
    efficient fuels available, nor are they the most fuel efficient
    themselves. However, fleet managers are optimistic that further
    reductions in fuel consumption can be attained with the availability of
    hybrid sport utility vehicles and the expanded markets of ethanol and
    bio-diesel. In addition, because half of the USGS fleet is at least ten
    years old, efforts to reach certain fuel efficiency targets by that
    bureau have been prevented and it will take several years to implement
    a life cycle replacement program. There are also challenges related to
    getting favorable leasing arrangements that would allow parks and other
    field locations to maintain vehicles on a seasonal basis in lieu of
    more costly annual contracts.
                      cooperative ecosystem studies units
        Question. Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Units were developed as a
    cost-effective means of engaging university science and training
    capabilities regionally to achieve Federal agency goals.
        What has been the Department's experience with CESUs? Have they
    lived up to their promise?
        Answer. The Department's Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit (CESU)
    Network is organized into 17 regional CESUs. Five DOI bureaus are
    partners in the network: NPS and USGS are partners in all 17 CESUs; the
    Bureau of Land Management has joined 16 CESUs; and the Fish and
    Wildlife Service and Bureau of Reclamation have begun to participate
    actively, joining 6 and 5 CESU's respectively. The Department has over
    2,000 research, technical assistance, and education projects completed
    or underway with the over 180 CESU-affiliated universities and other
    partners. Many projects involve several Federal agencies working
    together. The reduced overhead rate, common cooperative agreement, and
    efficient administrative procedures have made the program cost-
    effective. The first 8 CESUs have gone through a careful review
    process, involving self-assessment, Federal managers review, and an
    independent review. CESUs have exceeded their initial promise, with all
    8 receiving very positive evaluations. There are now 13 Federal bureaus
    engaged as partners with the CESU network, evidence that the CESUs are
    considered useful and effective by a wide range of Federal bureaus both
    within and external to the Department of the Interior.
        Question. Concern has been expressed to me about universities
    bearing a disproportionate share of the costs of this partnership.
        Are any funds available to universities for the basic cost of
    hosting activities, providing technical assistance, providing training,
    etc.? Is there merit to providing some amount for each CESU for such
    purposes?
        Answer. When CESUs were established, each partner Federal bureau
    provided $10,000 toward a one-time start-up fund for the host
    university. With the reduced overhead rate of 17.5 percent agreed to by
    all universities, funds for hosting activities, technical assistance
    and training are very limited. While there may be merit in providing
    funds for universities that host CESUs for these purposes, such funding
    should remain directly linked to the individual research, technical
    assistance, or education projects entered into between the Federal
    bureaus and universities. Such funding provides substantial return on
    the investment for Federal agencies--providing for increased
    coordination, technical assistance, training, and other necessary CESU
    activities.
                             presidential inaugural
        Question. As is customary, the fiscal year 2005 budget for the
    National Park Service and the U.S. Park Police included funding for
    additional costs associated with the presidential inaugural.
        Can you provide for the record a breakdown of these costs? Has a
    full accounting of the NPS/USPP costs for the 2005 inaugural been
    completed? How did NPS/USPP incremental expenditures for the inaugural
    compare to the increases provided?
        Answer. The National Capital Region received an appropriation of
    $986,000 for the inaugural. Costs incurred by the region include
    planning, preparation and support of the celebration. Reported costs
    for the inaugural and the most recent estimates of post inaugural
    maintenance total $980,000:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Item                                Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Personnel Compensation.....................................     $524,759
    Communications.............................................        4,708
    Supplies/Materials.........................................      154,898
    Equipment..................................................       52,705
    Equipment Rentals..........................................       12,086
    Services...................................................      230,844
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Services of $230,844 includes $42,000 for turf restoration on the
    Mall, $27,329 for fencing, $8,390 for telephone and IT services, $3,125
    for removal of decorations from the National Christmas Tree, and
    $150,000 for lighting along Pennsylvania Avenue NHP. Costs include
    post-inaugural maintenance activities, including $50,000 for
    replacement and repair of press risers, $98,114 for gravel on the
    National Mall walkways, and $30,000 for paving along the sidewalks of
    Pennsylvania Avenue NHP. Expenditures and related estimates are
    consistent with the funds requested and provided in the fiscal year
    2005 appropriation.
        The U.S. Park Police received an appropriation of $986,000 for the
    fiscal year 2005 Presidential Inaugural celebration. To date, reported
    expenditures from this fund total $420,054:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Item                                Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    USPP Payroll...............................................     $223,325
    Travel.....................................................       16,853
    Equipment..................................................       33,702
    Other Services.............................................      146,174
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Other Services consist primarily of funds paid to law enforcement
    from neighboring counties. The final costs to the USPP are not expected
    to exceed the $986,000 appropriation. The USPP also received $165,000
    from the 55th Presidential Inaugural Committee specifically earmarked
    for the ``Celebration of Freedom'', and expended $144,283 for this
    event. The remainder of the $165,000 was returned to the Committee.
                           facility condition indices
        Question. As part of your effort to implement the President's
    Management Agenda, I note that the Department is using facility
    condition indices in several of its bureaus as a tool to help
    prioritize capital projects.
        What bureaus are currently using or developing facility condition
    indices?
        Answer. The Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation,
    U.S. Geological Survey, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National
    Park Service, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs are currently using
    facility condition indices (FCI) to varying degrees. Currently, all
    bureaus are conducting condition assessments in which constructed
    assets have been or will be assigned an FCI. FCIs for constructed
    assets will be reported to the Federal Real Property Profile required
    by Public Law 13327 Real Property Asset Management starting in the
    first quarter of fiscal year 2006.
        Question. To what degree are FCIs for individual facilities
    comparable across bureau lines?
        Answer. Constructed assets can be compared across bureau lines when
    that constructed asset has the similar function such as housing and
    visitor centers. Currently, FCIs for individual facilities are not
    compared across bureau lines. However, the Department of the Interior's
    Asset Management Partnership, as outlined in the DOI Asset Management
    Plan (AMP), will be exploring the use across different types of assets
    within the various bureaus. The FCI will be used with a fully developed
    DOI-wide asset priority index (API) that rates each existing or
    proposed owned and leased asset in the inventory at a specific field
    unit/site based on its importance in carrying out the DOI and bureau
    missions and achieving strategic goals. In the second quarter of fiscal
    year 2006, the Asset Management Partnership will provide Departmental
    policy on improving the condition of the asset portfolio and properly
    sustaining it over asset life cycle or component life cycle.
        Question. Would a BIA school with an FCI of .5 be in much the same
    condition as a National Park Service historic building with an FCI of
    .5?
        Answer. The various types of constructed assets will have their own
    numerical scales of what is good, fair, and poor. The Asset Management
    Partnership will be reviewing FCI use across different types of assets
    across the Department.
        Question. Are these measures currently useful in judging the
    condition of one bureau's assets against another, or primarily useful
    only for comparing assets within individual bureaus?
        Answer. Currently, these measures are only useful in comparing like
    assets within an individual bureau. As noted in the response to the
    previous question, the Asset Management Partnership will be reviewing
    FCI use across different types of assets across the Department.
                        arctic national wildlife refuge
        Question. Based on what you know from past and current legislative
    proposals, if mineral development within the Arctic National Wildlife
    Refuge were to be authorized this year as proposed in your budget:
        What would be required of the Department during fiscal year 2006?
    What would be the cost of those activities and what bureaus would
    likely perform them?
        Answer. In answering this question, the following assumptions are
    made:
      --The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is the lead agency for the
            leasing program (e.g., BLM will be responsible for preparation
            of the Environmental Impact Statement during the pre-lease
            phase);
      --Authorizing legislation would cover seismic exploration during the
            pre-lease phase; and
      --Authorizing legislation addresses compatibility with Refuge
            purposes.
        The following major functional tasks would be carried out prior to
    the first lease sale should Congress authorize energy development
    within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
        1. Development of preliminary leasing regulations.--After passage
    of authorizing legislation, and because there are currently no
    regulations in place for leasing in ANWR, the Department, through the
    BLM, would need to promulgate leasing regulations for the program. The
    specific content of the regulations would be contingent on the terms of
    the authorizing legislation. BLM has indicated that the regulations in
    place for leasing in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A)
    could serve as a template.
        The process of drafting regulations would probably run concurrently
    with the process of drafting an Environmental Impact Statement. BLM
    estimates that, assuming no unforeseen delays, the final regulations
    would be issued prior to the lease sale.
        2. Development of Environmental Impact Statement.--At the same time
    that the process of writing regulations begins, the BLM would begin the
    process of drafting the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for
    leasing activities. It is during the EIS process that any stipulations
    applicable to the leasing program would be developed. Like the leasing
    regulations, a template for stipulations exists from the NPR-A process,
    though BLM would also take into account any specific requirements of
    the ANWR authorizing legislation.
        The minimum timeline for an EIS, from initiation to Record of
    Decision (ROD), is estimated at 18 months. Lawsuits related to the EIS
    could further delay implementation of a leasing program in ANWR.
        3. Seismic Exploration.--Pre-lease seismic exploration, if carried
    out, would likely be done concurrently with development of the EIS.
        4. Post-ROD Final Preparations for Lease Sale.--Again, using the
    NPR-A experience as a template, the final preparations for the lease
    sale would likely include the preparation by BLM of a Coastal Zone
    Management Consistency Determination; State of Alaska DNR review and
    response to that determination; then publication in the Federal
    Register of the Notice of Sale 30 days prior to the actual lease sale.
    Note that the State's response to the consistency determination must be
    received prior to publication of the Notice of Sale.
        The minimum period of time estimated by BLM for this process, from
    the signing of the Record of Decision to the lease sale, is 120 days,
    broken down as follows:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Days
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    BLM Preparation of draft CZM--Consistency Determination......         30
    BLM Internal Review of draft.................................         10
    State DNR review and response to draft.......................         50
    Publish Notice of Sale in Federal Register...................    \1\ 30
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The Federal Register Notice requires a 45-60 day review period in
      the BLM Alaska State Office and the Washington Office prior to
      publication; this review would run concurrently with the first 90 days
      of these final preparations.

        The lease sale would take place 30 days after publication of the
    Notice of Sale.
        There are several places in this process where delays could result
    in a longer time period. For example, the State's review process for
    the consistency determination is actually 90 days, but the State
    normally agrees to shorten the review period to 50 days. Also, as noted
    above, the State's response to the consistency determination must be
    received prior to publication of the Notice of Sale.
        The Department has not yet estimated the specific cost of
    performing these activities but expects that funding would be
    reallocated from other program activities as necessary.
                              blackfoot challenge
        Question. The Blackfoot River watershed is an extraordinary place,
    and if you haven't been there, I invite you or Ms. Scarlett to join me
    there this summer. A great strength of the valley is its community of
    citizen stewards--led by the Blackfoot Challenge. The Blackfoot
    Challenge exemplifies the spirit of cooperative conservation that you,
    the President and I are working to encourage and support.
        I've been working hard to help the Blackfoot Challenge achieve its
    goal of conserving this remarkable place and the community that lives
    there. I've been pleased that the President requested funding to
    support this community-led initiative in both the fiscal year 2005 and
    2006 Forest Service budgets. I am concerned, however, that your
    Department has not been supporting this project, despite the
    participation of local BLM and FWS officials from the get go.
        Can you explain why your Department has not yet recognized the
    conservation opportunities that the local community, the Forest Service
    and the Congress have so clearly recognized? I am particularly
    concerned that the BLM, an agency whose mission I strongly support, has
    not been acting to support this project.
        Can you help me understand the gap between BLM's local support and
    the lack of support by the Washington office?
        Answer. The Blackfoot River Watershed Land and Water Conservation
    Fund LWCF project is part of a multi-phase land acquisition project. In
    order to implement the project, BLM is conducting appraisals, land use
    planning, and environmental clearances for the project. During fiscal
    year 2004, the Bureau carried over $2.9 million in funding appropriated
    for the project. The Phase I Acquisition was completed in February 2005
    with the acquisition of 2,500 acres. During fiscal year 2005, an
    additional $4.9 million was appropriated for the purchase of
    approximately 4,000 acres. The BLM will complete the appraisal on the
    Phase II Acquisition by the end of fiscal year 2005, and has completed
    the appraisal on the Phase III Acquisition.
        Question. Last fall FWS Director Steve Williams announced the start
    of planning for a conservation easement program to protect the working
    landscapes and natural resources of the Rocky Mountain Front. I hope
    this program will be a fine example of cooperative conservation by
    ranchers, conservationists and the Service.
        When do you expect this long delayed planning effort to be
    completed?
        Answer. The Front is a high-priority conservation area for the
    Service and its partners in the conservation community, including the
    State of Montana, the Boone and Crockett Club, and The Nature
    Conservancy, because it is the only remaining landscape in the
    Continental United States with a complete, intact and functional
    assemblage of large mammalian carnivores, including the grizzly bear,
    gray wolf, wolverine, and lynx.
        The Preliminary Project Proposal for the Program was approved by
    the Service's Mountain-Prairie Regional Office in April, 2002 and
    forwarded to Service Director Williams for approval. The Director
    approved the PPP in October, 2004. This approval provided the Service's
    Regional Office with the authority to proceed with detailed planning to
    consider the establishment of the easement program. Since October, the
    regional planning team has met with the Montana Congressional
    delegation, conservation and sportsmen's groups, Federal agencies,
    state, and local governments, tribes, and various local business
    interests. The team has also held three public scoping meetings at
    various locations near the project area.
        The Service has developed an Environmental Assessment, pursuant to
    the National Environmental Policy Act, to analyze the effects of
    establishing an easement program on the Front, and plans to issue a
    Finding of No Significant Impact as a result of the Environmental
    Assessment. These documents are currently under review for final
    approval by the leadership of the Service.
                       energy development--flag guidance
        Question. Your Department has been tasked with implementing a lot
    of President's Energy Plan. I applaud your aggressive efforts to
    encourage domestic energy production. At the same time, under your
    watch a Clinton-era guidance document--the so-called FLAG guidance--has
    continued to be used as a tool to frustrate the state permitting of
    critically important energy projects nationwide. In fact, Federal land
    managers with jurisdiction in my state tried to stop a much-needed
    facility using these guidelines.
        How do you justify having these internal guidelines--which were
    neither reviewed nor approved by the Congress--continue to frustrate
    energy development in the Nation?
        Answer. Under the Clean Air Act, the Congress gave the Federal Land
    Managers (FLMs) an affirmative responsibility to protect the visibility
    and other air quality related values of parks and wilderness areas
    (i.e., Class I areas) from the adverse impacts of air pollution. One
    process used to meet this responsibility is reviewing permit
    applications for new and modified sources that may impact Class I areas
    under our responsibility. Under the statute, FLMs have an important
    role in the permit review process. It consists of reviewing permit
    applications in order to gauge the impact of proposed construction of
    major new sources (or major modifications) on Class I areas that are
    under the jurisdiction of FLMs, and providing comments and
    recommendations to the permitting authority (usually the State) on
    whether or not the applicant's facility could cause or contribute to an
    adverse impact on an air quality related value in the affected Class I
    area. The Federal Land Managers Air Quality Related Values Workgroup
    (or FLAG guidance) was designed to provide guidance to permit
    applicants and permitting authorities in the form of recommendations,
    specific prescriptions, and interpretation of results for assessing
    visibility impacts of new sources near Class I areas.
        Both permit applicants and permitting authorities requested that
    the FLMs develop a consistent approach to reviewing permit applications
    and evaluating air pollution effects on sensitive resources. That is
    the primary reason why the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Forest Service, as the three Federal
    land managing agencies that administer the nation's Federal Class I
    areas, embarked on the FLAG initiative. Prior to FLAG, the different
    FLMs, or even administrative units within a single agency, requested
    different types of information and analyses from permittees. That
    frustrated both permit applicants and permitting authorities. However,
    we recognize that a review of FLAG implementation and possible changes
    to ensure consistency, timely decisions, and conformance with statutory
    authorities is warranted. By providing consistent guidance among the
    FLMs regarding what type of information is needed, the FLAG guidelines
    were intended to provide more certainty to the permit review process,
    and help avoid unnecessary delays in obtaining a permit to construct
    such facilities.
        Question. Don't you think that these guidelines ought to be taken
    down, and that we should start this process over again the right way--
    with a notice-and-comment rulemaking?
        Answer. In its current form, FLAG is a guidance document that is
    not legally binding on permit applicants or permitting authorities.
    Nevertheless, although the FLMs followed public notice and comment
    procedures for FLAG that were similar to a rulemaking,\1\ the FLAG did
    not go through all the procedures necessary for an entity within the
    Department of the Interior to adopt a rule. Therefore, it does not
    constitute a rule. Accordingly, we are planning to initiate a process
    to determine whether FLAG or other guidance on this matter ought to be
    adopted formally in accordance with the DOI's rulemaking process and,
    if so, we would undertake such a process.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ For example, prior to releasing the FLAG, the FLMs announced
    their FLAG intentions in the Federal Register, provided a 90-day public
    comment period on the draft FLAG report, conducted a public meeting to
    hear oral comments, considered all comments and prepared a response to
    comments document, and made appropriate changes to the draft FLAG
    guidance based on public comments received.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In the absence of FLAG, the FLMs would still need to review permit
    applications using the same Clean Air Act provisions and Environmental
    Protection Agency regulations and polices that FLAG relies on. By
    making the FLAG guidance available to permit applicants (including
    those from the energy sector) and permitting authorities, it was hoped
    that it would be possible to avoid delays that might result from lack
    of understanding of the FLM role and information needs. Because we now
    have more than four years of experience with draft FLAG guidance, we
    believe that it is appropriate to review and improve on the processes
    by which the FLMs review and comment on new source permits.
                       national park service partnerships
        Question. This Committee has been working extensively with the
    Department to tighten management of NPS partnerships at all levels of
    the Service. We absolutely want to encourage partnerships where
    appropriate, but want to be certain that those partnerships fit with
    the Service's mission and are prioritized appropriately against non-
    partnership projects.
        One of the focal points of these discussions has been the proposed
    National Center for the American Revolution at Valley Forge NHP. I
    think we share a concern that the scope of this project be carefully
    considered in light of other NPS needs and future operational demands.
        Can you bring me up to date as to the status of this project within
    the Department? Can you describe the concerns you have about this
    project?
        Answer. The NPS continues to work extensively with the partner to
    develop a full understanding and compile the remaining analysis to
    determine when it is appropriate to request approval of this project by
    the House and Senate Congressional Appropriations Committees, as
    required. Issues to resolve include the size of the building,
    operational sustainability of the project, viability of the partnership
    and the amount of Federal investment, both capital and operations
    funding envisioned by the partner as necessary to help the project
    reach its operational revenue projections.
        Within the last year, the Service commissioned a ``Peer Review'' of
    the building design and operational plans for the new ARC. This study
    reviewed all of the development and operational assumptions used by the
    partner in scoping this facility. Specific review was done of expected
    attendance, physical planning guidelines, financial performance
    outlook, transportation analysis, visitor experience, visual assessment
    and operating and staffing recommendations. The Peer Review recommended
    a building scope that would achieve all project objectives, could still
    be considered sustainable and was ten percent smaller than the original
    project being recommended by the partner. As the result of this Peer
    Review, the project was reduced in size to meet the Peer Review
    recommendations.
        After this work was completed, the NPS, in partnership with ARC,
    agreed to complete the following analyses to fulfill the requirements
    under Director's Order 21 (DO21) and the new Partnership Construction
    Development Process:
      --A fundraising feasibility study to determine the readiness of the
            partner to raise the required funds, probable sources of
            contributions and length of time required to achieve stated
            fundraising goals. The feasibility study is due to begin on
            April 14, 2005. The standard timeframe for this process is 3-6
            months. If the study indicates that the funding target cannot
            be reached, the partners would be required to adjust the size
            of the project, as well as assumptions about operations of the
            building.
      --A fundraising plan that addresses roles and responsibilities,
            including goals; timetable; scope; potential donors;
            fundraising strategies and techniques to be used; promotional
            or marketing strategies; donor recognition guidelines; and
            fundraising experience of personnel assigned to carry out the
            plan. An earlier version of a fundraising plan submitted to the
            NPS was not based on a feasibility study and failed to comply
            with DO21.
      --An updated outline of an Operations Plan which will describe the
            general operations of the museum facility/collections center,
            including the nature and type of activities to be conducted,
            the respective roles of the parties, NPS rights for the use of
            the facilities, and the source and use of operating revenue.
            Operation of the facilities shall be in accordance with
            applicable Federal, State, and local regulations, public NPS
            standards generally applicable to such facilities, and other
            criteria described.
      --An Expected Budget that will explain the budget commitments of ARC
            and the expected budget implications for NPS. The budget
            presentation will be activity based and will be designed to
            clearly show the involvement of both partners and their
            respective areas of emphasis. The budget will address the
            financial impact the project could have on the park in best and
            worst case scenarios with respect to projected park visitation,
            staffing, maintenance, and other factors. The budget also
            communicates NPS's commitment that the project not diminish
            existing service levels at the park. The budget will be
            developed to ensure that the partners themselves can make
            future modifications and the model will remain useful in years
            to come. The budget will be presented in a format suitable for
            communication amongst the diverse government and private
            stakeholders in this project.
        The National Park Service will consider presenting the project to
    the House and Senate Congressional Appropriation Committees once this
    work is completed and reviewed by the Service and the Department.
        Question. Have the project partners made adjustments in their
    proposal in response to the concerns expressed by the Department, or in
    response to concerns expressed by Congress?
        Answer. In response to concerns and questions raised by the
    Service, Department, and Congress, adjustments have been made to the
    proposal and to the partnership. These adjustments include:
      --Reducing the size of the facility from 131,000 square feet to the
            current target of 90,000 square feet.
      --Compliance with the approved models for collections storage
            facilities and visitor centers (the museum will comprise a
            small orientation area, restrooms, book store, and food service
            area that fulfill visitor center functions).
      --Participation by the partner in a Fundraising Feasibility Study
            which will determine the likelihood of such a fundraising
            venture being successful.
      --Agreement by the partner not to seek funding from Congress for the
            project.
      --Compliance with the Service's Director's Order 21 and the
            Appropriation Committee's requirement that the NPS seek
            approval from Congress.
        The Service and the Department fully expect that the partner will
    comply with any recommendations resulting from the Fundraising
    Feasibility Study once completed or the project will not be moved
    forward.
        u.s. geological survey (usgs)--landsat satellite mission/funding
        Question. The fiscal year 2006 budget includes a $12 million
    request to support the current Landsat 7 satellite mission and $7.5
    million to begin system development for the follow-on mission scheduled
    for 2009.
        Give us a brief update on the status of Landsat 7. Has a solution
    been found to correct the degraded data that is sent from the
    satellite? If not, how valuable is the data now being archived? How
    significantly has demand for these products diminished?
        Answer. Although the imaging equipment onboard the spacecraft
    cannot be repaired and is still impacting the images being acquired,
    the Landsat 7 images collected after May of 2003 are still very useful,
    as demonstrated by the uses of the data to map the devastation that
    resulted from the recent Indian Ocean tsunami. The USGS has developed
    several new products since the anomaly. Users can currently order (1)
    pre-anomaly scenes (prior to the equipment failure), (2) post-anomaly
    scenes, those containing scan line gaps (non-gap filled), and (3) three
    variations of gap-filled products where the gaps are filled by
    interpolation using data from the edges of the gap, data previously
    collected (1 to 1\1/2\ years old) or, data from a scene collected 16
    days previously. In October 2003, the USGS began selling the non-gap
    filled scenes and in May 2004 introduced the first of the gap-filled
    products. Based on input from the user community, the USGS expects
    these new products to appeal to users that have heretofore not
    purchased the post-anomaly products. Although it is taking time for the
    community to realize that Landsat 7 continues to collect seasonal,
    global data sets that can still provide accurate land-cover and land-
    use records, currently post anomaly and gap-filled products account for
    40 percent of Landsat 7 data sales. In fiscal year 2005 the USGS
    expects to distribute over 6,000 Landsat 7 scenes, which is less than
    half of the scenes that were distributed per year prior to the anomaly.
    From fiscal year 2005 and forward the USGS expects income from data
    sales to stabilize at approximately $3.3 million per year and fees from
    International Cooperators at approximately $1.5 million.
        Question. Describe in greater detail the Landsat Data Continuity
    Mission. What is the full cost of developing systems and other
    requirements that will be needed to accommodate data from the 2009
    satellite launch?
        Answer. In December 2003, a White House-chartered interagency
    working group concluded that the best solution for Landsat data
    continuity was to host a Landsat instrument on two of the planned
    National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System
    (NPOESS) weather satellites. The mission, renamed from the Landsat Data
    Continuity Mission to Landsat on NPOESS, will be the follow-on to the
    Landsat 7 mission. Landsat on NPOESS is intended to ensure the
    continued acquisition and availability of Landsat-quality data in order
    to provide policymakers, researchers and the public with long-term
    global monitoring of the terrestrial environment.
        NPOESS will converge existing military and civilian polar-orbiting
    weather satellite systems under a single national program. Polar-
    orbiting satellites are able to monitor almost the entire landmass of
    the planet. NPOESS is managed by a tri-agency Integrated Program Office
    (IPO) using personnel from the Department of Commerce, Department of
    Defense, and NASA.
        NPOESS requires remote sensing data from three orbital planes to
    accomplish its mission. Each plane is identified by its longitude of
    ascending node (LTAN), or 13:30, 17:30, and 21:30. The NPOESS program
    will launch 6 (two in each LTAN) satellites over a 10-15 year period.
    Both of the 17:30 spacecraft will host an Operational Land Imager (OLI)
    that will employ a solid-state sensor and collect data in one
    panchromatic and eight multispectral bands (see Table 1) over the
    entire Earth's land surface (85 North latitude to 85  South
    latitude).
        The USGS expects this successor to the Landsat 7 Enhanced Thematic
    Mapper Plus (ETM+) sensor to be operational on board NOAA's NPOESS by
    early calendar year 2010. While the OLI uses different sensor
    technology than the previous Landsat satellites, its spectral bands,
    combined with a rigorous calibration, will ensure continuity with
    millions of Landsat scenes collected and archived by the USGS over the
    past 34+ years.

                                 TABLE 1.--SPECTRAL BANDS TO BE ACQUIRED BY THE OLI SENSOR ONBOARD TWO OF THE NPOESS SATELLITES
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Band                       Band type                     Scientific applications                        Heritage            Resolution m
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1.................................  Coastal Aerosol......  Useful in water studies..........................  ALI/MODIS................  30
    2.................................  Blue.................  Useful for water body penetration (bathymetric     ETM+ Band 1..............  30
                                                                mapping), distinguishing soil from vegetation,
                                                                and forest type mapping.
    3.................................  Green................  Useful to measure green reflectance peak in        ETM+ Band 2..............  30
                                                                vegetation.
    4.................................  Red..................  Useful to help discriminate vegetation types.....  ETM+ Band 3..............  30
    5.................................  Near IR..............  Useful for differentiating vegetation types,       ETM+ Band 4/ALI..........  30
                                                                biomass content and water/land interfaces.
    6.................................  Shortwave IR 1.......  Useful for looking at moisture content of soil     ETM+ Band 5..............  30
                                                                and vegetation.
    7.................................  Shortwave IR 2.......  Useful for discriminating mineral and rock types.  ETM+ Band 7..............  30
    8.................................  Panchromatic.........  Useful as a sharpening band......................  ETM+ Pan Band/ALI........  15
    9.................................  Cirrus...............  Useful for cirrus clouds and aerosols............  MODIS....................  30
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The USGS costs for participating in the Landsat on NPOESS mission
    are provided in the table below. The costs are shown from fiscal year
    2005 to fiscal year 2023 and include both development and operations
    costs.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Fiscal year
                                               ------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  2005      2006                                             BTC \2\
                                                 enacted   budget   2007 \1\    2008      2009      2010
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    USGS......................................      0.75      8.20     24.15     20.24     19.14  \3\ 22.8    299.00
                                                                                                      5
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Outyear numbers are based on current program estimates and subject to change.
    \2\ BTC=Budget to Complete--includes estimates through the lifetime of the second Landsat on NPOESS mission.
      (fiscal year 2023)
    \3\ Fiscal year 2009 through BTC for USGS are total cost estimates only. It is expected that fees from data
      sales will offset a part of this cost.

           u.s. geological survey (usgs)--tsunami-related activities
        Question. In the aftermath of the 9.0 earthquake and resulting
    tsunami this past December, Congress is now considering a supplemental
    appropriations bill that includes a request of $8.1 million for USGS.
    These funds will enable the Survey to procure and install additional
    seismic monitoring stations and also enhance the existing seismic
    monitoring network. The fiscal year 2006 budget request includes a
    proposal for an additional $5.4 million to continue work initiated with
    supplemental funding, as well as to provide maintenance and staffing of
    new and enhanced systems.
        To what extent will the Survey's earthquake detection and warning
    systems be improved by these investments?
        Answer. The funding requested by the Administration for fiscal year
    2005 and fiscal year 2006 will permit the USGS to accelerate and
    complete several key improvements and upgrades to its National
    Earthquake Information Center (NEIC), to the Global Seismographic
    Network (GSN), and to key earthquake response products. Prior to
    December's tsunami, USGS had begun a slow process of upgrading its 20-
    year-old legacy system for real-time earthquake detection and
    notification. The additional support will allow the NEIC to complete
    development and deployment of its new software system, Hydra, which
    enables more rapid earthquake detection and notification in
    tsunamagenic source areas that border the United States and its
    territories. Moreover, these enhancements are necessary to ensure
    reliable operations, performance, and long-term operational cost
    efficiencies.
        The USGS' new Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response
    (PAGER) system uses information about an earthquake's source (e.g.,
    ground shaking, rupture length, depth), combined with information
    regarding population and infrastructure in the affected region, to
    estimate potential impact (both damage and loss of life) of a major
    ground shaking event. PAGER is ideal for both domestic and
    international earthquakes in areas where a dense seismic network is not
    available, but where a rapid assessment is critical for estimating
    impact. Funding for PAGER will provide for additional research
    scientists, technical support, and computer programmers needed to fully
    implement the PAGER program. The outcome of this investment will be
    improved algorithms for Global ShakeMaps, finite fault modeling, rapid
    aftershock identification and association, and loss estimation. PAGER
    will also allow for integration and evaluation of impact of secondary
    hazards such as liquefaction, landslides, and tsunamis.
        The NEIC requires a full-time, 24x7 staff of seismologists to
    quickly respond to potentially damaging events and ensure data
    throughput to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    (NOAA) tsunami warning centers. NEIC also requires a commensurate level
    of commitment to oversee the computer and network operations to ensure
    continuity of operations 24x7 (currently a small group of research
    scientists volunteer on an ad hoc basis to respond when computer
    systems fail in the off hours). With the requested support, NEIC will
    decrease reporting time for global earthquakes (currently over one
    hour) and reliably deliver a complete suite of earthquake products,
    including PAGER, within 20 minutes or less.
        The Global Seismographic Network (GSN) is a critical source of
    seismic data for earthquake detection and tsunami warnings. The GSN is
    jointly supported by USGS and the National Science Foundation, with
    USGS responsible for operations and maintenance of approximately two-
    thirds of the network. Improved telemetry connections are needed so
    that all GSN stations provide data in real time. Other noted
    improvements include more frequent maintenance for enhanced uptime and
    expanded field recording. With the enhanced funding, telemetry upgrades
    will be made system-wide to improve the timeliness and accuracy of
    earthquake analyses for rapid response. In the Caribbean, where there
    is an earthquake and tsunami threat to U.S. territories, additional
    GSN-quality stations will be installed to adequately monitor the
    earthquake activity and provide rapid reports to response officials.
    The outcome of this investment will be a state of the art, real time
    earthquake detection and notification system that is both timely and
    robust and enables delivery of a suite of value-added earthquake
    information products that emergency managers want.
        Software developed through the California Integrated Seismic
    Network (a USGS, university, and State partnership) to speed USGS-
    generated earthquake information directly to local emergency managers
    has a dual-use capability to also provide NOAA tsunami warnings. This
    system, designed to provide a mechanism for instantaneous transmission
    of seismic information, complements existing NOAA delivery mechanisms.
    Investment in this area will allow emergency managers to respond to
    earthquakes as well as tsunamis.
        Question. How much of an additional investment would be required to
    optimize the system?
        Answer. With the funding requested in the 2005 Emergency
    Supplemental Appropriations Act and the 2006 President's budget
    request, we are on our way to having an optimized tsunami warning
    system. The requested funding will provide software development with
    the National Earthquake Information Center, enhanced operations and
    maintenance of the NEIC including it's continuous operation 24 hours a
    day, 7 days a week, full implementation of the Prompt Assessment of
    Global Earthquakes for Response system to estimate potential impact of
    major ground shaking event, improved tsunami warning distribution, and
    improved global seismic monitoring and rapid information delivery. The
    increased funding will also allow for the collection and assessment of
    the geological and geospatial information necessary to improve regional
    assessments of coastal areas for potential damage from a tsunami
    hazard. The supplemental incluedes $8.1 million for these activities
    and the 2006 budget request includes an additional $5.4 million for
    these activities. Funding in the outyears is expected to be level with
    the 2006 request.
        Question. How is GS contributing to the global effort to improve
    coordination of early warning systems and the communication of critical
    data?
        Answer. The USGS Director is providing leadership toward the
    development of the Global Earth Observations System of Systems (GEOSS),
    an international effort to develop a comprehensive, sustained, and
    integrated Earth observation system. The implementation plan for GEOSS
    was adopted at the Third Earth Observation Summit held in Brussels,
    February 2005. In parallel, the United States has developed a Strategic
    Plan for the U.S. Integrated Earth Observation System, which, like the
    GEOSS plan, focuses around nine societal benefit areas, including
    ``Reduce loss of life and property from disasters'' and ``Protect and
    monitor our ocean resources.'' The USGS will work with its GEOSS
    partners and other international bodies (such as the UNESCO
    International Oceans Committee) to develop a global tsunami warning
    system.
        As part of the President's ``Disaster Management'' e-Government
    Initiative, one of 24 initiatives established by the President's
    Management Council, the initiative's Web site is linked to USGS
    disaster information Web sites to ensure that the most current USGS
    research results and data are available to organizations and citizens
    as part of the initiative's effort to make better use of information
    technology (IT) investments and to reduce government response time to
    citizens.
        In addition, the USGS is exploring the feasibility of earthquake
    early warning, in which rapid computer analysis and communication links
    are used to provide seconds of warning before earthquake waves arrive
    (much as is done for tsunami waves on a much longer time scale). Such
    warning systems are in place in Japan, Mexico, and Taiwan. The 2000
    reauthorization of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
    (NEHRP) called for development of a U.S. early warning system for
    earthquakes. The USGS would implement early warning as part of a fully
    implemented Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS). The USGS sponsors
    modest research and development in this area. The largest unmet need
    for early warning is station density. In addition, prototype software
    requires significant effort to become fully operational.
        Question. What lessons has GS learned that might be applied in our
    own country to better protect our citizens living in potentially
    hazardous areas?
        Answer. The tsunami disaster of December 26, 2004, has resulted in
    increased awareness of tsunami and earthquake risk in Alaska, Hawaii,
    California, the Pacific Northwest, the Caribbean, and even the eastern
    U.S. seaboard. Seismic monitoring systems need to be upgraded in these
    areas if they are to serve as sentinels for tsunami warning. USGS is
    strengthening regional seismic networks in California, Alaska, Oregon
    and Washington through the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS)
    modernization. In addition, USGS partners with National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) through the National Tsunami Hazard
    Mitigation Program to strengthen coastal seismic networks in those
    states and Hawaii. Moreover, it is clear that education and training
    are critical, both for public officials and emergency responders, and
    for the public at-large. In the Pacific Northwest, USGS scientists work
    together with state and local emergency managers in presentations to
    coastal communities on tsunami hazards. USGS has also developed
    publications for public awareness and maintains a popular Web site with
    information on tsunami and earthquake hazards. USGS recently partnered
    with the Cascadia Regional Earthquake Working Group to produce a
    scenario examining the impacts of a magnitude-9 earthquake off the
    coast of the Pacific Northwest. This document will help policymakers
    and the public understand and address the hazard. Even with networks
    and warning systems in place, if people do not know how best to respond
    to a warning (or a felt shaking of the ground), its value is greatly
    diminished.
              u.s. geological survey--minerals resources reduction
        Question. A $28.5 million reduction is proposed for minerals
    research and assessment activities. Programs to be discontinued include
    the collection of comprehensive basic geologic, geochemical,
    geophysical and mineral deposit data for the nation; the USGS-led
    internationally coordinated global mineral resource assessment to
    provide predictions of worldwide distribution of undiscovered deposits
    of critical metallic and nonmetallic mineral commodities; and the
    elimination of 20 mineral commodity reports a year.
        Does any other government entity have responsibility for the
    functions now being performed by the Minerals Resources program? If GS
    discontinues much of its work in this area, will there be a central
    organization to collect, interpret and disseminate this information to
    the public?
        Answer. This reduction was a difficult decision based on funding
    priorities and budget constraints. The Administration chose the
    Minerals Resources Program for reduction because the research is lower
    priority as compared to other USGS programs and because the expertise
    to continue this work exists with State geological surveys, and in
    universities. The Administration believes that if the work being
    eliminated is of high importance to private industry or States, they
    could pick up the work, in partnership agreements.
        Question. Why wouldn't the collection and distribution of this data
    be considered an inherently governmental function?
        Answer. Inherently governmental functions are usually classified as
    functions that are so intimately related to the public interest as to
    mandate performance by Government employees. These functions include
    those activities that require either the exercise of discretion in
    applying Government authority or the making of value judgments in
    making decisions for the Government. Governmental functions normally
    fall into two categories: (1) the act of governing, i.e., the
    discretionary exercise of Government authority, and (2) monetary
    transactions and entitlements. An inherently governmental function also
    involves, among other things, the interpretation and execution of the
    laws of the United States.
        In the case of the minerals resources program, the USGS is
    providing a service of collecting and distributing minerals assessment
    data. The Administration does not believe that this activity classifies
    as being inherently governmental and that this service can be performed
    by non-Federal entities.
        Question. Given the fact that competition for the importation of
    mineral resources is expected to increase significantly as emerging
    industrial nations such as China enter the world market, why wouldn't
    it be considered in our national interest to develop and maintain this
    data?
        Answer. There are many worthy programs that the Administration
    would like to support, but cannot support in the current budget
    climate. We believe that the expertise and interest exist outside the
    Federal government to develop and maintain this data.
        Question. The proposed program reduction in minerals resources
    would result in a reduction-in-force of approximately 240 currently
    occupied positions at an estimated cost of $30,000 per person--in other
    words, $7.2 million total. There is no provision for the payment of
    these costs, while at the same time a reduction of $1.7 million in
    savings resulting from office closures in locations throughout the
    country is assumed.
        How does the Department propose to cover the costs that GS will
    incur with this RIF? Some of the employees within the minerals
    resources program are under union contract; what impact would this have
    on the cost and implementation of a RIF?
        Answer. Reduction in Force costs will be covered within the USGS.
    Using a cost estimate of $30,000 per position abolished and a
    separation date of October 1, 2005, costs are estimated to be at least
    $7 million. USGS is revising this estimate and will provide a firmer
    estimate as soon as possible. USGS and the Department are looking at
    Voluntary Separation Incentive Program/Voluntary Early Retirement
    Authority (VSIP/VERA) options and the ability to place affected
    employees in other positions when possible to soften the impact of the
    RIF.
              minerals management service--royalty in kind program
        Question. In the last several years, the Minerals Management
    Service (MMS) has greatly expanded its use of the Royalty-In-Kind (RIK)
    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).
        When do you expect SPR to be filled up this year?
        Answer. As of January 2005, DOE anticipated the SPR reaching its
    700 million barrel capacity in July/August 2005. DOE will provide an
    update to MMS on the anticipated fill date in mid-May 2005.
        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. We anticipate that the royalty production committed to the
    current SPR program will convert to an RIK commercial program this
    fall, assuming continuation of favorable economic conditions and
    receipt of fair market value in the MMS RIK crude oil program.
        Question. In the fiscal year 2005 Interior appropriations bill, the
    Committee expanded the agency's RIK authority to allow the MMS to
    recover the direct costs for running the program from the proceeds of
    oil and gas taken in kind. This was designed to enhance your ability to
    use the RIK authority.
        Why has this authority been proposed for elimination in the fiscal
    year 2006 budget?
        Answer. Appropriations language as proposed in the fiscal year 2006
    President's Request is not inconsistent with the goals and objectives
    as outlined in the Five Year Royalty In Kind Business Plan that was
    issued in May 2004.
        Question. Would continuing this authority be useful in running the
    program at full capacity?
        Answer. No, this authority is unnecessary. The fiscal year 2006
    President's Request includes $9.8 million in funding for the Royalty In
    Kind Program. This level of funding provides the resources necessary to
    carry out the goals and objectives of the Program. In addition,
    discretionary funding for these activities will better ensure proper
    oversight and accountability in the program.
                office of surface mining--smcra reauthorization
        Question. As it did last year, the Office of Surface Mining budget
    includes a $58 million increase which is tied to the Administration's
    proposal to reauthorize the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
    (SMCRA). SMCRA expires on June 30, 2005, and with it the ability to
    collect additional fees.
        How would the administration's proposal on SMCRA alter the way the
    program is run currently?
        Answer. The Administration has not at this point submitted a
    reauthorization proposal to Congress. However, our budget request for
    fiscal year 2006 includes a grant increase of $58 million to support
    legislation that would accomplish the primary goals of the legislation
    from last year. These goals were:
      --A fee extension for a period sufficient to collect funds to address
            the current inventory of health and safety coal related
            problems.
      --Expedited payment of the current unappropriated balances to
            certified states and tribes.
      --Change in the allocation of future collections to focus more
            resources on reclamation of high priority coal related health
            and safety problems.
      --An overall request that fits within the mandatory and discretionary
            spending limits assumed in the President's budget.
        Question. Do you expect the authorizing committees to have acted on
    a bill by the time SMCRA expires?
        Answer. It is important to note that only the fee collection
    authority in SMCRA expires on June 30, 2005. All other aspects of the
    Act remain in force. We are working very closely with Congress to
    develop a mutually acceptable bill that does not polarize individual
    stakeholders. We have seen some progress in our efforts and are hopeful
    that we will see such a bill before June 30, 2005.
        Question. If there is a period of time during which SMCRA lapses,
    what will be the impacts on carrying out the AML program?
        Answer. Only the fee collection authority would expire on June 20,
    2005. In the short term, there would be no immediate impact, since we
    have an appropriation for fiscal year 2005, and there is an
    unappropriated balance in the AML fund ($1.668 billion as of September
    30, 2004). However, over the longer term, we estimate that at least $2
    billion worth of high priority coal-related health and safety problems
    will remain with no identified funding source to address them. This
    means that at least 2 million people living within one mile of such a
    hazard will remain at risk.
        Assuming approximately the same level of appropriations as in
    recent years:
      --Within two years, funds dedicated to states based upon need (i.e.,
            funds allocated under Section 402(g)(5)) would be exhausted.
      --Also within two years, funds in the Federal operating account
            described in Section 402(g)(3) will be exhausted. This
            allocation is used to fund federally managed reclamation in
            non-primacy states and tribes, state managed emergency
            reclamation, federally managed emergencies in non-primacy
            states and in those states that do not manage the emergency
            program, minimum program supplements, the Small Operator
            Assistance Program (SOAP), The Clean Streams Program Watershed
            Cooperative Agreements, and Federal operations.
      --Beginning in fiscal year 2008, funds would be distributed based on
            unappropriated state and tribal share balances, without
            consideration of need. Approximately 50 percent of these funds
            are for certified states and tribes that have certified that
            they have no remaining coal problems.
      --An unappropriated balance of $330 million will remain in the Rural
            Abandoned Mineland Program (RAMP) account, a program that has
            not been funded for nearly a decade.
        Should the fee expire on June 30, 2005, OSM will take immediate
    steps to protect the health and safety of citizens. While the Clean
    Streams Program, SOAP, and Watershed Cooperative agreements are all
    valuable programs, we consider them to be lower priority than the
    emergencies that are funded from the same allocation. Thus, we will
    provide no further funds for these programs after June 30. The funds
    saved will be redirected instead to partially fund another year of
    emergency work.
        It should be noted that the administration has proposed a rule
    pursuant to Section 402(b). This rule will allow us to collect a fee
    sufficient to make a deposit to the Combined Benefit Fund equal to the
    interest earned on the AML fund.
        minerals management service--hurricane impacts on oil production
        Question. The 2004 hurricane season was an unusually active one.
    Hurricanes Charley, Ivan and Frances caused extensive damage in Florida
    and in the Gulf of Mexico where most of the nation's offshore oil and
    gas production is located.
        What were the impacts from these storms on production output?
        Answer.
    Hurricane Ivan (9/11/2004-2/14/2005)
      --Of the approximately 4,000 structures and approximately 33,000
            miles of pipelines in the GOM, 150 platforms and 10,000 miles
            of pipelines were in the direct path of Hurricane Ivan.
      --Destroyed 7 platforms and caused significant damage to 24 other
            platforms.
      --Numerous pipelines were damaged, mostly by mudslides at the mouth
            of the Mississippi River.
      --Initially, industry evacuated over 545 platforms and shut-in
            approximately 1.4 million barrels of oil and approximately
            6,515 MMCF of gas production per day. The shut-in oil
            production was equivalent to approximately 83 percent of the
            approximately 1.7 million BOPD in the GOM production. The shut-
            in gas production was equivalent to approximately 53 percent of
            the approximately 12.3 BCFPD in the GOM.
      --Within 2 weeks on September 27, 2004, industry had only 31
            platforms evacuated and shut-in approximately 490,000 barrels
            of oil and approximately 2,350 MMCF of gas production per day.
      --On November 1, 2004, industry had only 9 platforms still evacuated
            (not counting 7 destroyed structures) and shut-in approximately
            224,000 barrels of oil and approximately 905 MMCF of gas
            production per day.
      --As of February 14, 2005, industry still had 9 platforms evacuated
            (not counting 7 destroyed structures) and shut-in approximately
            126,000 barrels of oil and approximately 147 MMCF of gas
            production per day.
      --Cumulative shut-in oil production for the period of 9/11/04-2/14/05
            was 43,841,245 bbls, the equivalent of 7.246 percent of the
            yearly production of oil in the GOM, which is approximately 605
            million barrels.
      --Cumulative shut-in gas production for the period of 9/11/04-2/14/05
            was 172.259 BCF, the equivalent of 3.871 percent of the yearly
            production of gas in the GOM, which is approximately 4.45 TCF.
    Hurricane Frances (9/3/2004-9/7/2004):
      --Cumulative shut-in oil production was approximately 62,000 barrels,
            the equivalent of 0.015 percent of the yearly production in the
            GOM which is approximately 605 million barrels.
      --Cumulative shut-in gas production was approximately 118 MMCF, the
            equivalent of 0.003 percent of the yearly production of gas in
            the GOM which is approximately 4.45 TCF.
    Tropical Storm Bonnie and Hurricane Charley (8/10/2004-8/13/2004):
      --Cumulative shut-in oil production was approximately 1.3 million
            barrels, the equivalent of 0.21 percent of the yearly
            production of oil in the GOM which is approximately 605 million
            barrels.
      --Cumulative shut-in gas production was approximately 4,100 MMCF, the
            equivalent of 0.0922 percent of the yearly production of gas in
            the GOM which is approximately 4.45 TCF.
        Question. Are we back at 100 percent capability?
        Answer. While technically not back at 100 percent, the production
    level has virtually returned to normal, and additional new platforms
    have added capacity and are now producing.
        Question. Have you included any necessary funding in the fiscal
    year 2006 budget request to ensure that MMS has the necessary resources
    to make sure we get back to full production capacity and maintain it in
    the Gulf?
        Answer. Yes. MMS is conducting engineering studies to examine the
    precise structural forces that were experienced by the platforms during
    Hurricane Ivan. MMS received $500,000 from Congress in fiscal year 2005
    to contract technical studies of the impacts of Hurricane Ivan.
    Competitive award proposals for these studies are being prepared and
    are close to being awarded. MMS has met on several occasions with
    industry to discuss the impacts of Hurricane Ivan on the platforms,
    pipelines and drilling rigs. Various committees have been established
    to review specific standards and technical issues. On July 26-28, 2005,
    MMS and industry will co-sponsor a workshop to further review the
    committee reports and review possible modification to industry and MMS
    standards and identify further research needs.
                fish and wildlife service--court order on wolves
        Question. A recent court order by the Federal district court in
    Portland, Oregon reversed the Fish and Wildlife Service's decision to
    ``downlist'' the gray wolf from ``endangered'' to ``threatened'' in the
    Western and Eastern United States. As you know, in Montana the state
    has worked hard on a plan for wolf management that will allow for
    landowners to deal with wolves that prey on livestock. The FWS approved
    that plan.
        Will the court's decision to classify wolves as endangered affect
    the ability to deal with wolves who are harassing and killing livestock
    in Montana?
        Answer. No. The Oregon ruling did vacate both the 2003
    reclassification to threatened status and the accompanying new
    regulations under section 4(d), which allowed for management of problem
    wolves due to its threatened status. However, section 10 of the ESA
    does provide other avenues for the management of listed species,
    including the ``take'' of individuals of endangered wildlife species.
    In Montana, we will use two different mechanisms, one for wolves in the
    northern part of the state, and one in the south. Wolves in southern
    Montana are part of a ``nonessential experimental population,'' a
    classification that allows for more active management than is usual for
    endangered species. In 2004, we promulgated a special rule (under
    section 10(j) of the ESA) for the experimental population area; this
    rule provides for management of depredating wolves, and was not
    affected by the Oregon court's ruling. Experimental populations under
    section 10(j) afford more regulatory flexibility for population
    reintroductions. In northern Montana, previous to the 2003 final rule,
    the Service implemented a 1999 interim wolf control plan through the
    Regional Director's section 10(a)(1)(a) permit. This permit provides
    for the control of depredating wolves, and will be used to manage
    wolves in northern Montana.
        Question. Is the Department of the Interior planning to appeal this
    ruling?
        Answer. The Department has asked the court to clarify the ruling.
    Until the court responds, the Department is considering all options,
    including appealing.
                fish and wildlife service--state wildlife grants
        Question. I see that the proposed budget request for fiscal year
    2006 includes an increase of $5 million for the state wildlife grant
    program. This program funds the development and implementation of state
    conservation plans. The deadline for each state to have its plan
    completed is October 1, 2005.
        Do you expect all the states to meet this deadline?
        Answer. Yes. The Service expects all 50 States and 6 territories to
    have plans completed by October 1, 2005. The Service has in place
    technical assistance teams to provide guidance and assistance to our
    State cooperators for their plans. The purpose of these teams is to
    ensure that the Service has provided all of the possible resources to
    our cooperators to allow them to successfully prepare their plans.
        Question. In working with the states are you pleased with the
    quality of the plans that they are developing?
        Answer. Yes. Judging from early drafts of the plans and from our
    interaction with the States in meetings and conferences, we are pleased
    with the quality of many of the plans. Good examples are North Carolina
    and Alaska that have both put out for public comment draft Plans that
    appear to be of very high quality.
        Question. One of the major reasons the sage grouse was not listed
    was that many states that had populations of sage grouse had
    conservation plans in place to manage for the protection of the grouse.
    Do you feel that having the conservation plans developed under the
    state wildlife grant program can prevent future listings by putting in
    place conservation strategies for other species?
        Answer. We hope that conservation efforts resulting from the State
    Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plans will make listing unnecessary
    for many species. We recognize, however, that some of the State plans
    may not address all of the taxa that can be listed under the Endangered
    Species Act (ESA) (e.g. insects and plants) due to differences in their
    various legislative authorities. We strongly support the development of
    the State Plans, as they are a crucial starting point for planning and
    implementing individual conservation efforts that can reduce or remove
    threats to species to the point that listing will not be necessary. It
    is important to note that the nature and timing of conservation efforts
    implemented under the State plans, rather than the plans themselves,
    will be a key factor in whether listing is unnecessary for a given
    species.
                     minerals management service--user fees
        Question. The budget request for MMS includes a number of new fees
    for services for which the agency currently does not charge. The fiscal
    year 2006 budget estimates that the agency will collect $13.5 million
    of these new fees. I understand that with oil at over $50 per barrel
    the big companies can probably afford a few new fees, but my concern is
    the small producer.
        Has the Department considered the impact of these new fees on
    smaller producers?
        Answer. The rulemaking process requires MMS to assess the impact of
    any proposals on small business. In addition, comments received through
    the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) and proposed rule
    process will be considered. Through the commenting process, MMS is
    expecting companies of all sizes to provide us information on how
    proposed fees will impact their business operations.
        Question. Could these new fees have an impact on the incentive for
    some operators to develop additional production capacity?
        Answer. These fees are too low to have a measurable impact on
    operator incentives. The proposed fees would be a tiny percentage of
    the estimated gross revenue realized by the operators on the OCS. The
    Department has published an ANPR in order to provide stakeholders an
    opportunity to comment on the fiscal year 2006 cost recovery proposal.
    Any comments regarding the impact of fees on small producers will be
    taken into consideration during the rulemaking process.
        Question. Would you consider waiving these new fees for smaller
    operators?
        Answer. The MMS will carefully consider public input during the
    rulemaking process and may reduce fees for small operators if
    warranted.
                    minerals management service--5-year plan
        Question. I understand that you will soon begin work on the next 5
    year plan as required by the OCS Lands Act. The 5 year plan specifies
    the size, timing, and location of areas to be leased for Federal
    offshore oil and natural gas. Currently, most of the offshore areas in
    the United States are under moratoria which prevent exploration and
    development.
        With oil at over $50 a barrel and the reliability of foreign
    sources more in question, does it make sense to continue to keep such
    vast areas off limits to oil and gas development?
        Answer. The Administration continues to support executive
    withdrawals through 2012.
        Question. During the development of the next 5 year plan will the
    Department have the legal authority to at least analyze the oil/gas
    potential of areas that are covered by the moratoria so that we know
    the extent of the production capacity that we are forgoing?
        Answer. The Department has the legal authority to assess resources
    anywhere on the OCS. In fact, it is done on a periodic cycle. The
    current information is from the 2000 National Assessment. The 2005
    National Assessment is being prepared with projected publication in
    2006.
            bureau of land management--wild horse and burro program
        Question. Secretary, as you know, we have grappled with the Wild
    Horse and Burro program for a number of years. Rapidly increasing costs
    and the inability of the adoption program to keep pace with the number
    of animals being taken off of Federal lands was crippling the Bureau.
    Last year as a result, I worked with my colleagues on both sides of the
    aisle to enact Sec. 142, which sets parameters to sell some of the
    animals.
        Some have argued that these horses will go to slaughter, but it has
    always been my belief that a very small percentage of animals sold, if
    any, would face this fate. It is my understanding that these sales have
    begun moving forward and the bulk of the animals have been sold to
    ``white-hat'' buyers looking to offer an alternative to the adoption
    program.
        Could you update us on the sale program and illustrate how the
    Department has attempted to ensure the horses are sold into acceptable
    circumstances.
        Answer. In carrying out sales, the BLM has focused its outreach
    efforts on horse advocacy groups, Tribes, humane organizations, and
    other groups and individuals that have shown a demonstrated interest in
    providing for the welfare of the animals. This approach is consistent
    with the 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, which declared
    these animals to be living symbols of the Western spirit. The Bureau
    has been highly successful in finding good homes for the horses and
    burros it has been selling; the agency, however, temporarily suspended
    sales and deliveries on April 25 in response to two incidents involving
    the commercial processing of horses that had been re-sold or traded
    after being bought from the BLM.
        The BLM has examined options for reinstating the sales program,
    while reducing the risk that recently purchased ``excess'' animals
    would be sold for commercial processing. BLM recognizes that any
    assurances for humane treatment and care must be obtained from
    purchasers prior to sale. After sale, animals are no longer afforded
    the protections of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act.
        The BLM will strengthen the language in the Bill of Sale, as
    follows:
        The Bill of Sale will be revised to create enforceable conditions.
    These additional provisions are intended to reduce both the potential
    and incentive for purchasers or subsequent owners to sell the animals
    for slaughter.
        Specifically, a notice and citation to 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 will
    be added to the Bill of Sale. Section 1001 provides that it is a crime
    to make a false representation in any statement in any matter within
    the jurisdiction of a Federal agency. This provision will read as
    follows: ``Purchaser may be subject to criminal penalties, if in this
    Bill of Sale he/she knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or
    covers up a material fact; makes any materially false, fictitious, or
    fraudulent statement or representation; or otherwise violates 18 U.S.C.
     1001.'' This provision could support a prosecution of the purchaser
    if it could be proven that at the time of sale the purchaser intended
    to send the animals to slaughter or made other false statements.
        The Bill of Sale will also be modified to include language that
    reads as follows: ``Purchaser agrees to provide humane care to the
    listed wild horses(s) and/or burro(s).'' This provision will replace
    the statement of intent in the existing Bill of Sale. This provision
    will be further strengthened by stating: ``Purchaser agrees not to
    knowingly sell or transfer ownership of any listed wild horse(s) and/or
    burro(s) to any person or organization with an intention to resell,
    trade, or give away the animals(s) for processing into commercial
    products. Prior to selling or transferring ownership, Purchaser agrees
    to verify that the subsequent purchaser does not intend to make these
    horses or burros available for commercial processing.''
        BLM is committed to ensuring that wild horses sold will be placed
    into appropriate homes. Individuals wanting to purchase horses are
    screened using the following qualifications to help determine their
    suitability for providing a good home for the adopted horse.
        Qualifications reviewed are:
      --Status or affiliation with group or organization or buying as an
            individual.
      --Number of animals requested.
      --Number of acres available for these animals, including the type of
            forage and kind of facility.
      --Individuals' experience with horses or livestock.
      --Experience with wild horses, including knowing their behavior.
      --Individual responsible for the care of the animals, buyer or
            another person.
      --Ownership of the land where the animals will be kept.
      --Financial ability to care for the animals.
      --Intended use for the animals.
      --BLM checks records for past compliance problems.
      --Also, all buyers are asked to promise not to sell to anyone who
            would sell the animals to a commercial processing plant.
        Question. What other reforms to the program is the Bureau
    examining?
        Answer. BLM is assessing the current program to determine if
    reforms need to be made. BLM is also working with other partners to
    ensure proper treatment of wildhorses and exploring methods of better
    managing the horses. Included are the following:
      --Assessment of the sale process to ensure BLM is in compliance with
            the direction of Congress to sell certain excess wild horses
            and burros.
      --Enhancing exposure of the wild horse and burro adoption program
            through national, regional, and local advertising campaigns.
      --Partnering with organization and groups to establish education
            opportunities about wild horse and burro habitat and the
            adoption program.
      --Testing a pilot project at adoptions by offering individuals that
            have adopted one animal a ``buddy'' animal at a reduced fee.
      --Closing one long-term holding contract.
      --Continuing to work with the National Wild Horse and Burro
            Foundation to increase efficiency in the adoption program.
            Examples include the California Volunteer Pilot Project and
            looking at the overall marketing of the wild horse.
      --Continuing to research and apply population level fertility
            control.
      --Continuing to research on population census techniques.
      --Exploring methods to increase adoption success by examining ways to
            gentle additional animals.
     bureau of land management--southern nevada public land management act
        Question. The Administration's proposal to take 70 percent of the
    proceeds from Southern Nevada Land sales is raising some eyebrows in
    this subcommittee, and my colleagues from Nevada have been fairly open
    with their opinions of the idea.
        Could you explain the Administration's rationale for reallocating
    70 percent of the funding from this program to the general treasury, as
    opposed to continuing to implement the program as currently enacted in
    law?
        Answer. The receipts generated from SNPLMA land sales have far
    exceeded what was anticipated when SNPLMA was enacted. As a result, the
    available funding has outpaced land acquisition needs, and many more
    projects than originally anticipated are being formulated without the
    accountability of further consideration by the Congress. The
    Administration's 2006 Program Assessment Rating Tool review of BLM's
    implementation of SNPLMA determined that these funds are increasingly
    being dedicated to local projects rather than Federal priorities only.
        The budget proposal would not change the amount of revenue
    currently provided to the State of Nevada General Education Program or
    to the Southern Nevada Water Authority, only the portion dedicated to
    Federal spending in Nevada. The sale revenues deposited in the special
    SNPLMA account, and thus available for Federal projects in Nevada,
    would be reduced from 85 percent to 15 percent. This proposal serves
    the general taxpaying public while still providing about four times the
    level of spending in Nevada as originally anticipated in 1998. With
    projected 2006 collections of $917 million approximately $292 million
    will be spent in Nevada, including $160 million for Federal projects
    and $132 million for State share. The remainder would be deposited in
    the General Fund of the Treasury to assist with deficit reduction and
    to ensure that Federal taxpayers benefit from the sale of these Federal
    assets.
        Question. In your deliberations on this issue, did you consider
    retaining a portion of these revenues for beneficial purposes beyond
    Nevada's borders, as opposed to simply shipping it to the Treasury?
        Answer. The Department of the Interior budget is but one piece of a
    much larger consolidated Federal Budget, in which anticipated revenues
    offset proposed spending. As such, the SNPLMA land sale receipts that
    will now be deposited in the General Fund of the Treasury do support
    the programs and projects of a multitude of Federal departments and
    agencies that will provide benefits both within and beyond Nevada, even
    though the nexus between these programs and the SNPLMA revenues is not
    readily transparent in the President's Budget documents.
          bureau of land management--sage brush/sage grass initiative
        Question. In your fiscal year 2006 budget request, you once again
    ask for a large increase in the BLM, in this case $3.6 million, for
    sage brush and sage grouse activities.
        Could you outline how the sage brush initiative is being
    implemented, and the success the Department has had, or expects to see
    in spending these sums of money?
        Answer. During 2006, the BLM will continue to focus on implementing
    actions outlined in both National and State-level BLM Sage-grouse
    Habitat Conservation Strategies. These strategies were developed in
    close cooperation with State-led sage-grouse conservation planning
    efforts and are designed to complement these conservation plans.
        The BLM is requesting additional funding for implementation of
    BLM's National Sage-grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy, which has
    been developed and is being implemented in cooperation with State-led
    sage-grouse conservation plans.
        The National Sage-grouse Strategy is the framework to address the
    conservation of sage-grouse and risk to sagebrush habitats on lands and
    activities administered by the BLM. The document identifies the
    resources and specific actions to be included in individual BLM State
    Office strategies and/or plans and outlines methods to address the risk
    to sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats at various scales. The Strategy
    provides for a comprehensive national approach, while providing for
    local solutions to address the range-wide variability and complexity of
    managing sage-grouse and sagebrush habitat. BLM's National Sage-grouse
    Strategy is designed to deliver a substantial Federal contribution to
    cooperative conservation efforts that are being led by state wildlife
    agencies throughout the range of greater sage-grouse in the West.
        BLM designed this National Sage-grouse Strategy around four main
    goals. Included with these four main goal areas are a series of
    specific strategies and actions that will support implementation of
    each goal. Each action identifies responsible offices and time-frames
    for completion. The four goals are:
        (1) Improve the effectiveness of the management framework for
    addressing conservation needs of sage-grouse on lands administered by
    the BLM.
        (2) Increase understanding of resource conditions in order to
    prioritize habitat maintenance and restoration.
        (3) Expand partnerships, available research and information that
    support effective management of sage-grouse habitat.
        (4) Ensure leadership and resources are adequate to continue
    ongoing conservation efforts and implement national and state-level
    sage-grouse habitat conservation strategies and/or plans.
        In 2006, the additional funding will be used to accelerate habitat
    inventory for sage-grouse and other sagebrush dependent species such as
    pygmy rabbits, another species of conservation concern in the sagebrush
    biome. To help identify and prioritize restoration needs, BLM plans on
    expanding inventories for noxious weeds, treating additional noxious
    weeds, completing additional vegetation treatments to benefit sage-
    grouse habitat quality, reduce degradation from expanding juniper
    woodlands into sage-grouse habitat, and increasing the acres of habitat
    monitored by approximately two million acres.
        Question. Do you feel the Department is making headway in saving
    habitat and this will result in preventing an endangered species
    listing?
        Answer. BLM's commitment to conserving sage-grouse and sagebrush
    habitat predates petitions to list the grouse, and accomplishing this
    through partnerships would be our approach regardless of the listing
    decision. The announcement in January by the Fish & Wildlife Service
    that the greater sage-grouse does not warrant listing under the
    Endangered Species Act specifically mentions the crucial role of
    cooperative efforts and local working groups. In commending cooperative
    efforts to maintain and improve sagebrush habitat, the FWS noted the
    importance of continuing to develop and implement conservation plans
    and strategies across the sage-grouse's range. The decision not to list
    the sage-grouse was never seen as the end to cooperation but seen as a
    new beginning.
        By identifying resources, management actions, and methods for
    assessing various risks to sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats, the
    Strategy brings together sound science, the BLM's three decades of
    experience in sagebrush management, and the successes we've already
    achieved with our partners. Through continued cooperation during the
    coming year and beyond, BLM hopes ensure conservation and recovery of
    sagebrush ecosystems resulting in healthy and productive landscapes
    across the West.
        Between 2000 and 2004 BLM treated almost 1 million acres of
    sagebrush to the benefit of sage-grouse. Surveys and monitoring are
    completed in coordination with State agencies and other partners to
    understand the health and trends of sage-grouse populations and
    habitat. BLM continues to work on regional-scale analyses throughout
    the range of sage-grouse.
        Question. Can you assure us that your outreach to states,
    communities and affected parties remains a top priority?
        Answer. BLM believes that the best solution for conserving sage-
    grouse is to continue cooperative efforts among Federal, state and
    local partners to preserve sagebrush habitat.
        Throughout the process of developing the National Strategy for
    Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation, BLM felt that the key to success was
    not prescriptive policies or top-down edicts--but rather, partnerships
    at the local level, where there is on-the-ground, up-to-the-minute
    knowledge, as well as a remarkable commitment to restoring and
    conserving sage-grouse.
        Cooperation with local partners is the platform for applying
    science, experience, and commitment to making a difference for sage-
    grouse and their habitat.
        The BLM is committed to this approach of working with partners at
    all levels to restore and conserve sagebrush habitats on the public
    lands and sees a no more effective way to bring about the sustained,
    broad-scale, multi-state, multi-jurisdictional action that is required
    to ensure habitat and species conservation now and long into the
    future.
               bureau of land management--range improvement fund
        Question. I noticed with concern the Administration's request to
    eliminate the Range Improvements Fund. As you know, this funding source
    is used for grassland management, riparian area repair and preventative
    maintenance and noxious weed control. The budget proposes shoe horning
    the $10 million in activity into already tight budget categories.
        In light of the Department's claims of addressing ongoing range
    degradation issues, and its call to spend additional money on range
    habitat for endangered species, could you explain the rationale behind
    eliminating the Range Improvement Fund?
        Answer. Part of the Administration's strategy for reducing the
    Federal deficit is to rein in mandatory spending, such as the Range
    Improvement Fund, and where possible and merited, to continue to
    perform this work with discretionary funding that can be adjusted from
    year to year based on changing needs and priorities.
        Question. Can you assure the subcommittee there would be no
    reduction in work performed if the account was eliminated?
        Answer. The BLM will continue to fund these range improvement
    projects in 2006, but will do so through its Deferred Maintenance
    program and Cooperative Conservation Initiative programs in the
    Management of Land and Resources account. Specifically, the budget
    estimates that $7 million in base Deferred Maintenance program funding
    and $3 million of the $6 million increase requested for CCI will be
    targeted to high priority range improvement projects.
        Other aspects of the 2006 BLM budget request also emphasize the
    importance of rangeland health and productivity. For the second year in
    a row, BLM is proposing a significant increase in funding to support an
    aggressive plan of sagebrush conservation and restoration. The 2006
    budget includes an increase of $7million, which builds on a $2.7
    million increase provided in 2005. Of the requested $7 million
    increase, $3.4 million will be matched by partner contributions under
    the Challenge Cost Share program. Maintaining and improving the health
    of the sagebrush habitat to ensure viable sage-grouse populations are
    critical to the continued multiple use management of these lands,
    including grazing.
        Invasive weeds also damage the health and productivity of
    rangelands. The 2006 BLM budget includes increases of at least $1.3
    million to address weed management on BLM-administered lands. Of this
    $1.3 million, $1 million is in the Challenge Cost Share program, and
    will therefore be leveraged with non-Interior funds to treat additional
    acres.
                bureau of land management--rural fire assistance
        Question. I must express my displeasure that the Department has
    proposed eliminating the Rural Fire Assistance program administered by
    the BLM. The budget justifies this cut by arguing that the Forest
    Service and FEMA have similar programs. I must point out that the
    Forest Service account for State and Local fire assistance was cut by
    $22 million, and the FEMA assistance to fire fighter's grant fund was
    cut $100 million from the enacted level.
        Can you explain the rationale for eliminating this program in light
    of what appears to have the making of another horrific fire year?
        Answer. The Department of Interior reviews its programs to ensure
    they are meeting stated goals and objectives, and carefully evaluates
    results to determine whether the program addresses the stated goals. A
    recent national study by the National Association of State Foresters
    found that the almost 14,000 fire departments surveyed were almost as
    likely to rank basic wildland firefighting training as high in priority
    as basic structural firefighting. Recognizing the importance of
    training to departments that support DOI fire suppression activities,
    the 2006 budget proposal shifts emphasis from providing funds to local
    fire departments for equipment and basic training to developing and
    delivering training to RFDs to strengthen initial attack and develop
    the extended attack capabilities of RFDs. Under the 2006 ready reserve
    budget proposal, which is funded with a $1.9 million increase in
    Preparedness, DOI will train 1,000-2,000 firefighters each year and
    equip them with personal protective equipment. This ready reserve will
    enhance long-term recruitment of RFDs, supplement the volunteer roster,
    and reduce risk to local communities by creating a resident, highly-
    trained wildland fire workforce. Communities will benefit by having
    skilled cadres of local firefighters available to reduce the loss of
    property and natural resources. More wildland fires will be contained
    at a smaller size, reducing the reliance on costly Federal and contract
    firefighters, thereby supporting fire suppression cost containment.
        The Department recognizes the risk of catastrophic fire to
    communities, particularly with record mountain snowpack lows in much of
    the West. The 2006 budget continues to emphasize the importance of
    hazardous fuels reduction with a $9.8 million increase over the 2005
    enacted level.
        Question. Can you explain the interaction the Department has had
    with FEMA and the Forest Service to ensure that the reductions in these
    programs will not hurt our preparedness for wildland fire place local
    firefighters at risk?
        Answer. The Department is currently in discussions with FEMA, the
    Forest Service and the National Association of State Foresters to
    rewrite an existing MOU to focus on providing information to FEMA on
    wildland firefighting needs and priorities, formalize DOI participation
    in peer review of FEMA awards, enhance website collaboration, and
    cooperate more closely conducting grant workshops. The various FEMA
    grant programs offer flexibility to meet both structural and wildland
    fire service needs. Through this collaboration, we expect small
    departments previously served by the RFA program to successfully
    compete for various FEMA grants. In addition, DOI is conducting grant-
    writing sessions to further enhance small RFDs' chances of success.
        The Department recognizes the constraints on the various Federal
    grant programs and appreciates the level of collaboration offered by
    our colleagues at FEMA. We look forward to both finalizing the MOU and
    increasing the portion of fire grants going to wildland firefighting in
    the future.
        Question. Finally, can you outline for us the overlap in these
    programs and illustrate that ongoing needs will be met, and these local
    entities will receive training and equipment specific to wildland fire
    needs?
        Answer. The RFA program is administered by all the DOI Wildland
    Fire Management bureaus and targets small communities with populations
    less than 10,000 near DOI-managed lands. Funds are used for the
    purchase of wildland fire equipment and tools, communication devices,
    wildland fire training, and community prevention and education
    activities. Grants must be matched with a 10 percent cash or in-kind
    contribution. The program supports RFDs that protect not only
    communities but also natural resources on DOI-managed lands.
        The Forest Service Volunteer Fire Assistance (VFA) program also
    targets small communities with populations less than 10,000. Funds may
    be used for the purchase of equipment, training programs, and
    assistance in organizing fire departments, and must be matched dollar-
    for-dollar. The program also supports protection of communities and
    resources from catastrophic wildland fire.
        The Forest Service State Fire Assistance (SFA) program benefits
    virtually all aspects of State Foresters' fire programs, from community
    wildfire planning and fire prevention to suppression and hazardous
    fuels treatments. State resources established and maintained with these
    funds are important resources that can be shared between States and
    with Federal land management agencies. Emphasis is currently on fire
    response planning and training in wildland fire suppression tactics and
    the Incident Command System used nationally for all emergency response
    actions, and will shift to a greater emphasis on community-based
    wildland fire mitigation. Funds must be matched dollar-for-dollar.
        The DHS-FEMA Office of State and Local Government Coordination and
    Preparedness (SLGCP) operates a one-stop shop for homeland security
    funding, which includes the Assistance to Firefighters Grant program
    (AFG) as well as other grant programs targeted to prepare the nation
    for acts of terrorism. The primary goal of AFG is to provide assistance
    to meet fire departments' and nonaffiliated EMS organizations'
    firefighting and emergency response needs. The program seeks to support
    organizations that lack the tools and resources necessary to protect
    the health and safety of the public and their emergency response
    personnel with respect to fire and all other hazards they face. Grants
    may be used for training, equipment, PPE, wellness and fitness,
    modifications to facilities, or acquiring firefighting vehicles and
    apparatus. Grants are matched on a sliding scale: 5 percent for
    populations served that are fewer than 20,000, 10 percent for
    populations between 20,000 and 50,000, and 20 percent for populations
    over 50,000.
        Departments that traditionally applied for RFA grants are eligible
    to apply for grants from both the Forest Service and FEMA. The grants
    may be used for the purchase of wildland fire training and PPE. DOI is
    conducting grant-writing sessions to further enhance RFDs' chances of
    success, as well as providing information about the other programs they
    may be eligible for. Finally, the 2006 budget recognizes the importance
    of our RFD partners with the $1.9 million ready reserve proposal that
    would offer both wildland firefighter training and personal protective
    equipment to 1,000-2,000 firefighters each year.
                    bureau of land management--construction
        Question. I notice that once again the administration has proposed
    reducing funding for BLM construction. We had increased the program to
    $11.5 million in last year's act, however, the proposal before us
    suggests $6.5 million meets the needs of the Bureau's 261 million
    acres. By my calculation, that is less than two and a half cents per
    acre for construction needs.
        Can you honestly testify before us that BLM's total construction
    need for 261 million acres is a total of $6.5 million?
        Answer. The BLM supports the President's budget and notes that the
    amount requested will continue to reduce the backlog of construction
    projects in the Five Year Plan. The funds will be used to construct
    those projects that are ranked the most critical for BLM's needs.
        Question. Can you provide a breakdown for the Committee of the
    construction accounts of all the Department's bureaus and agencies and
    compare the request level with the number of acres the agency oversees?
        Answer. The information follows:

                         [Dollars and acres in millions]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              2006 requested
                     Agency                    construction    No. of acres
                                                  funding       aministered
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    BLM.....................................            $6.5           262.0
    FWS.....................................            19.7            96.0
    NPS.....................................           324.3            88.0
    BIA.....................................           232.1        \1\ 56.0
    BOR.....................................           337.2            8.4
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Trust lands.

        It should be noted that no direct correlation exists between
    construction needs and the number of acres administered by the Bureaus.
    Constructions needs encompass a wide range of projects to protect,
    enhance, and manage Interior's resources, such as, irrigation
    facilities, visitor centers, recreation facilities and trails, and BIA
    schools, to name just a few.
                bureau of indian affairs--budget reorganization
        Question. Recently the BIA has proposed restructuring its budget
    structure to match program components that have been found in multiple
    areas. I have heard from tribes that are concerned that the new
    structure makes it harder to account for Tribal Priority Allocations
    (TPA)/and that it appears the line between regional offices and the
    headquarters office will blurred even further.
        Can you assure us that you will fully consult with the tribes prior
    to implementing any element of the new budget structure?
        Answer. The BIA has consulted with tribes regarding the Bureau's
    proposed restructured budget during regular meetings of the BIA/Tribal
    Budget Advisory Council. This consultation is expected to continue.
        Question. Can you report back to the subcommittee on the progress
    of these consultation sessions?
        Answer. The Tribes recognize that the restructured budget
    simplifies the justification of BIA programs and clearly ties programs
    to the Strategic Plan and performance measures.
             bureau of indian affairs--gao audit of bia irrigation
        Question. In November I requested GAO work with the BIA Irrigation
    program to examine ongoing management concerns, specifically related to
    repair and maintenance schedules. Unfortunately, most of our Indian
    irrigation infrastructure is in serious disrepair. This is a top
    priority for Montana.
        Can you assure us that the Department will work in good faith with
    the GAO to ensure all information necessary to complete this audit is
    provided as quickly as possible?
        Answer. The BIA central office, regional offices and agency
    irrigation project staff are providing GAO any information it requests
    in a prompt manner. GAO has visited the Rocky Mountain Region
    (Billings, MT) and the Crow Irrigation Project (Crow Agency, MT) as
    part of GAO's design phase. A sample of the documents BIA has submitted
    to GAO include irrigation deferred maintenance cost estimates, general
    irrigation project information and statistics, listings of BIA
    personnel involved in irrigation projects, and water users names.
        Question. Has the Department implemented any internal reforms to
    address the ongoing communication problems between headquarters and the
    regional irrigation offices?
        Answer. The BIA Central office personnel have made concerted
    efforts to work closer with the regions and project offices. The BIA
    central office is also sharing information, providing training on
    annual budget preparation and annual deferred maintenance, and
    developing project operating instructions.
     bureau of indian affairs--tribally controlled community colleges and
                          other educational facilities
        Question. I have continually voiced my strong support for the
    Tribally Controlled Community Colleges, and I continue to believe they
    have been a resounding success in helping our native communities.
    Despite the headway we have made in prior years, your request reduces
    funding for TCCCs by almost $10 million. Additionally, your budget
    request slashes Johnson O'Malley grants which provide assistance to
    public schools with Indian students, and you cut Education Construction
    by almost $90 million.
        With well over $100 million in cuts to Indian Education programs,
    can you explain the Administration's commitment to helping Native
    American children receive the training and tools to better their
    communities?
        Answer. One of BIA's strategic goals is to provide quality
    educational opportunities from early childhood through adulthood. The
    2006 BIA education budget represents a continued commitment to the
    future of American Indian youth and supports the President's commitment
    to ``leave no child behind.'' The $521.6 million request for elementary
    and secondary school operations will support 184 schools and
    dormitories serving over 47,000 Indian children. The $232 million
    request for school education construction will continue to replace,
    repair and maintain schools in the BIA system to provide Indian
    students a safe and nurturing place to learn. The $43 million request
    for Tribal Colleges and Universities operating grants will provide
    $3,500 per Indian student. When BIA funding is combined with grant
    funding from the Department of Education, TCUs will receive over 40
    percent more in revenue from those two Federal sources than an average
    community college receives per student from all sources. BIA funding
    also provides scholarship funding for Indian students to attend Indian
    or non-Indian schools. The total BIA education request of almost $800
    milllion is geared toward improving student performance and furthering
    the education of Indian children to enrich their lives and the future
    of their communities.
        Question. Tribal colleges have shown time and time again their
    value in educating tribal community leaders and providing students the
    ability to expand their economic options. Do you believe these programs
    are a waste of money?
        Answer. The education provided by tribal colleges and universities
    is important in multiple ways. Curriculum is designed to meet the needs
    of the local economies, respect the culture and mores of the sponsoring
    Tribe, and provide students ways to maximize their potential and
    fulfill educational dreams. TCUs serve Tribal members in remote areas,
    offer educational opportunities to the community at large and open
    students to the larger realm of education.
        Question. Why do Indian Education accounts take the bulk of the
    cuts in the Department of the Interior's request before Congress?
        Answer. The 2006 BIA budget requests almost $800 million for
    education programs for pre-kindergarten through college. Funding
    reflects the capability of Education programs to effectively and
    efficiently use resources to meet the goal of leaving no child left
    behind.
        During the President's first term, over $1.1 billion was invested
    in Indian School construction. This funded 27 replacement school
    projects and 28 major facilities improvement and repair projects. We
    are comfortable with this year's education construction program level
    because there are currently 25 replacement schools in the planning and
    design process or under construction. Eleven of these schools will be
    completed in 2005 and 2006. Funding at higher levels than requested for
    2006 would exceed our ability to prudently manage the construction
    program.
        The President's budget eliminates $5.2 million in the BIA budget
    for UTTC and CIT. However, the President requests $7.5 million funding
    in the Department of Education budget under the Tribally Controlled
    Postsecondary Vocational and Technical Institutions Grant program. The
    UTTC and CIT are the only institutions eligible for grants under this
    program. The Department also worked with the Department of Labor to
    ensure that tribal colleges benefit from the new community college
    assistance program. We are also looking for opportunities where UTTC
    and CIT may have a role in training BIA and OST employees.
        The President's budget reduces funding for Johnson O'Malley grants
    because it is duplicative of funding available to public schools in the
    Department of Education budget. The Dept. of Education budget includes
    over $150 million in funding specifically targeted to Indian students
    attending public schools. Public schools with Indian students also
    receive over $500 million, or about 55 percent, of impact aid funding
    from the Dept. of Education.
               bureau of indian affairs--detention center funding
        Question. I applaud the ongoing efforts of the Departments of
    Justice and Interior to increase their funding of Native American
    justice facilities. In my own state the detention facilities are in
    terrible disrepair.
        Your budget for Facilities Improvement and Repair includes the
    Blackfeet Detention Center as one of its 3 major projects for fiscal
    year 2006. I'm happy to see this, but must say the dedication to these
    types of facilities comes a bit late.
        Can you outline the Department's plan of action to address the sad
    state of our detention facilities?
        Answer. The BIA has developed a multi-level plan to address
    detention center issues in Indian Country. In an effort to improve
    oversight of detention centers, BIA has established the position of
    Associate Director of Corrections within the Office of Law Enforcement
    and Security, Supervisory Detention Specialists have been placed in
    each district, and a program analyst has been directed to monitor OLES
    funds. The 2006 BIA budget includes a $16.7 million increase in funding
    to: (1) staff, operate, and maintain detention facilities built with
    Department of Justice funding which will be certified for occupancy in
    2006, (2) outsource detention of inmates to local jurisdictions where
    BIA facilities do not comply with national standards, and (3) begin a
    comprehensive program to improve and repair detention facilities owned
    by the BIA.
        Question. Can we expect to see a cohesive plan from the Department
    that addresses the need to rebuild or repair these facilities
    throughout the West, and specifically in my state of Montana?
        Answer. The BIA has initiated a comprehensive plan to address the
    correction of deficiencies at all BIA owned or operated detention
    centers. The plan is being implemented under the Bureau's Public Safety
    and Justice Construction program.
        The action plan has been implemented in collaboration with Regional
    and Agency facilities staff and Office of Law Enforcement Services
    personnel. In fiscal year 2005, BIA initiated a validation of
    conditions reported in Facilities Management Information System (FMIS)
    at all detention centers. Using the updated information, the Bureau
    prioritized detention center Facilities Improvement and Repair (FI&R)
    projects under Public Safety and Justice Construction program based on
    reported health and safety needs.
        In fiscal year 2005, BIA FI&R projects at Havasupai Law Enforcement
    center (AZ) and Spokane Law Enforcement Center (WA) will address all
    life safety and building codes deficiencies to bring them in line with
    national detention center standards. BIA is currently evaluating the
    needs at Macy Law Enforcement Center (SD), Turtle Mountain Detention
    Center (ND), and Blackfeet Detention Center (MT) to determine the scope
    of projects necessary to bring these facilities up to national
    standards. Multiple smaller FI&R projects are currently underway at
    Bureau detention facilities to correct critical health and safety
    deficiencies. Projects include abating environmental hazards and
    remedying building code violations.
        At the proposed 2006 funding level, BIA expects to address and
    correct all deficiencies at BIA owned or operated detention center
    facilities by 2010.
               bureau of indian affairs--indian claims settlement
        Question. I notice the Claim Settlement account sees another fairly
    drastic reduction from the prior year level. It is my understanding
    that the amount requested fulfills the government's responsibility in
    fiscal year 2006.
        Can you confirm the budget request level fully funds government's
    responsibility for claims in fiscal year 2006?
        Answer. Yes, the fiscal year 2006 President's budget request for
    Indian Land and Water Claim Settlements and Miscellaneous Payments to
    Indians account fulfills the Government's responsibility for fiscal
    year 2006.
             bureau of indian affairs--tribal priority allocations
        Question. Recently the Supreme Court ruled that tribes have not
    been fully reimbursed for contract support on self-determination
    contracts they have entered into with the Indian Health Service and
    Bureau of Indian Affairs.
        Can you give us a short synopsis of the Supreme Court Decision and
    how it impacts the Department of the Interior?
        Answer. Because the Supreme Court emphasized that Indian Self-
    Determination and Education Assistance Act agreements are, in affect,
    procurement contracts, the Leavitt case has the potential to
    significantly impact the manner in which the DOI articulates it
    obligation to pay contract support costs in such agreements. The
    Department is still assessing what specific changes may be required in
    BIA contract administration as a result of this case.
        Question. How will past shortfalls be accounted for?
        Answer. The Department has not yet arrived at an opinion of how the
    decision will retroactively impact contract support cost obligations.
    The issue is currently under consideration. The Department will keep
    the committee informed on any developments on this matter.
        Question. What does the Court Decision mean for fiscal year 2006?
    Will the Department be sending up an budget amendment to cover their
    obligation for fiscal years 2005 and 2006?
        Answer. The issue is currently under consideration. As yet, the
    Administration is not proposing an amendment. The Department will keep
    the committee informed on any developments on this matter.
        office of the special trustee--historical accounting and cobell
                                   litigation
        Question. It is my understanding that the bulk of the $76 million
    increase in the Office of the Special Trustee is for additional
    Historical Trust Accounting activities.
        Can you confirm that the entire increase is for Historical
    accounting activity, and can you update us on the progress of this
    exercise as it relates to the Cobell litigation?
        Answer. The OST budget for 2006 includes $135 million for
    historical accounting, an increase of $77.8 million over 2005. The 2006
    budget of $135 million for the Office of Historical Trust Accounting
    provides an estimated $95 million for IIM accounting, an increase of
    $50 million above the 2005 level, and $40 million for tribal
    accounting, an increase of $27.8 million above the 2005 level.
        The Department is currently involved in a major class action
    lawsuit, Cobell v. Norton, and 24 lawsuits associated with the
    management of Indian trust funds.
        The following is a summary of the progress made in historical
    accounting for individual accounts:
        Through December 31, 2004, the Office of Historical Trust
    Accounting had reconciled more than 36,700 judgment accounts with
    balances totaling more than $53 million and reconciled 7,360 per capita
    accounts with balances of over $21.7 million. OHTA also has resolved
    residual balances in 8,496 special deposit accounts, identifying the
    proper ownership of $40.8 million belonging to individual Indians,
    Tribes, and private entities. OHTA has also reconciled over 5,600
    transactions from land-based IIM accounts representing over $348
    million moving through IIM accounts. In addition, OHTA has mailed over
    9,500 historical statements of judgment and per capita accounts to
    individual Indian account holders and former account holders.
    Summary Data on Accounting Results To Date
        High Dollar Transactions--$100,000 or More:
      --Ninety-three percent (or 865) of all 930 high dollar debit
            transactions of $100,000 or more were reconciled.
      --Eight differences were found in the 865 reconciled high dollar
            debit transactions. These differences all arose in the
            settlement of three probates. Three of these eight differences
            were to the disadvantage of the IIM accountholder, totaling
            $1,807, and five were to the advantage of the IIM
            accountholder, totaling $1,908.
      --Fifty-eight percent (536) of all 919 high dollar credit
            transactions of $100,000 or more were reconciled.
      --Twenty-seven differences were found in the 536 reconciled credit
            transactions, of which twenty were to the benefit of the IIM
            accountholder (overpayments), totaling $21,468, and seven were
            to the disadvantage of the IIM accountholder (underpayments),
            totaling $2,071.
        Transactions Less than $100,000:
      --Ninety-two percent (1,887) of all 2,044 randomly sampled debit
            transactions were reconciled. No differences between the posted
            amount and the supporting documentation were found in the
            reconciled transactions. While more needs to be done here, a
            statistical inference can be made by using additional
            assumptions.
      --If only sampling error is considered, these results make it
            possible to infer with more than 99 percent assurance that the
            difference rate is less than 0.5 percent for all 5.23 million
            debit transactions under $100,000.
      --Fifty-nine percent (1,418) of all 2,401 randomly sampled, in-scope
            credit transactions of less than $100,000 were reconciled.
            Eleven differences were found, of which seven were overpayments
            totaling $18 and four were underpayments totaling $505. While
            well along, no statistical inferences can yet be drawn at this
            time about the population of all 19.68 million.
        The percentage of dollars in error compared to dollars reconciled
    is less than eight-thousandths of one percent (0.007 percent).
        Question. For the past two years, we have included bill language
    that allows Self Governance tribes the ability to perform a number of
    trust duties.
        Can you update us on the implementation of the self determination
    demonstration as a model for tribal participation in trust management?
        Answer. Pursuant to the authorities provided in the Indian Self
    Determination and Education Assistance Act (Public Law 93-638, as
    amended) all tribes have been authorized to perform trust functions on
    behalf of the United States Government since passage of the Act in
    1975. The demonstration project did not provide any additional
    authorities for the demonstration tribes to perform any other trust
    duties than they were already authorized to perform.
        Sec. 131 of the General provisions of the Interior and Related
    Agencies title of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005 provides
    the assurance that funds appropriated for fiscal years 2004 and 2005
    shall be available to the tribes within the California Tribal Trust
    Reform Consortium, and to the Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian
    Community, the Confederated Salish-Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead
    Reservation and the Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boys Reservation
    on the same basis as funds were distributed in prior years.
    Furthermore, it allows these tribes to operate their programs separate
    and apart from the Department of the Interior's trust reform
    reorganization, and ensures that the Department will not impose its
    trust management infrastructure upon or alter the existing trust
    resource management systems of the above referenced tribes.
        The bill language has also required that the participating tribes
    agree to carry out their responsibilities under the same standards as
    those to which the Secretary of the Interior is held and further, that
    they demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Secretary that they have
    the capability to do so.
        In order to ensure that the demonstration tribes had the capability
    to perform in accordance with these standards, examinations of their
    trust programs were conducted. With only one exception, the
    participating tribes demonstrated that they were capable of performing
    the trust functions compacted under the same standards as those to
    which the Secretary is held. The one tribe deemed not capable has since
    prepared a corrective action plan that is successfully addressing the
    weaknesses identified. Communication with the participating tribes is
    ongoing and follow-up to last year's examinations is currently being
    done.
        The Department understands that the original intent of this
    language was to protect the participating tribes from any adverse
    impact, budgetary or otherwise, that was perceived might occur as a
    result of the implementation of the Department's trust reform
    initiatives. Many of these reforms have already been put in place with
    no negative impact on any of the tribes including those participating
    in the demonstration program. Furthermore, none is expected.
        Question. The Cobell litigation continues to concern the
    Subcommittee as we grapple with providing funds for basic Indian
    Affairs services.
        Can you update us on the latest progress in the Cobell case?
        Answer. In June 1996, the Department was named, as defendant in the
    Cobell v. Babbitt, now Cobell v. Norton litigation. This is a class
    action lawsuit for an accounting of funds held in trust by the Federal
    Government for individual Indians in Individual Monies Accounts. The
    district court in Cobell certified the class as consisting of all
    present and former beneficiaries in the IIM accounts.
        On December 10, 2004, the Court of Appeals addressed the district
    court's September 25, 2003 order. The ruling addressed the two main
    categories of the district court's decree: ``Historical Accounting''
    and ``Fixing the System.'' The Court found that Historical Accounting
    was governed by Public Law 108-108 and thus vacated the district
    court's order with respect to that portion of the case. In so finding:
      --The Court pointed out that Congress passed Public Law 108-108 ``to
            clarify Congress's determination that Interior should not be
            obliged to perform the kind of historical accounting the
            district court required.''
      --The Court stated ``The committee ``reject[ed] the notion that in
            passing the American Indian Trust Management Act of 1994
            Congress had any intention of ordering an accounting on the
            scale of that which has been ordered by the Court. Such an
            expansive and expensive undertaking would certainly have been
            judged to be a poor use of Federal and trust resources.''
        The Court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that Public Law 108-108
    amounted to a legislative stay of a final judicial judgment and thus
    violated the separation of powers doctrine. The Court found a critical
    distinction between statutes that reverse final judgments for money
    damages and statutes that alter substantive obligations of parties
    subject to ongoing duties under an injunction.
        Plaintiffs also argued Public Law 108-108 violated the due process
    and takings clauses of the Fifth Amendment. The Court rejected this
    argument, noting that plaintiffs did not explicitly identify the
    property right being taken other than to reference the right to
    interest earned on trust accounts. The Court also pointed out that
    ``Congress may provide a simpler scheme than the district court's,
    while nonetheless assuring that each individual receives his due or
    more.''
        While the second part of the Court's decision focuses on ``Fixing
    the System,'' elements of it are important to decisions relating to
    historical accounting. The Court confirmed an earlier district court
    observation that the establishment of a trust relationship does not
    mean that plaintiffs can automatically ``invoke all the rights that a
    common law trust entails.'' The Court reasserted that the government's
    duties must be ``rooted in and outlined by the relevant statutes and
    treaties . . .''
        The Court also focused on the government's argument that normally
    private trust expenses are met out of the trust itself, pointing out
    ``[T]hus plaintiffs here are free of private beneficiaries' incentive
    not to urge judicial compulsion of wasteful expenditures.''
        In short, the Court's decision invites a discussion within both the
    Executive Branch and the Congress as to what is an appropriate
    historical accounting.
        On February 23, 2005 the Cobell court issued an order reinstating
    the structural injunction previously issued on September 23, 2003,
    directing the Department to conduct a far more expansive accounting and
    requiring that it be completed under even more constrained time lines.
    The current order requires extensive work beyond what is currently
    budgeted in 2005 or proposed in 2006 to be completed by January 6,
    2006. In addition to the planned completion of accounting for all
    judgment and per capita accounts, the court order directs that indexing
    of all trust-related records located at Federal facilities in
    Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Lee's Summit, Missouri, the systems tests
    related to electronic data gaps, and the systems conversion from the
    Integrated Records Management System (IRMS) to the Trust Funds
    Accounting System.
        The Department's fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006 budget for
    historical accounting is based on continuing efforts as outlined in the
    January 6, 2003 Historical Accounting Plan. However, as a result of the
    district court reissuing the structural injunction on historical
    accounting on February 23, 2005 the Department is continuing
    discussions with the Department of Justice on the course of action
    available. The preliminary estimate developed by the Department is that
    it will cost between $12 and $13 billion to comply with the court
    order. The Department's budgets for 2005 and 2006 are not constructed
    to address these requirements.
        On March 9, 2005 the Department of Justice filed an Emergency
    Motion For Stay Pending Appeal of the structural injunction issued by
    the district court on historical accounting with the Court of Appeals.
    The Court of Appeals granted the Stay Pending Appeal on April 7, 2005.
        Question. I see that Judge Lamberth's recent decision re-imposes
    his structural injunction in the Cobell case.
        What would be the impact on the Department, and particularly its
    Indian programs, if the injunction remains in place given the
    limitations of the current fiscal environment?
        Answer. As noted above, the Department's fiscal year 2005 and
    fiscal year 2006 budget for historical accounting is based on
    continuing efforts as outlined in the January 6, 2003 Historical
    Accounting Plan. The preliminary estimate developed by the Department
    is that it will cost between $12 and $13 billion to comply with the
    court order structural injunction. The Department's budgets for 2005
    and 2006 are not constructed to address these requirements.
        If the Court of Appeals does not grant an appeal of the district
    court structural injunction, the Administration and the Congress will
    be forced to address how to comply with the district court order, which
    would have a severe impacts on the Federal budget.
        As this Committee noted in enacting Public Law 108-108, Congress
    observed that the reallocation of resources required by the initial
    2003 injunction ``would be devastating to Indian country and to the
    other programs in the Interior bill.'' As the committee report
    explained, the expenditure of billions of dollars on an accounting
    ``would not provide a single dollar to the plaintiffs, and would
    without question displace funds available for education, health care
    and other services.'' H.R. Conf. Rep. 108-330, page 117.
        Question. What has been the nature of your discussions with the
    authorizing committees with regard to a long-term solution to the trust
    reform problem?
        Answer. Staff from both the Senate and House aauthorizing
    committees participated in the discussions held last year with the
    plaintiffs in the Cobell litigation. The Administrations position
    throughout these discussions has always been that any settlement must
    be fair and equitable to both the beneficiaries and the taxpayers. Any
    long-term trust reform effort must include a method to fully address
    fractionation of individual Indian lands.
        Question. Am I wrong to assume the mediation process started last
    year is faltering and will probably not result in the resolution of
    this case?
        Answer. Through the efforts of the authorizing committees, the
    plaintiffs and the Department participated in a mediation of the Cobell
    case last year. The mediators, selected by the parties, conducted
    numerous meetings, both jointly and separately with the parties.
    However, to date, no material progress can be reported by the
    Department. The Committee is encouraged to contact the mediators
    directly for a constructive discussion of the mediation process and
    results.
        The Department is committed to a resolution of this litigation that
    is both fair to all parties and is based on a supported basis for a
    settlement. Despite the efforts of this Administration and the previous
    Administration, mediation, and Congressional interests, the Department
    believes that only Congress can resolve this litigation, either through
    a legislative settlement or by clearly defining what is intended when
    it required an accounting of trust funds in the 1994 Trust Reform Act.
                          landowner incentive program
        Question. According to the fiscal year 2006 budget justification,
    the Fish and Wildlife Service has yet to develop performance measures
    for the Landowner Incentive Program.
        What have been the major obstacles to establishing these measures?
        Answer. The Service expects to have quantifiable, meaningful
    baseline performance measures completed by the end of this fiscal year.
    In establishing these goals, the Service is working through several
    obstacles including determining achievable accomplishments in
    coordination with our State grant recipients, and a lack of
    standardized data and monitoring protocols.
        Question. When will these measures be fully implemented?
        Answer. The Service will have established baseline performance
    measures by the end of this fiscal year and will strive to get them
    incorporated into future budget justification documents. This timeframe
    allows our grant recipients to have implemented and reported on their
    grant accomplishments for 2-3 fiscal years, which will improve the
    accuracy of the data and allow us to validate our performance measures.
    The planned performance measures will be in effect for our fiscal year
    2007 budget process.
        Question. Given the lack of adequate performance measures and tight
    budget constraints, does it make sense to propose such a large increase
    for this program ($16 million)?
        Answer. Yes. The Service has strict grant selection criteria and
    reporting requirements that ensure all grant projects are of high
    quality and benefit many species in need of conservation. As a
    relatively new program, many States have recently set up the
    infrastructure and developed the critical partnerships with private
    landowners that are needed to achieve the program's goals. By
    increasing funding, the program will be able to carry out its mission
    in more States than currently possible and have in place a strong
    program that will build on its previous successes.
                     fish and wildlife service construction
        Question. The fiscal year 2006 request proposes to reduce the
    construction account by $33 million. There are no plans to construct
    any of the high priority visitor centers or to complete visitor centers
    that are currently in the design and/or construction phase.
        What are the agency's long term plans for meeting visitation needs
    on the refuge system?
        Answer. The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act states
    that compatible wildlife dependent recreation uses (hunting, fishing,
    wildlife observation, photography, interpretation, and environmental
    education) are the priority general public uses of the System through
    which the American public can develop an appreciation for fish and
    wildlife. In order to meet growing visitor demands, the Service has
    initiated its visitor facility enhancements program. In contrast to
    large-scale projects such as visitor centers, the new program focuses
    on construction of small-scale visitor facilities such as kiosks, boat
    ramps, photo blinds, and fishing piers that allow Americans to
    experience wildlife up close. We believe this program is better suited
    to meet the future interests of our visitors.
        Question. What methods (such as the use of standardized nationwide
    designs) has the agency explored to reduce the cost of facilities?
        Answer. In 2002, the Service's Division of Engineering produced a
    comprehensive document titled, ``Site Adaptable Facility Designs--A
    Planning Guide for New Projects.'' This manual provides standard design
    guidelines for 5 categories of facilities: office buildings,
    maintenance buildings, housing, storage buildings, and comfort
    stations. This is evidence that the Service is very much committed to
    using standard designs--where it is proven to be cost effective. In
    addition, Region 5 recently completed standardized designs for a small,
    medium and large visitor center and plans to use them consistently
    throughout that region. The National Wildlife Refuge System program
    office and regional offices are currently evaluating these designs to
    determine whether they are appropriate for use elsewhere in the
    Service.
        Question. Has the agency considered greater use of outside
    engineering firms to lower the cost of designing and constructing
    needed facilities?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2004, the Service outsourced approximately
    $17 million of engineering work to Architectural/Engineering
    contractors, or 61 percent of the total planning, design, and
    construction management obligations associated with 503 projects. While
    we continue to look for other ways to engage contractors, the Service
    has found that this level of contract work with outside engineering
    firms seems to be very efficient. In fact, the Service believes that
    greater use of outside engineering firms would increase the cost of
    completing smaller deferred maintenance and rehabilitation projects--of
    which there were 360 such projects in fiscal year 2004, because smaller
    deferred maintenance projects are not cost effective to bid, and A/E
    firms are not typically interested in small projects that are
    geographically dispersed throughout the nation. However, the Service
    plans on conducting a comprehensive competitive outsourcing study of
    all engineering-related professional disciplines in fiscal year 2006 in
    order to make sure that all possible efficiencies are being utilized.
                    fish and wildlife migratory bird program
        Question. The fiscal year 2006 request proposes an increase for
    existing joint ventures in addition to funds for six new joint
    ventures. Given tight budget constraints, the Committee may not be able
    to provide all of these requested funds.
        Is it a greater priority to provide additional funds for the
    current joint ventures, or is it more important to start up the new
    ventures?
        Answer. Due to rescissions and fixed cost increases, current joint
    ventures received slightly less funding in fiscal year 2005 than in
    fiscal year 2004. Therefore, it is a top priority for the existing
    joint ventures to receive the requested fiscal year 2006 increase. At
    the same time, bird conservation partners in areas of the country
    without joint ventures continue to organize and support new joint
    ventures to meet outstanding bird conservation needs and deserve some
    level of assistance from the Service.
        Question. Of the six new proposed joint ventures, which are of
    greatest importance to begin as early as possible?
        Answer. The Central Hardwoods Joint Venture has met all the
    Service-established criteria for receiving funding support, including
    the development of an approved Joint Venture Plan. The Northern Great
    Plains Joint Venture is expected to complete work on their Plan in the
    next few months. These should be the first of the new joint ventures to
    receive funding. All of the new joint ventures are making progress
    toward these same criteria.
                  fish and wildlife service science initiative
        Question. The fiscal year 2006 budget request proposes $2 million
    for a science excellence initiative within the Fish and Wildlife
    Service budget.
        Are these funds to enhance the Service's scientific capability?
        Answer. No, the $2 million requested for the Science Excellence
    Initiative would not be used to manage the Service's existing
    scientific capability; it would be used to meet mission-critical needs
    that cannot be met within core capabilities. The funds would be used to
    develop additional partnerships and mechanisms to enable the Service's
    scientists to collaborate more effectively among themselves and with
    expert scientists in other organizations, especially the U.S.
    Geological Survey. For example, funds ($500,000) requested to establish
    one or more communities of practice would bring together expert
    scientists in the Service and USGS and provide them with a mechanism to
    share and exchange scientific information and work together on high-
    priority fish and wildlife issues. These communities of practice would
    largely be virtual fora where experienced scientists and new scientists
    alike could go to accelerate their learning about emerging scientific
    techniques and scientific information, and to discuss specific
    situations where those techniques and that information were
    instrumental in resolving fish and wildlife issues or in preparing fish
    and wildlife management plans, such as recovery plans and refuge
    management plans. Similarly, about a quarter of the funds requested
    would be used by the Service to work directly with USGS's Cooperative
    Research Units, which have unique capability to provide the timely
    technical assistance, scientific expertise and scientific information
    Service scientists need to manage fish and wildlife on-the-ground,
    particularly on refuges, in National Fish Hatcheries, and in a variety
    of restoration programs, like those supported by the Partners for Fish
    and Wildlife program. Likewise, about a third of the funds requested
    would be used to work directly with USGS scientists in relationships
    that would resemble consultancies or limited scientific partnerships.
    These relationships would enable operational scientists in the Service
    to acquire special kinds of expertise, such as in ecological modeling
    and adaptive management, that they need to manage refuge lands,
    conserve threatened and endangered species, conserve migratory
    waterfowl, and restore interjurisdictional fisheries.
        Question. Why does the Service need to develop this science
    capability in-house rather than relying on USGS to meet these needs?
        Answer. The Service must have the operational scientific capability
    to apply cutting edge science and complex scientific methods to
    administer the programs for which our agency is responsible. While we
    rely upon USGS and other science organizations for many research needs,
    where information is needed to inform our management; the effective
    administration of our science-based management programs requires
    operational science capability at a high level. This increase request
    is to enhance this operational science capability within the Service.
        The Service needs to provide its front line scientists with the
    basic means they need to acquire the scientific information, scientific
    expertise and technical assistance they use daily to address complex
    resource management issues. Service scientists, many of whom work at
    isolated duty stations with only one or two peer scientists, must be
    linked to the broader scientific community and to world-class
    scientific institutions, where they can go for assistance and
    consultation. The $2 million requested for the science excellence
    initiative would link the Service's operational scientists with one
    another and with USGS's research scientists through: (1) communities of
    practice, which would enhance collaboration among scientists engaged in
    issues like structured decision support systems, conservation genetics
    and adaptive management; (2) consultancies and limited partnerships
    that would enable the Service's operational scientists to work hand-in-
    hand with USGS expert scientists on particularly complex resource
    issues; and (3) collaborative ventures with Cooperative Research Units,
    which would enable Service scientists to augment their expertise by
    acquiring special expertise and information housed in CRUs.
        Question. How, if at all, is the USGS involved in this initiative?
        Answer. USGS is a willing and supportive partner in the Science
    Excellence Initiative and in the Service's $2 million request in fiscal
    year 2006. Directors Groat (USGS) and Williams (FWS) conferred
    extensively about their bureaus' priority budget needs in both fiscal
    year 2005 and fiscal year 2006. In fiscal year 2005, the bureaus built
    budget initiatives that were complementary and carefully integrated,
    and which were intended to provide both bureaus with much-needed
    capabilities to address local issues confronting our nation's fish and
    wildlife. However, funding to support these capabilities was not
    appropriated. Nonetheless, the Directors collaborated again in
    developing their fiscal year 2006 budget proposals. Director Groat
    (USGS) lent his full support to the Service's request for $2 million in
    fiscal year 2006 for its Science Excellence Initiative.
        In addition to being a supportive partner, USGS is also willing to
    work with the Service to help develop the infrastructure and
    collaborative relationships that would be supported by the Service's $2
    billion budget request. Director Groat and his senior managers in the
    biological discipline, as well as leaders at Cooperative Research Units
    and the Survey's research centers, await opportunities to work with the
    Service to establish communities of practice and science consultancies,
    and to work together on pressing resource issues at local levels.
                               fisheries program
        Question. The fiscal year 2005 budget justification did not
    adequately describe the impacts that the proposed budget would have on
    the fisheries program. The Committee learned well after the submission
    of the budget that several important hatchery facilities would be put
    in caretaker status or be closed completely. The Committee provided
    additional funds to prevent these closures.
        At the levels proposed in the fiscal year 2006 request, will any
    hatcheries be closed or have significant staff reductions?
        Answer. No National Fish Hatcheries will close or have significant
    staff reductions in fiscal year 2006 at the proposed levels. The
    President's fiscal year 2006 Budget Request includes increases of
    $2.111 million for National Fish Hatchery System (NFHS) operations
    funding and a general program increase of $345,000 for maintenance
    funding. These increases will allow the NFHS to clearly focus on
    implementation of priority restoration, recovery, and science and
    technology projects to achieve goals outlined in the National Fisheries
    Program Strategic Plan.
        Question. Does the fiscal year 2006 request maintain the additional
    $885,000 that the Committee added to the base program for fiscal year
    2005?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2006 request does not include the
    additional $885,000 that the Committee added to the base program in
    fiscal year 2005.
                            esa consultation budget
        Question. The Committee frequently hears from various groups that
    it take too long for projects to receive their section 7 consultation
    approval from the Fish and Wildlife Service.
        What has been the level of staffing for this program for each of
    the last five years?
        Answer. The number of full time equivalents (FTE) working on
    consultations in the past five years has been as follows:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Full time
                            Fiscal year                          equivalents
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2000.......................................................         380
    2001.......................................................         430
    2002.......................................................         480
    2003.......................................................         480
    2004.......................................................         480
    2005.......................................................         480
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. Is there a large backlog of proposed projects that need
    section 7 consultations?
        Answer. The Service attempts as much as possible to meet the
    consultation timeframes imposed by the Act. However, the Service
    acknowledges that its consultation workload is high and increasing and
    is taking steps to address it. We have recently promulgated two joint
    counterpart regulations that are intended to provide flexibility in the
    ways a Federal agency may meet its obligations under the ESA by
    creating alternative procedures to the section 7 consultation process.
    They reduce our workload by enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness
    of the section 7 consultation process by increasing interagency
    cooperation and providing two optional alternatives for completing
    section 7 consultation. We have promulgated a counterpart regulation
    for EPA pesticide consultations under the Federal Insecticide,
    Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. As part of the President's Healthy
    Forests Initiative, we developed counterpart regulations with the
    Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, Bureau of Indian
    Affairs, USDA Forest Service, and the National Marine Fisheries Service
    to streamline consultations on proposed projects that support the
    National Fire Plan.
        Question. If so, would additional personnel reduce this backlog?
        Answer. Yes, additional personnel could help address the backlog in
    the short-term. However, we have a continued effort to streamline
    consultations to reduce the backlog in the long-term. Accordingly,
    additional personnel may not be the best use of resources in the long
    run.
        Question. How much funding does the Service receive from other
    Department of the Interior agencies and the Forest Service for
    consultation work on hazardous fuels reduction projects?
        Answer. Agreements were signed in 2001 within the Department of the
    Interior and with the Forest Service and BLM that allow the Service to
    be reimbursed by the fire management agencies for costs associated with
    the increased consultation workload related to the fire plan. Since
    fiscal year 2001, over $12.7 million appropriated to the Forest Service
    and BLM for the purposes of wildland fire management has been made
    available to the Service through these agreements and subsequent
    modifications.
        Question. Are these funds from other agencies certain enough that
    the Service can hire on additional staff to perform this work or does
    the amount of funds vary too much from year to year?
        Answer. The interagency agreement funding has supported
    approximately 43 full time equivalent employees to work on fire
    consultations to date. Agreements negotiated in 2001 provided funding
    through 2006 or until expended. In addition, in many Field Offices, the
    Service reassigned its most experienced section 7 staff to work on the
    National Fire Plan. These biologists are now available to assist the
    fire management agencies in early project planning.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens
                           bureau of land management
        Questions. The 2004 fire season was the worst Alaska has ever seen.
    Alaska had 703 fires and over 6.6 million acres burned. Not only did
    these fires affect the land and wildlife in various regions of the
    state, but the health and safety of nearby residents. For more than 15
    days, the EPA rated the air quality in Fairbanks as ``hazardous,''
    meaning that particulate matter in the air exceeded 350 micrograms per
    cubic meter. At several times during the summer, Fairbanks and the
    surrounding communities exceeded 995 particulates per cubic meter. A
    typical day in Fairbanks rates 10 micrograms per cubic meter. Residents
    had to avoid any outdoor exertion, and people with respiratory or heart
    disease, the elderly, and children had to remain indoors.
        I have received reports that the effects of these fires could have
    been diminished, but the federal agencies lacked the resources,
    manpower, and equipment necessary to adequately attack these fires at
    their inception. This led to relatively minor fires expanding until
    they burned out of control.
        Given the 2004 fire season in Alaska, has the Department
    reevaluated its procedures? What changes, if any, have been made to
    fire policy, particularly in areas with less population but where
    fires, if left to burn, could have devastating effects on the land and
    to wildlife? Do you feel that the Department's budget has adequate
    resources for this upcoming fire season?
        Answer. The Alaska Wildland Fire Coordinating Group (AWFCG) has
    been actively evaluating operations and procedures based on the 2004
    fire season. This group consists of the Department of the Interior's
    National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Indian
    Affairs and the Bureau of Land Management, along with the Department of
    Agriculture's Forest Service, the State of Alaska, and representatives
    from Chugachmuit and Tanana Chiefs.
        As part of the evaluation process the AWFCG sponsored a series of
    13 public meetings in communities throughout Alaska's interior and in
    Anchorage. Additionally, AWFCG participated in and took comments at the
    fall meeting of the Forty-Mile Miners Association and the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs Providers Conference. A wide range of concerns and
    comments raised at those meetings are now being addressed.
        The AWFCG has developed a summary of the public comments,
    recommendations and actions based on the community meetings and written
    comments received since the 2004 fire season. This document can be
    found at the following web site: http://fire.ak.blm.gov. At this site,
    the document can be found by clicking on the fire planning section and
    referring to community meetings.
                                    actions
    Fire Planning Process
        The AWCG reviewed the Alaska Interagency Wildland Fire Management
    Plan (AIWFMP) and confirmed that the plan is a positive approach to
    overall statewide fire management and that the plan provides the
    flexibility to make any needed adjustments based on the 2004 season.
        The AIWFMP provides for an annual review of the management options
    for designated protection levels, e.g. critical, full, modified, and
    limited. The land management agencies have reviewed the boundary
    locations delineating these levels, and some boundaries have already
    been changed based on the concerns expressed by Alaska communities.
    Other boundary changes are being considered but are not yet final.
        There were many concerns raised about the level and duration of
    smoke in the communities affected by last year's fires. The AIWFMP
    currently provides flexibility for the land manager/owner or AWFCG to
    authorize an increased level of suppression as conditions require,
    regardless of management option designation. However, previously there
    were no criteria identified in the AIWFMP as to when this adjustment
    should be considered.
        AWCG has drafted proposed evaluation criteria, or trigger points,
    for when increased suppression should be considered in the interest of
    smoke mitigation. The draft is being reviewed by the interagency
    wildland fire community and will be implemented before the upcoming
    fire season. However, it is important to recognize that, in any given
    situation, there is no guarantee that increased suppression will
    successfully reduce fire impacts, including smoke. Moreover, one must
    be cognizant of the fact that, over time, successful suppression can
    actually increase fire risks by contributing to the buildup of
    hazardous fuels. Successful suppression strategies require a careful
    balancing of these short- and long-term risks.
        In 1958, the State of Alaska was granted over 103 million acres of
    land under the Alaska Statehood Act. In 1971, Native Alaskans were
    granted 44 million acres of land under the Alaska Native Claims
    Settlement Act. At present, approximately 89 million still await final
    transfer. To remedy this situation, Senator Lisa Murkowski and myself
    sponsored the Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act to accelerate
    conveyances to the State of Alaska and Native Corporations, finalize
    pending native allotments, and complete the University of Alaska's
    remaining land entitlement by 2009--it became law in December 2004.
    While these legislative changes are a necessary component, the goal of
    completing conveyances by 2009 requires increases in funding.
        Question. Given the importance of completing the Alaska conveyance
    process, why did BLM decrease funding for this program by over $9
    million?
        Answer. The BLM fully supports the Alaska Conveyance program. The
    significant increase provided by Congress in the 2005 appropriations
    process could not be maintained in a constrained fiscal environment.
    The 2006 budget funds the program at the same level as in the 2005
    request, with the addition of uncontrollables, which the Department
    believes at the present time is a more sustainable level. At the 2006
    request level, the BLM will continue to make significant progress in
    transferring Federal lands in Alaska to other ownerships. New
    provisions provided by the recently enacted Alaska Land Transfer
    Acceleration Act will allow the BLM to accelerate the completion of the
    program and reduce costs.
                           fish and wildlife service
        Question. The Endangered Species Act provides broad protections for
    fish, wildlife and plants that are threatened or endangered. Every
    year, Congress appropriates hundreds of millions of dollars for that
    program. The spectacled eider and Steller's eider are two species in
    Alaska that have been listed as threatened. The Fish and Wildlife
    Service's budget proposes decreasing funding for their recovery by over
    $1 million.
        Given the importance of conserving endangered and threatened
    species and the ecosystems upon which they depend, what is the
    Department's justification for reducing funding for their recovery to
    less than $500,000?
        Answer. The requested changes in the recovery budget reduce the
    funding for the Alaska Sea Life Center to $494,000, which will likely
    be used for collaboration between the Service and the Alaska Sea Life
    Center to continue coordination of the eider recovery team and applied
    studies on eider biology, physiology, and ecology; and continue
    outreach and education efforts involving Alaska Natives and other rural
    residents in eider conservation efforts. The $1.9 million proposed
    increase in Recovery general program funding will actually increase the
    Service's ability to leverage existing funds with willing partners to
    implement the recovery programs for a wide variety of species. In this
    manner, we will still be able to complete our highest priority recovery
    planning and implementation actions.
        Question. One requirement of the Marine Mammal Act is that marine
    mammal populations and the marine ecosystems upon which they depend be
    maintained at, or returned to, healthy levels. This mandate is of
    particular importance to my state given the number and types of marine
    mammals in Alaska and the need to ensure sustainable use of marine
    mammals for subsistence purposes.
        What is the Department's justification for eliminating funding for
    Alaska Marine Mammals--over $2 million was appropriated for this
    program in fiscal year 2005?
        Answer. The earmark provided in fiscal year 2005 is targeted to two
    areas: (1) $1,183,000 for cooperative agreements with Alaska Native
    organizations, and (2) $986,000 for marine mammal surveys in Alaska. We
    anticipate that the tasks and projects funded with this earmark, and
    that are described below, will be completed in fiscal year 2005. The
    Service is committed to continuing to meet our responsibilities for
    marine mammal conservation and management under the Marine Mammal
    Protection Act, and recovery for those species listed under the
    Endangered Species Act. We anticipate that at the Administration's
    request level, we will be able to implement activities to conserve and
    manage marine mammals and meet our responsibilities.
        The fiscal year 2005 appropriation included $1,183,000 for grants
    to develop and implement cooperative agreements with Alaska Native
    organizations, under Section 119 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of
    1972, as amended in 1994. These agreements enhance the management of
    polar bears, Pacific walrus, and northern sea otters in Alaska. In
    fiscal year 2005, funds are being provided to the Eskimo Walrus
    Commission, the Alaska Sea Otter and Steller Sea Lion Commission, and
    the Alaska Nanuuq (Polar Bear) Commission, where they continue to be
    used to develop the management capabilities of the Native community for
    locally directed subsistence harvest. The funds appropriated in fiscal
    year 2005 help bring together people from remote villages to develop
    and implement effective and consensus management strategies, which
    enhances communication within the Native community and between the
    Native community and the Service. Other cooperative projects increase
    local involvement in gathering environmental data and compiling
    traditional knowledge to support sustainable use of marine mammal
    subsistence resources. The Service establishes Cooperative agreements
    with the three Commissions on an annual basis and therefore, these
    grant-funded tasks will be completed in fiscal year 2005. The Service
    has committed $250,000 from our fiscal year 2006 budget for
    implementation of Section 119 Agreements.
        The fiscal year 2005 Appropriation also included $986,000 for the
    continued development of marine mammal population survey methods in
    Alaska. These funds provide the opportunity to obtain biological
    information to address high priority resource issues. They also help
    develop and test innovative survey techniques relating to walrus, sea
    otters and polar bears in Alaska. Survey activities undertaken with
    these funds will be used to refine remote sensing with thermal imaging
    to estimate walrus numbers, which dramatically increases the Service's
    ability to conduct critical abundance estimates for Pacific walrus. In
    addition, sea otter surveys funded with these dollars will be conducted
    to help evaluate regional trends for a declining population as well as
    questions regarding potential seasonal distribution changes within
    specific regions where numbers of sea otters have been depleted.
    Additional surveys conducted with these funds will improve information
    on the distribution of the southern Beaufort Sea polar bear
    populations. Successful completion of these preliminary projects also
    is expected during fiscal year 2005.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan
                            standing rock irrigation
        Question. Low lake levels at Lake Oahe, which spans 231 miles from
    Pierre, the capital of South Dakota, to Bismarck, the capital of North
    Dakota, have been causing a number of problems for Standing Rock Sioux
    Tribe. From November 23-26, 2003, there was simply no drinking water at
    all in Fort Yates, ND. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe purchased and
    distributed bottled drinking water and other supplies and the Bureau of
    Reclamation did what it could to restore the water supply to the
    community during that holiday weekend.
        More than a year later, however, the community is dealing with the
    effects of low lake levels. It has hit the Tribe's irrigation program
    particularly hard. Last year, construction was completed on the
    Cannonball irrigation project as a part of the Garrison project, but a
    temporary change in the intake was required to operate in 2004 due to
    low water levels on Lake Oahe. The original intake was never used
    because 11 feet of sediment had accumulated over the intake. In order
    for the irrigation project to operate this year, a new intake is
    needed. The North Dakota delegation sent a letter to the Commissioner
    of the Bureau of Reclamation, Mr. Keys, on March 1, asking for funds to
    address this problem. Could you please tell us the status of a response
    to our letter?
        Answer. A letter was signed by the Commissioner on April 5, 2005 in
    response to the North Dakota delegation. Attached is a copy of the
    letter for the record.
        Question. Similar problems are plaguing two irrigation intakes that
    were constructed with BIA irrigation funds--the Fort Yates intake in
    North Dakota and the Eagle intake in South Dakota. The Tribe has asked
    about the possibility of a reprogramming of fiscal year 2005 BIA funds
    or an appropriation of fiscal year 2006 funds to extend theses two
    intakes originally constructed with BIA funds. Could you give the
    Subcommittee an analysis of the status of the fiscal year 2005 funding
    in the BIA's irrigation program, and explain what authorization and
    funding level would be needed for the Subcommittee to appropriate funds
    in fiscal year 2006 to address these problems?
        Answer. As these are extensions of two existing intake structures,
    this would fall under the BIA Irrigation Construction program. In
    fiscal year 2005, all Irrigation Construction funding was directed to
    the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project (NIIP). In fiscal year 2006 the
    President's Budget request for Irrigation Construction is $12.8 million
    and consists solely of funding for NIIP.
        The BIA has authority to undertake the Standing Rock water intake
    projects. However, any funding for these projects should be identified
    separate and apart from funding for NIIP. A consultant of the Standing
    Rock Sioux Tribe has provided an estimate of $1.0 million for the Fort
    Yates intake extension project, which BIA has validated, and $500,000
    for the Eagle intake extension project which the BIA is in the process
    of assessing.
                        national wildlife refuge system
        Question. The fiscal year 2006 budget for the Fish and Wildlife
    Service includes an increase of $12.9 million over the enacted level.
    With this increase the budget justification notes an associated
    increase of 10 FTEs. However, the Fish and Wildlife Service has
    indicated they may have to abolish as many as 200 positions under this
    budget request due to increased costs and assessments. Will any
    positions be eliminated or held open in fiscal year 2005 or fiscal year
    2006 that have previously been filled? If so, please provide a list by
    region and field station.
        Answer. The positions in question are located in the National
    Wildlife Refuge program. While they have been identified as a minimum
    staffing need, many of these positions have never been funded. The
    impact to the budget is in lost opportunities to address funding needs
    due to the absorption of fixed costs and across-the-board rescissions.
        Since 2001, the total number of Refuge FTEs has increased by 419
    positions, or roughly 16 percent. At the same time, however, the
    program has had to absorb roughly $22.1 million in fixed costs that
    could otherwise have been used to hire almost an additional 278 new
    staff. The $22.1 million amount is comprised of two factors. The first
    factor is the gap between the legislated pay increase level and the
    actual funding received for pay increases. Over multiple years, this
    gap has a cumulative impact. The second factor is the annual impact of
    across-the-board rescissions. In addition to preventing the program
    from hiring new staff, absorbing fixed costs reduces opportunities to
    leverage funds, support additional volunteers and partnerships, and
    provide additional services to the public.
        The Service continues to monitor the situation. Before leaving
    positions unfilled, programs look at numerous other ways to contain
    costs. For example, the Service extensively uses partnerships and
    volunteers to contain costs: in fiscal year 2005, there were over
    45,000 volunteers.
                              scientific integrity
        Question. Has the Department done anything to look into the results
    of a recently conducted Union of Concerned Scientists and Public
    Employees for Environmental Responsibility Survey of U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service employees? How are you addressing these concerns about
    political interference at the Department?
        Answer. The Fish and Wildlife Service has reviewed the information
    compiled by the Union of Concerned Scientists and by Public Employees
    for Environmental Responsibility. In addition, the Service has studied
    the survey techniques and survey instrument used by UCS and PEER. While
    the survey design, sample size, and response rate make it difficult to
    draw precise inferences from the data collected, we do not discount the
    fact that over 400 employees responded to this survey, expressing
    various forms of dissatisfaction or concern. The Service leadership
    will be considering these views and other more scientifically generated
    information in the coming months to determine appropriate steps to
    address such concerns. We believe that our requested $2 million Science
    Excellence budget initiative will provide important support in this
    effort. With regard to the UCS/PEER inferences about political
    interference in decision-making, the Service believes it would benefit
    from revising its training programs to focus more attention on the
    roles of scientists, supervisors and managers in decision-making and to
    place greater emphasis on decision-support tools and their roles in
    structured decision-making. This effort will be directly supported by
    our fiscal year 2006 Science Excellence funding request and will
    strengthen and sharpen the application and role of science in the
    decision making process.
                                  leafy spurge
        Question. Please provide the funding levels by agency and
    management unit included in the fiscal year 2006 President's budget for
    leafy spurge eradication in North Dakota.
        Answer. The Department's 2006 President's budget includes an
    estimated $2.0 million in total for leafy spurge and yellow star
    thistle, broken out as follows, by bureau:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Agency                               Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    BLM........................................................     $700,000
    USGS.......................................................      300,000
    FWS........................................................      646,000
    NPS........................................................      250,000
    BIA........................................................      200,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Funds are distributed based on priority needs and at this point in
    time, information on leafy spurge funding by state is not available.
                          tribal priority allocations
        Question. As you are aware, the Tribal Priority Allocations or
    ``TPA'' account in the BIA budget makes up 40 percent of Operation of
    Indian Programs funding. TPA funds basic, rubber-meets-the-road tribal
    services, including programs for tribal courts, Indian child welfare,
    housing, welfare assistance, adult education and forestry. The fiscal
    year 2006 request proposes to ``evaluate'' the allocation of funding
    under TPA and consider if there are better ways to distribute TPA
    funds. What assurance can you provide this Subcommittee that tribes
    will be consulted before any redistribution plan is put in place? Given
    that tribal consultation sessions are already being held in the
    formulation of the fiscal year 2007 budget, how will any reallocation
    or redistribution proposal affect the development of the fiscal year
    2007 budget request?
        Answer. The Tribes will play a significant role in the analysis of
    the current TPA funding formula. The Tribal Budget Advisory Council has
    established a working group to evaluate this issue. If the evaluation
    indicates a need to revise the funding formula, proposals will be
    developed and considered in consultation with the Tribes. This
    evaluation is in a very preliminary stage; therefore, the impact to the
    fiscal year 2007 budget request cannot yet be determined.
                             mni sose water rights
        Question. In December, 2004, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
    notified the Mni Sose Intertribal Water Rights Coalition (Coalition)
    that its fiscal year 2005 funding had been eliminated. This Coalition
    consists of 28 tribes in the Missouri River Basin and has been
    operating for twelve years pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
    with the BIA. The MOA was based on providing trust services and
    responsibilities to the Northern Plains Tribes due to a lack of BIA
    manpower, interagency relationships, and knowledge of trust issues. Can
    you tell the subcommittee why these funds were eliminated and whether
    or not the Department has identified unobligated funds that could be
    reprogrammed to the Coalition?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2005, the budget for the Water Resources
    Management, Planning, and Pre-development, program was reduced by
    $418,000. This restricted the program's ability to fund all initiatives
    that had been supported the previous year. In distribution of the
    fiscal year 2005 funds, BIA staff carefully monitored the provisions
    required under the MOA between the Coalition, and also reviewed the
    Coalitions's proposed projects an accordance with national criteria.
    The coalition did not rank high enough, when compared to other Tribal
    needs, to receive funding. If funding becomes available for
    reprogramming, funding for the Coalition will be considered among other
    priority funding needs.
                      bia replacement school construction
        Question. BIA is responsible for operating 184 schools in 23 states
    that serve roughly 48,000 children. The budget says that funding for
    the school construction program supports the President's commitment to
    ``leave no child behind,'' and that the goal is to ``provide an
    environment conducive to quality educational achievement.'' Yet, the
    administration's budget proposes to reduce funding for replacement
    schools by $62 million. That's a cut of 58 percent from the current
    enacted level, and 69 percent from the 2004 level. Congress has
    provided a substantial amount of money to the construction program over
    the past 4 or 5 years, and these projects take some time to complete.
    But despite the increases, one-third of BIA schools are still listed as
    being in ``poor'' condition. According to the budget, BIA has had some
    carryover balances in the construction account, so the thinking here is
    that by cutting the funding, the planning and design people can ``catch
    up with construction awards.'' BIA will carry over $175 million in
    fiscal year 2006, approximately 55 percent of the $319 million
    appropriated in fiscal year 2005. The National Park Service will carry
    over $385 million, or 127 percent of the $302 million appropriated last
    year. Yet, despite having more than twice the carryover as BIA, the
    request for Park Service construction is actually up $22 million, a 7
    percent increase. Knowing that there are still 60 schools out there
    that are in drastic need of replacement, why is school construction
    funding being cut by 58 percent? And if this is really all about
    carryover balances, then why is the Park Service being spared a similar
    cut in its construction program?
        Answer. The table below summarizes carryover as a percent of total
    available funding for NPS BLM, FWS, and BIA. However, carryover
    balances were not the only factor considered. The funding level for
    each construction account was based on an evaluation of facts specific
    to each bureau. For BIA, funding for school construction was reduced to
    maximize our ability to complete schools already in the design process
    or under construction. The budget maintains the pace of the current
    program by including funding to begin planning and design for future
    projects

                                                  [Dollars in millions]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Fiscal year 2004                      Fiscal year       Percent
                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------   change
                                                                                                             fiscal
                                                                          Carryover                           year
                                      Enacterd      Total                    as a       2005       2006    2006  vs.
                                         BA     available \1\  Carryover   percent    enacted    request     fiscal
                                                                           of total      BA         BA        year
                                                                          available                           2005
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NPS............................       $409         $723         $339         47       $355       $358          1
    BLM............................         14           28           14         50         11          6        -45
    FWS............................         72          143           68         48         96         22        -77
    BIA \2\........................        347          610          216         35        319        232        -27
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Total available includes carryover from prior years, recoveries, and new budget authority.
    \2\ The numbers shown for BIA represent the total construction account, not just school construction.

                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Tim Johnson
        Question. As you know, the National Center for Earth Resources
    Observation and Science (commonly known as ``EROS'') in Sioux Falls,
    South Dakota, is an extraordinarily important resource not only for my
    state, but for our nation and the international community. You have
    been extremely helpful in working with me and others to avert the
    potential crisis that could have resulted from the May 2003 malfunction
    of the Landsat 7 satellite's scan line corrector (SLC). Your
    cooperation in reprogramming funds for use at EROS helped to address
    funding shortfalls caused by the malfunction, and you were instrumental
    in assembling the President's fiscal year 2006 budget request, which
    seeks funding increases that will help to ensure the long-term
    continuity of the Landsat data record. I look forward to working with
    you and my colleagues in Congress to ensure that this essential funding
    is delivered. I remain concerned, however, about the possibility that
    another more serious Landsat malfunction between now and the launch of
    its successor in 2009, at the earliest, could cause a gap in the
    Landsat data record. Does the USGS expect a Landsat data gap to occur?
        Answer. A land imaging sensor is scheduled to launch on the first
    NPOESS (National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite
    System) satellite (launch currently targeted for late CY 2009). The
    extent of a gap, if any, between Landsat 7 and NPOESS will depend on
    the continued health of Landsat 7 as well as NPOESS' ability to remain
    on schedule. Given the uncertainties involved, the USGS and NASA are
    developing plans to buy imagery to mitigate any negative impacts to
    users of the Landsat data (discussed below in greater detail).
        Question. Given that such a gap would diminish the value of the
    Landsat data record and potentially harm our data processing
    capabilities, it is in our interest to do all we can to prevent a gap
    from occurring. Could you outline the preventive steps being taken by
    USGS?
        Answer. USGS flight engineers continually monitor telemetry from
    Landsat 7 to maintain the health and safety of the spacecraft and the
    sensor on board. For several months in 2004, the engineers tracked
    anomalies in the performance of one of Landsat 7's three gyroscopes,
    which are used to maintain and control the position and orientation of
    the spacecraft. After extensive analysis, the USGS decided to shut off
    one ``gyro''. During the same period, the USGS worked closely with NASA
    experts to perform a risk assessment, as the Landsat 7 satellite design
    requires two gyros for successful operation. The USGS continues to
    monitor the remaining gyros. So far, however, the remaining gyros are
    functioning with no problems, and they could last for the duration of
    the mission. The USGS is taking preventive steps, though, by conducting
    a study that would allow for operation of the satellite using a single
    gyro. This approach has worked successfully on other satellites
    designed for two-gyro performance, and a hardware/software test of
    single-gyro flight procedures is planned for the summer of 2005.
        Question. Further, should these preventive steps fail, how would
    USGS minimize the negative consequences of a gap?
        Answer. In case these preventive steps fail, the USGS, with NASA
    and with input from the user community, is investigating alternatives
    for partial mitigation of a data gap. That is, while no single
    satellite or combination of satellites can duplicate the spectral
    content and geographic coverage of Landsat 7, one or more foreign land-
    observing satellite systems may be able to provide, at reasonable cost,
    twice-annual global coverage of imagery with spectral characteristics
    that are somewhat similar to Landsat 7. The USGS is currently
    evaluating data from such systems and holding preliminary discussions
    with the data providers.
        Question. Finally, could you explain the extent to which the
    President's fiscal year 2006 budget request for Landsat 7 operations
    and the Landsat Data Continuity Mission would help to prevent and
    respond to a potential gap?
        Answer. Baseline funding for the USGS Land Remote Sensing Program
    supports ongoing, routine efforts to obtain and characterize sample
    data sets from commercial land-observing satellites and from
    international government systems. In cooperation with NASA scientists,
    sample data sets from systems capable of providing global land coverage
    are currently being evaluated. Program funding for fiscal year 2006 is
    projected to continue supporting this effort. Should Landsat 7 fail
    during fiscal year 2006, it is presumed that flight-operations funding
    for Landsat 7 could be shifted toward obtaining alternative data once
    the decommissioning effort is completed. LDCM is the longer-term
    solution to the status of Landsat 7. Timely launch of a new land sensor
    by 2009 will provide a full replacement for Landsat 7.

                             CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

        Senator Burns. Thank you very much. The subcommittee will
    stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair.
        [Whereupon, at 11:12 a.m., Wednesday, March 10, 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 2006

                                  ----------

                                           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

                        Letter From the State of Nevada

                                       State of Nevada,
                           Colorado River Commission of Nevada,
                                                        April 26, 2005.
    Hon. Conrad Burns, Chairman,
    Subcommittee on Interior, Senate Committee on Appropriations,
            Washington, DC.
        Dear Chairman Burns: The Colorado River Commission of Nevada, the
    state agency charged with protecting Nevada's interests and rights in
    the water, power and land resources of the Colorado River System,
    supports the appropriation of $5,200,000 of Bureau of Land Management
    funds for assistance in salinity control activities in the Colorado
    River Basin as recommended by the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
    Forum for fiscal year 2006. Specifically, the Colorado River Commission
    supports the President's request for the Soil, Water and Air management
    for a designation that $800,000 be used to further advance Colorado
    River salinity control efforts.
        Salinity remains one of the major problems in the Colorado River.
    Congress has recognized the need to confront this problem with its
    passage of Public Law 93-320 and Public Law 98-569. Your support of the
    current funding recommendations for the Colorado River Basin Salinity
    Control Program is essential to move the program forward so that the
    congressionally directed salinity objectives are achieved.
                Sincerely,
                                                George M. Caan,
                                                    Executive Director.
                                     ______

                    Letter From the Penobscot Indian Nation

                       Office of the Chief and Council,
                          Penobscot Nation, Community Building,
                                  Indian Island, Maine, April 19, 2005.
    Hon. Thad Cochran, Chairman,
    Hon. Robert Byrd, Ranking Minority Member,
    Committee on Appropriations

    Hon. Conrad Burns, Chairman,
    Hon. Byron Dorgan, Ranking Minority Member,
    Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, U.S. Senate, Washington,
            DC.
        Dear Senators: Thank you very much for all the work you and the
    Committee members have accomplished over the years on behalf of Tribal
    governments and our citizens. Indian Country certainly has shown some
    improvement as a result of your efforts and the Committee is held in
    high esteem by all Tribes. We are most grateful for all that you have
    done and continue to do.
        On April 14 the House Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior,
    Environment and Related Agencies held public hearings and on behalf of
    the Penobscot Nation, I testified and submitted a written statement. I
    am attaching a copy of our testimony and ask that you consider it
    during your deliberations this year and make it a part of any hearing
    record. I am also attaching a letter I recently sent to Claude Allen,
    President Bush's Domestic Policy Advisor and Director of the Domestic
    Policy Council. A number of tribal leaders have had two meetings in
    recent months with Mr. Allen at which numerous topics were discussed
    and a comprehensive list of issues affecting Federal agencies were
    developed.
        In follow up to these sessions, I sent the attached letter to Mr.
    Allen in which I commented on areas of concerns affecting various
    Federal agencies. Copies have also been sent to the respective Cabinet
    Level Secretaries overseeing those agencies and departments.
        At these meetings and in follow-up correspondence, it is clear that
    a fundamental area of concern is the inadequacy of funding for programs
    affecting Indian tribes. I am sure you hear this from various groups
    but I believe the situation in Indian County is particularly grave and
    is in fact inequitable when compared to other groups. I would like to
    draw your attention to a report entitled, A Quiet Crisis: Federal
    Funding and Unmet Needs in Indian Country. This was published by the
    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in 2003 after a detailed examination of
    Indian programs. Its findings were not a surprise to those of who live
    on Indian reservations but should be shocking to the rest of the
    country and to policy makers and appropriators such as yourselves. If
    you have not read the report, I would urge that you to get a copy and
    review it in detail. I also want to point your attention to a
    subsequent report by the Commission entitled, Broken Promises:
    Evaluating the Native American Health Care System (Sept. 2004). These
    reports indicate that the level of Federal funding made available to
    Indian people, when compared to other groups for whom the Federal
    government has a responsibility, is so much less as to constitute a
    violation of the civil rights of American Indian people. To cite but
    one example, the per capita health care expenditures for Medicare
    recipients is $5,915; for Veterans getting health care from the VA, we
    spend an average of $5,214; for inmates in federal prisons, the
    Congress appropriates $3,803, and for Indian people the figure is
    $1,914. Gentlemen, if we know that it costs over $5,000 to provide
    health care to a Veteran and if we know that it costs almost $4,000 to
    serve the medical needs of prisoner, how can we spend less than $2,000
    per Indian? What message is this sending to the Indian people as to
    their relative value in this country.
        Two statements from the 2004 report bear repeating:

        ``It has long been recognized in Native American and medical
    communities that Native Americans are dying of diabetes, alcoholism,
    tuberculosis, suicide, unintentional injuries, and other health
    conditions at shocking rates. Beyond these mortality rates, Native
    Americans also suffer significantly lower health status and
    disproportionate rates of disease compared with all other Americans.
    These realities should come as no surprise to those with a basic
    knowledge of our nation's history and those charged with making
    policies that influence the future of the Native American population.''

        That report also pointed to the ``failure of Congress to provide
    the resources necessary to create and maintain an effective health care
    system for Native Americans.''
        The time has come to address this disparity and while I understand
    there are budget constraints I also know that when this country
    confronts a crisis, like we have in Iraq where we will soon have spent
    $300 billion, we can find the money necessary. Gentlemen, we have such
    a crisis here at home and ironically it is with the only people inside
    this country that the United States signed treaties with that included
    language committing the United States to the provision of health care.
    Would you consider committing to the simple proposition of allowing
    Indian health care expenditures to achieve parity with other groups?
    That would lead to a doubling of the budget of the Indian Health
    Service were we to achieve parity with prisoners or a two and a half
    fold increase in the IHS budget to achieve parity with Veterans. If you
    commit to achieving such parity I know it can't be done in one year but
    it could be accomplished in a phased fashion over three to five years.
        Finally, and more locally, I direct your attention to the fact that
    the proposed budget eliminates the BIA's Community Fire Protection. The
    proposed elimination of this program directly contradicts the
    Department of Interior's Strategic Plan (2003-2005) which identifies
    the ``Protection of Lives, Resources, & Property'' as a core mission.
    The Penobscot Reservation is an island in the middle of the Penobscot
    River, with one bridge providing the only entrance and exit. We have
    approximately 300 single-family homes which house approximately 545
    persons, 16 elderly apartments, a school with 100+ students in
    attendance and six tribal buildings housing approximately 125
    employees. Additionally, we are currently constructing an elderly
    assisted living complex, and are in the planning stages of building 15
    new single family homes. We recently met with our neighboring town's
    (Old Town, Maine), Fire Department officials to discuss the possibility
    of contracting with them for our fire protection needs. Unfortunately,
    the town reported to us that they could not enter into a contractual
    agreement. As indicated in the attached, it is a priority of the
    Penobscot people that the Committee restore funding for the Community
    Fire Protection and we ask that when you do you direct the BIA include
    an additional $150,000 to our TPA base for the Penobscot Nation's
    community fire program.
        Overall our request was for an additional TPA of $655,500 for Fire,
    Police, Economic & Community Development and Veterans Services
    Coordination for Indian Veterans of Maine, and, access to Title IV-E of
    Foster Care.
        Again, Thank you very much, we sincerely do appreciate all you are
    doing for Indian People.
        May GheChe' Nawais be with you, with all of our families and ``All
    Our Relations.''
                                          James Sappier, Chief,
                                                      Penobscot Nation.

    Attachments.
      Prepared Statement of James Sappier, Tribal Chief, Penobscot Nation
        Chairman Taylor, Ranking Member Dicks and Members; Thank you for
    this opportunity to testify.
      --My name is James Sappier, Chief of the Penobscot Nation in Maine.
      --We live on Indian Island, one of over two hundred islands in the
            Penobscot River that make up our reservation lands in central
            Maine.
      --Our written testimony has been given to the Clerk, as well as a
            copy of our letter to the President's Domestic Policy Council.
      --I will give a brief summary.
      --We strongly oppose the Administration's proposed fiscal year 2006
            Bureau of Indian Affairs Budget which proposes a decrease to
            the Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA) resulting in reduction
            and/or elimination of programs vital to the Penobscot Nation's
            safety and well-being.
      --The Penobscot Nation, as do most Tribal communities, rely heavily
            upon BIA funding to support their essential community needs, as
            fire protection, law enforcement, education, housing, trust
            lands protection, health and human services. etc.
      --All Services that are 638 contracted by the Tribe.
      --Our specific requests to the Committee for the fiscal year 2006
            budget includes:
        Appropriation requests of Bureau of Indian Affairs of $655,500
      --$150,000 for Community Fire Protection,
      --$100,000 for Economic Development,
      --A need for $60,000 for law enforcement,
      --$172,000 for community development, and
      --$173,500 for the Indian Veterans of Maine--the Penobscots,
            Passamaquoddies, Maliseets and Micmacs of central Maine and,
            SUPPORT FOR TRIBAL ACCESS TO TITLE IV-E FOSTER CARE
    For Indian Health Services
        The Committee should increase the IHS budget to at least the level
    of health care that prisoners receive. Our budget would be doubled.
        Also, Tribes need a waiver to participate in Social Security
    benefits and programs. Indians don't live that long and programs that
    require age-based qualification for eligibility, discriminate against
    our members and their receiving full services.
      --An example, since January 2004, we have buried 21 Tribal members,
            the average age was 57 years old.
      --This is actually 1 percent of our total Tribal population.
    For the Environmental Protection Administration
        Each year the Tribal Operations Committee's Indian Caucus submits a
    Tribal budget based on need to the administration and each year they
    receive about 45 percent of their budget request.
        The Tribes will never catch up to the numerous entities that
    receive program and environmental support.
        Tribes are truly 25 years too late in coming into the EPA system.
        The letter to the President's Domestic Policy Council illustrates a
    more in-depth description of conditions that confront our Tribes and
    especially those areas within the scope of this Committee, the
    Interior, Health and Environment of Indian Country.
      --This letter places much emphasis on the ``Quiet Crisis--Federal
            Funding and Unmet Needs In Indian Country'' a report prepared
            by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in 2003.
      --It really brings to the forefront the real problems in Indian
            Country.
      --After a detailed analysis, the Commission concluded that funding
            for programs for Indian Tribes simply have not kept up with
            spending for non-native programs, or to meet the increase
            population growth of Indian Country.
      --Congress must consider the impact of inflationary costs.
      --Specifically federal funding for Native American programs is
            inadequate and goes unnoticed because it is unreported,
            unmonitored, unaccounted for, and inconsistently tracked.
        Specifically, for BIA the following were noted:
      --When adjusted for inflation, the impact of TPA funding shortfalls
            become more evident.
      --The TPA budget has diminished the real spending power of tribal
            governments dramatically.
      --Tribal governments do not receive funds at the rate of inflation,
            and they have also been losing real spending power at a
            dramatic rate.
      --Over the period of the report, 1998-2003, TPA spending power has
            lost $36.5 million or 4.4 percent.
      --These inflationary costs coupled with the $10 million reduction is
            making it impossible for Tribal Governments to continue to
            operate programs that the Federal Government has a legal
            obligation through treaties, settlement acts, and statutes to
            provide.
      --Tribal self-determination is endangered if these reductions are
            enacted.
      --Penobscot Nation has no other funding sources to pay for the
            program operational shortfalls and may be left with no
            alternative but to consider retrocession of these programs.
      --Under the Indian Self-Determination Act we can retrocede a program
            back to the United States and the agency involved (BIA or IHS
            for instance) would be required to send personnel to Maine,
            establish offices and take over the management and operation of
            that program.
      --The costs for administration, management and operations of BIA
            programs would be 250-300 percent higher.
      --As reflected within the USCRC report, ``A Quiet Crisis,'' all
            Departments listed actually place our Tribes in jeopardy.
      --A copy of the letter sent to the President's Domestic Policy
            Council for their attention and involvement is available.
      --Each Department and agency has received a heads-up transmittal
            letter and a copy of the Council letter as well.
      --The letter to the Domestic Policy Council brings to the forefront
            many issues that need to be addressed by the Committee.
      --The Department of Interior's Strategic Plan (2003-2005) clearly
            identifies as one of its four missions to be the ``Protection
            of Lives, Resources, & Property''.
      --Certainly, our appropriation requests identified falls within the
            scope of the Department's mission.
      --The Penobscot Nation is currently working on several economic
            development projects, including a Mail-Order Pharmacy Service.
      --We are confident that these projects will have the potential to
            change our devastating economic.
        Last July I resigned from EPA-Boston, went home, and was elected
    Chief in September taking Office in October. I could not continue
    working within the federal structure and watch the slow degradation
    overcoming our communities.
        Federal Agency Program Managers, 3 or 4 levels below the
    Secretariat will not and/or are very reluctant to disinvest program
    funds for purposes of increasing Indian Program funding. As well, this
    is true of Congressional Committees and their staffers as budget levels
    are determined for each Committee in carrying out their
    responsibilities.
        We should not pit one constituency against another and as no one
    gains and hard feelings cause unnecessary disruptions.
        What do we do with the USCRC report, A Quiet Crisis?
        In Indian Country, this question is being raised, and, we believe
    that yearly budget increases in phases one, two and three years can
    only be accomplished in the Administration, the Congress and the Tribes
    working together as true governmental partners. We really must do
    something and very, very soon.
        Would the United States commit to a three year phase approach to
    bring the Tribes up to parity, in program budget levels?
        The Penobscot Nation appreciates the opportunity to express our
    concerns pertaining to the proposed fiscal year 2006 appropriations and
    especially for your attention to these crucial matters.
        We truly need your support.
        I'd like to introduce Penobscot Nation elder, Sgt. Charles Shay, he
    would like to speak with you in regard to our Maine Indian Veterans.
    Sgt. Shay was a Prisoner of War in Germany during World War II.
        Thank you.
                    Prepared Statement of Sgt. Charles Shay
      --My name is Charles Shay, and, I was a World War II ``Prisoner of
            War'' in Germany in the 1940's.
      --This experience shaped my life, as it has for all the Indian
            Veterans who have served in all the wars.
      --Maine for the first 150 years defined the Penobscot Indians as
            ``paupers'' and in 1966 our Tribal members got the right to
            vote.
      --You must remember that the Colonist joined us, the Penobscots in
            those early years.
      --As we were at war with England and as well, the Boston Colony had a
            Proclamation for scalping Penobscot men, women and children in
            1757, signed by Governor Phips.
      --Before the United States and after the birth of the United States,
            our Tribe has fought for this Country in every war.
      --Joining the service and defending the United States was never a
            problem for my Tribe, the Penobscot Nation.
      --Penobscot Tribal members served in all wars from the Revolutionary
            War to today's Iraq.
      --We have always been there when our Country called.
      --You should not treat our Indian Veterans the way you do.
      --Likewise Veteran services have been unknown to us and only recently
            have we been able to receive some of these.
      --Penobscot Nation and the Tribes of Maine really need an Indian
            Veteran Services Coordinator to advocate and guide Indian
            Veterans through the maze of paperwork and programs, the forms
            and applications.
      --Penobscot Nation is willing to have the Office centralized in Maine
            at Indian Island. This cost of $173,500 should be shared
            between Veterans Administration and the Bureau of Indian
            Affairs, Department of Interior.
      --It is time to treat our People, Indian People, with the respect
            they have earned.
      --Our Veterans have never received the full benefits for which they
            have given their life. Many being wounded should have received
            these over the many, many years they have been available.
        Thank you very much for taking the time to listen to me and we do
    need help for our veterans.
        Mr Chairman, Members of the Committee, Ladies and Gentleman: Before
    I begin stating the reason for my being here to address you, I think it
    appropriate to furnish you with information about myself. My name is
    Charles Norman Shay, born 27 June 1924, Native American and a proud
    member of the Penobscot Indian Nation. Our home is a small island on
    the Penobscot River located near Old Town, Maine.After graduating from
    High School in 1942 I was required to register for conscription into
    the military service which I found to be unfair because at time we were
    second class citizens in our own country without the right to vote in
    federal and state elections among other things. We were classified with
    paupers and other undisirables
        I entered the military service in April 1943 and after completing
    Basic Training and a Medical/Surgical Technician School, I was sent to
    England where I was assigned to the 16th Infantry Regiment, 1st
    Infantry Division who, at this time, were preparing for the invasion of
    Europe. Our unit debarked at ``Omaha Beach'' on 6 June 1944. I was
    awarded the ``Silver Star'' for actions that took place at this time.
    Our units continued on through France into Aachen, Germany and
    eventually on to Remagen, Germany where were able to cross the Rhine
    River on a bridge that had been secured by other forces of the 1st
    Army. Our mission, to establish a ``Beachhead'' so that other forces
    could follow. This action took place on 24 March 1945 and on 25 March
    the infantry squad that I was attached to became isolated from the main
    unit when German Forces launched a counter-attack. We were all taken
    captive, but only for a few short weeks. Once across the Rhine, allied
    forces made a massive advance across Germany and Austria and shortly
    thereafter World War II came to an end. In the summer of 1950, after
    spending four years in Vienna, Austria with the occupation forces I
    returned to the United States in July and was ssigned to the 7th
    Infantry Regiment, 3rd Infantry Division. In September of the same year
    we were on our way to Korea. Our Unit participated in many skirmishes
    with the North Korean and Chinese forces. I was awarded the ``Bronze
    Star'' with two Oak Leaf Clusters and the Combat Medic Badge, 2nd
    Award. On 24 June 1952 I took an ``Honorable Discharge'' from the U.S.
    Army after 10 years of service. Shortly thereafter, I enlisted in the
    U.S. Air Force and on 31 July 1964 I finally retired from the military
    service. While serving in the Air Force I perticipated in ``Operation
    Castle'' Atomic Test at Eniwetok Proving Ground in the winter of 1954.
    In 1965, I obtained a position with the International Atomic Energy
    Agency with Headquarters in Vienna, Austria until I retired on 31
    December 1984. I was recalled to U.N. Service in the spring of 1985 and
    acted as security office with the office of the High Commissioner for
    Refugies, Vienna Office for an additional two and one-half years.
        The Penobscot Indian has perticipated in all wars beginning with
    the Revolutionary War to the present war that is going on in Iraq. Our
    ancestors never evaded the opportunity to offer their services to the
    democratic government of the United States in time of war. This is
    substantiated by records that show that we had 38 Penobscots in the
    Revolutionary War, 20 in the Civil War, 26 in World War I, 80 in World
    War II at a time when the entire population of Indian Reservation
    numbered approximately 500 residents, 36 in the Korean War, 60 in the
    Viet Nam War. Many of our ancestors paid the ultimate price and many
    others returned maimed and disabled. For the wars following Viet Nam
    there are no statistics available. The experience of participating in
    the military service during war time has had a deep lying effect on our
    lives as any Veteran will tell you. Many experiences are sometimes hard
    to forget The time has come when we need to help and do what we can for
    our veterans and their dependents. Benefits available to this group of
    people are numerous and the interpretation and application for such can
    be very confusing to the layman. Our veterans are in dire need of an
    Indian Veteran Services Coordinator to guide them through the maize of
    paperwork and programs, forms and methods of application and sometimes
    just plain advice as to what is best for them. This person has to be
    experienced in interpretation and application of laws and regulations
    that govern federal benefits. This can only be done in a centralized
    office that would be available not only to the Penobscots but to all
    Indians in the State of Maine including indigenous groups that might be
    living here. The Penobscot Indian Nation is willing to host such an
    operation at our reservation, known as Indian Island. Our reservation
    is centrally located in comparison to other reservations. The
    coordinator of course would be responsible for monthly or bi-monthly
    visits to other reservations, a problem that would be resolved once an
    office has been established. Up until this time we have had people who
    have voluntarily assumed these responsibilities and operated out of
    their home. However, their knowledge of federal benefits was very
    limited and their activities were confined to arranging for military
    honors at funerals and the obtaining of head stones. A very small
    benefit for the Penobscot Veteran when one thinks of the sacrifices
    made by them. The cost of such an operation has been estimated to be
    $173,500.
        Taken into consideration were burials, transportation (the Veterans
    Hospital is located at Togus a distance of almost 200 miles), financial
    assistance in cases of poverty and/or low-income and of course wages
    for a coordinator, office supplies and computer hardware/software and
    installation of such. Office space would be provided including
    electricity and heat by the Penobscot Indian Nation. All costs should
    be shared between VA and BIA-DOL. As spokesman for the Penobscot Indian
    Veteran and for other Indian Veterans in the State of Maine we hope
    that you will not let us down and after your careful consideration that
    your response to this proposal will be positive.
        I thank you for your attention.
                                     ______

               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 180
    affiliated organizations. As the national voice for America's hikers,
    American Hiking Society 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). Demand for recreation is growing at a rapid pace; unfortunately,
    federal funding for trails and recreation is not growing nearly as fast
    and is now declining in many areas. In order for Americans to enjoy the
    outdoors, experience our rich natural heritage, and find healthy places
    to recreate, we need protected open spaces and well-maintained trails
    and other recreation facilities. We appreciate the Subcommittee's past
    support and urge you to support strong funding that will protect trails
    and recreation resources for future generations. American Hiking makes
    the following funding recommendations for fiscal year 2006:
        National Park Service:
      --Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance program: $9.7 million
      --National Trails System: $10 million, plus $1.25 million for GIS
            Network
        USDA Forest Service:
      --Recreation Management, Heritage and Wilderness: $275 million
      --Capital Improvement and Maintenance--Trails: $80 million
        Bureau of Land Management:
      --Recreation Management: $70 million
      --National Landscape Conservation System: $47 million
        Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF):
      --Stateside LWCF: $300 million
      --Federal LWCF: $450 million
      --Federal LWCF, Ice Age National Scenic Trail, National Park Service:
            $4 million
      --Federal LWCF, Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail, Forest Service:
            $5 million
      --Federal LWCF, Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail, BLM: $1.5
            million
        Trails represent one of our nation's most valuable assets, bringing
    individuals and families outside for recreation, inspiration, and
    education, and providing healthy physical activities, alternatives for
    transportation, and economic development for local communities. Hiking
    is one of the nation's most popular outdoor activities--72 million
    Americans hike regularly or occasionally (Outdoor Industry Association
    Participation Study 2004). However, years of inadequate funding
    jeopardize the protection of natural and cultural resources and the
    experiences of millions of recreationists every year.
        Federal policy encouraging partnerships, healthy lifestyles, and
    promoting volunteerism to protect and maintain our public lands
    warrants increased funding for trail and recreation programs across the
    land management agencies. 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.
     nps, rivers, trails, and conservation assistance program (rtca): $9.7
                                    million
        Through its RTCA program, the NPS implements its natural resource
    conservation and outdoor recreation mission in communities across
    America. RTCA yields enormous benefits to communities by fostering
    partnerships between federal, state, and local interests to restore
    rivers and wildlife habitat, develop trail and greenway networks,
    preserve open space, and revitalize communities--all contributing to
    improved quality of life and close-to-home recreation. RTCA is highly
    effective and cost efficient. In 2004 alone, NPS community projects
    reported more than 680 new trail miles, more than 330 newly protected
    river miles, more than 22,700 acres of newly protected natural areas
    and more than $40 million leveraged funding from other sources. RTCA
    plays a critical role in creating a nationwide network of parks and
    open spaces, supporting conservation partnerships, promoting
    volunteerism, and encouraging physical activity. The Administration's
    HealthierUS Initiative explicitly highlights RTCA for its efforts in
    promoting physical activity.
        RTCA is a very successful and popular program but continues to lack
    adequate funding. Despite RTCA's accomplishments in coordinating
    upwards of 300 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 and funding shortages
    result in limited staff positions in several regions, office closures,
    and reduced staff participation within communities and on-the-ground
    projects, diminishing essential services of this field-based technical
    assistance program. Flat funding results in an annual loss of
    approximately 4 positions, as personnel costs continue to rise through
    inflation and cost-of-living increases, while project costs must be cut
    back. We strongly urge you to fund RTCA at $9.7 million to remedy the
    program's continued erosion, compensate for losses due to inflation,
    and enable the program to respond to growing needs and opportunities in
    communities throughout the country.
     nps, national trails system: $10 million, plus $1.25 million for gis
                                    network
        The NPS administers eighteen of the twenty-four national scenic and
    historic trails, but only one--the Appalachian National Scenic Trail--
    is fully open for public use from end-to-end. For most of these trails,
    barely half of their congressionally authorized length and resources
    are protected and available for public use. A minimum of $10 million in
    fiscal year 2006 is crucial for resource protection, trail maintenance,
    interpretation, and volunteer coordination and support for these long-
    distance trails. In addition, NPS requires $1.25 million to continue
    work on a Geographic Information System network for the National Trails
    System to better administer, manage, and protect trail resources and
    landscapes. American Hiking thanks the Subcommittee for its support of
    the National Trails System and urges you to increase funding to help
    complete and protect these national treasures. American Hiking Society
    endorses the specific funding requests submitted by the Partnership for
    the National Trails System.
     usda forest service, recreation management, heritage and wilderness:
                                  $275 million
        The current investment in Forest Service recreation falls far below
    national needs. The Forest Service estimates that recreation creates
    nearly 80 percent of the Gross Domestic Product generated from Forest
    Service land, yet only about 10 percent of the agency budget is
    dedicated to recreation. Additionally, our national forests include the
    vast majority of our nation's designated wilderness areas, where
    opportunities for primitive recreation are abundant. Flat funding, as
    proposed in the Administration's budget combined with cost of living
    increases and inflationary pressures, would result in a net decrease of
    $6.2 million to the program's real budget. The Forest Service requires
    increased funding for recreation management to protect critical
    resources; upgrade recreation facilities; reduce the $178 million
    recreation deferred maintenance backlog and address the $136 million
    capital improvement needs for recreation sites and facilities; augment
    on-the-ground recreation staff; improve recreation resource analyses
    and planning; and more effectively utilize partnerships and volunteers.
       forest service, capital improvement and maintenance--trails: $80
                                    million
        The Forest Service manages 133,000 miles of trails and requires
    increased funding to restore and maintain these thousands of trail
    miles; reduce the $106 million trails maintenance backlog and address
    the $99.2 million capital improvement construction needs for trails;
    improve trail infrastructure; prevent and mitigate resource impacts;
    and provide safe, high-quality recreational experiences for millions of
    hikers and other trail enthusiasts. The fiscal year 2006 Administration
    budget request would result in a net decrease of $13.3 million,
    adversely affecting critical trail needs across the country. The Forest
    Service administers three national scenic trails and one national
    historic trail and manages parts of 16 other trails. We ask that you
    appropriate $3.037 million as a separate budgetary item, in addition to
    the Administration request, specifically for the Continental Divide,
    Florida, and Pacific Crest National Scenic Trails and the Nez Perce
    National Historic Trail as outlined by the Partnership for the National
    Trails System.
        Increased funding for recreation and trails is especially crucial
    to the agency's Recreation Agenda goal of placing trail and volunteer
    coordinators and/or recreation planners at each national forest and for
    each nationally designated area or trail. Despite the Forest Service's
    increased emphasis on recreation, we are very 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 or willing volunteers being
    turned away. 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. These
    efforts warrant an expanded commitment to trails and recreation
    funding, notably funding for recreation staff on the ground.
                    blm, recreation management: $70 million
        The BLM supports a broad range of recreational opportunities within
    its 261 million acres yet continues to receive very limited funding for
    recreation. BLM is focusing on a comprehensive travel management
    approach to managing roads and trails and providing adequate and
    appropriate public access and has generated many collaborative
    partnerships for trails. However, the BLM faces daunting challenges
    with a growing deferred maintenance backlog for upkeep of more than
    15,500 miles of trails. BLM is also facing critical inventory, planning
    and management challenges as it manages a staggering network of an
    estimated 600,000 mile of roads, trails, routes and ways available for
    public use--with 80,000 miles maintained and signed. Increased funding
    will support the development of travel management plans, interpretation
    projects, stewardship education, outreach projects, expansion of
    partnerships, and the protection of natural and cultural resources
    impacted by increased recreational use
        blm, national landscape conservation system (nlcs): $47 million
        The NLCS protects and conserves the crown jewels of our public
    lands while providing a variety of benefits to the public, including
    diverse recreational opportunities. Additional funding is needed to
    support a range of activities in NLCS units including: environmental
    education, site interpretation, and developing more compatible land use
    ethics among public lands visitors; completing Resource Management
    Plans and initiating implementation actions for national monuments and
    conservation areas; monitoring of recreation use; management of
    portions of twelve national scenic and historic trails exceeding 5,200
    miles; and developing and strengthening partnerships for visitor
    services, recreation, interpretation, stewardship education, and
    volunteers. We request $4.169 million for national trail
    administration, management, and operations as outlined by the
    Partnership for the National Trails System.
     land and water conservation fund (lwcf): $300 million stateside; $450
                                million federal
        Federal and state land managers use the LWCF to create parks,
    protect trails and open spaces, and preserve wilderness and wildlife
    habitat. Over the past decade, the majority of LWCF funds have been
    diverted to programs unrelated to the traditional LWCF uses such as
    land protection and recreation. While LWCF funds have been cut
    severely, the need for open space and recreation has soared. LWCF has
    helped communities acquire nearly seven million acres of parkland,
    water resources, and open space. LWCF has also underwritten the
    development of more than 37,000 state and local park and recreation
    projects. Authorized at $900 million annually, LWCF is one of the most
    important conservation tools ever designed and is critical to the
    future protection of national trails. We request $12.5 million in
    federal LWCF for the National Trails System. We vigorously oppose the
    Administration's recommendation to terminate the state assistance
    program and urge you to retain strong funding for this vital program.
        Volunteer contributions are essential to trails and recreation
    programs, and American Hiking and its members and member clubs do their
    part every year to help maintain our nation's outstanding network of
    trails. However, an increase in volunteerism on public lands should not
    be perceived as an opportunity to cut agency budgets. In fact, the
    opposite is necessary. Creating a viable volunteer environment,
    leveraging willing human resources for burgeoning land managers' needs,
    requires additional investment in the infrastructure to support these
    volunteers. In return, volunteers can help reduce the enormous
    maintenance and construction backlogs in public agencies and be an
    educated, passionate voice for preserving and protecting our public
    lands.
        On June 4, 2005, American Hiking will coordinate the thirteenth
    National Trails Day (NTD) to raise public awareness and appreciation
    for trails. Participants will gather at more than one thousand of NTD
    events nationwide. American Hiking Society members and outdoorspeople
    nationwide appreciate the Subcommittee's support for trail and
    recreation in the past and look forward to continued strong support.
    Thank you for considering our request.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the American Humane Association; American Horse
     Defense Fund; American Horse Protection Association; American Mustang
      and Burro Association, Inc.; American Society for the Prevention of
     Cruelty to Animals; American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign; Center
    for Environmental Education and Information; Forest Guardians; Fund for
    Animals; Humane Society of the United States; International Society for
       the Protection of Mustangs and Burros; Least Resistance Training
       Concepts, Inc.; Return to Freedom; Society for Animal Protective
        Legislation; Vaquero Heritage Foundation; Wild Horse and Burro
       Coalition; Wild Horse and Burro Freedom Alliance; and Wild Horse
                             Observers Association
            bureau of land management--wild horse and burro program
        In fiscal year 2001, the BLM received a $9 million budget increase
    to halve the number of wild horses on the range within four years.
    Despite the agency's inability to meet this goal, large numbers of
    horses were removed from the range and this new level of funding was
    maintained through fiscal year 2004. Last year, the agency requested
    another increase of $10.5 million (plus another $2.3 million from
    Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act funds) so that it can once
    again begin mass roundups to drastically reduce the number of wild
    horses and burros on the range from a rough estimate of 35,000 to just
    25,000 in a mere two to three years. Yet the agency has failed to
    conduct the most basic research to justify its proposed action. Despite
    a statutory requirement to base roundups on current data, the agency
    now spends less than 4 percent of its budget on 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. In fact, most herd management areas
    haven't been censused for at least five years.
        The removal of large numbers of horses creates a management crisis,
    witnessed by recent events including the slaughter of 41 wild mustangs.
    Although the BLM has recognized the shortage of good adoptive homes and
    has subsequently opened several long-term holding facilities where
    horses are pastured in large groups, it is unclear how the agency can
    sustain this plan of action; as more horses are rounded up, additional
    facilities are needed. For 2005, BLM intends to round up 9,800 wild
    horses and burros but estimates it will only be able to place 7,150
    through the adoption program. Already the agency spends some 40 percent
    of its annual budget on caring for approximately 21,000 horses removed
    from the range, with nearly another 40 percent of the budget going to a
    marketing and adoption program that cannot successfully place the
    thousands of wild horses and burros rounded up annually.
        Furthermore, the BLM has not submitted a biannual report regarding
    the status of the wild horse and burro program to Congress, as provided
    for in the 1971 Act. Astonishingly, 1997 was the last year the BLM
    presented a report to Congress, covering the years from 1992-1995.
    Since that time, the BLM has, for all intents and purposes, not been
    held accountable for its actions. Congress and the general public have
    been denied an opportunity to scrutinize the agency's management
    actions. Requesting additional funds to conduct massive and
    indiscriminate wild horse and burro removals to levels that jeopardize
    the welfare of these animals, while at the same time wasting hundreds
    of millions of taxpayer dollars on the environmentally destructive
    livestock grazing program, is nothing short of indefensible. The agency
    has apparently lost sight of its legal mandate to protect wild free-
    roaming horses and burros.
        Most importantly, in light of the huge number of wild horses and
    burros being rounded up through emergency and scheduled gathers and the
    passage of a last-minute rider in the fiscal year 2005 omnibus spending
    package to allow for the slaughter of wild horses, it is imperative
    that the ``no-kill'' provision that has been attached to the Interior
    Appropriations bill for several years be included again in fiscal year
    2006. The Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act's core principles have
    always reflected the understanding that Americans want these animals to
    remain free from slaughter or other forms of killing. Therefore, we
    join with the Doris Day Animal League and other animal protection
    organizations in urging that the following language be incorporated
    into the bill:

        ``No appropriations made herein shall be available for the sale,
    slaughter or destruction of healthy, unadopted, wild horses and burros
    in the care of the Bureau of Land Management or its contractors.''

        Recent reports that 41 horses went to slaughter directly after they
    were sold by BLM highlights the urgent need for this language.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium
                                request summary
        On behalf of the nation's 35 Tribal Colleges and Universities
    (TCUs), which comprise the American Indian Higher Education Consortium
    (AIHEC), thank you for this opportunity to present our fiscal year 2006
    Appropriations requests for the 27 colleges funded under the Tribally
    Controlled College or University Assistance Act (Tribal College Act),
    and for our two 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 programs authorized under the Tribal College Act, we
    recognize that a focused approach with incremental increases is a
    realistic way to meet that goal. In fiscal year 2006, we seek a total
    of $69.8 million for Tribal College Act programs. Our first priority
    within this request is to increase funding for the day-to-day
    operations of institutions funded under Titles I & II of the Act. For
    this we specifically request $67.5 million; of which, $49.8 million
    would be for Title I grants (funding 26 tribal colleges) and $17.7
    would be allocated for Title II (Dine College). This request is an
    increase of $9 million for Title I grants and a $6.6 million increase
    for Dine College over fiscal year 2005 levels and a total of $24.275
    million over the President's budget request. Additionally, we seek
    $215,000 for the technical assistance contract under Sec. 105 of the
    Act, an increase of approximately $100,000 over the President's
    request. These funds will help address continually emerging technical
    assistance needs and to gather and analyze data necessary to comply
    with the Congressional request to provide added information on TCUs;
    and $2 million is requested for endowments under Title III of the Act.
    Also, we support $4.5 million for United Tribes Technical College; and
    $2.25 million for Crownpoint Institute of Technology; the fiscal year
    2006 submitted budget once again recommends eliminating funding for
    these two tribally controlled postsecondary vocational institutions.
        AIHEC's membership also includes three other TCUs funded under
    separate authorities within Interior Appropriations, namely: Haskell
    Indian Nations University; Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute;
    and The Institute of American Indian Arts. AIHEC supports the
    independently submitted requests for funding the institutional
    operations 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 35 Tribal Colleges and Universities in 13 states, created
    specifically to serve the higher education needs of American Indians.
    Annually, they serve approximately 30,000 full- and part-time students
    from over 250 Federally recognized tribes.
        The vast majority of TCUs is accredited by independent, regional
    accreditation agencies and like all institutions of higher education,
    must undergo stringent performance reviews on a periodic basis to
    retain their accreditation status. In addition to college level
    programming, TCUs 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 TCUs 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. The Tribal College Act was first funded in 1981.
    Today, 24 years later and notwithstanding an increase of $6 million in
    fiscal year 2005, these colleges are operating at $4,447 per full-time
    Indian student count (ISC), less than 75 percent of their authorized
    level of $6,000 per ISC. If in 2005 the TCUs were to be fully funded at
    $6,000 per ISC, with inflation factored in, they would have the same
    buying power as their initial fiscal year 1981 appropriations, which
    was $2,831 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 to grow their programs
    in response to the changing needs of their students and the communities
    they serve.
                                 justifications
        (a) Tribal colleges provide critical access to vital postsecondary
    education opportunities.--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 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 of reservations, 74 percent of recent tribal
    college graduates are employed and using the skills gained through
    their educational experiences. Many of these graduates are employed in
    ``high need'' occupational areas such as Head Start teachers,
    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. Nearly
    one-half of the faculty and staff of Little Big Horn College in Crow
    Agency, Montana are graduates of the college.
        (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 to 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 college attendance increases educational success and
    serves as highly effective bridges to four-year postsecondary
    institutions.--While most TCUs are two-year institutions offering
    certificates and associate degrees, their transfer function is
    significant. A survey of TCU graduates conducted by Harder + Company
    Community Research, San Francisco, CA for the American Indian College
    Fund, indicated that more than 80 percent of respondents who attended a
    mainstream college prior to enrolling at a tribal college did not
    finish the degree they were pursuing at the mainstream college. The
    rate of completion markedly improved for those who attended a tribal
    college prior to pursuing a degree at a mainstream institution. After
    completing tribal college coursework, less than half of respondents
    dropped out of mainstream college, and nearly 40 percent went on to
    obtain a bachelor's degree. This suggests tribal colleges may have a
    profound impact on the persistence of American Indian students in
    pursuit of baccalaureate degrees. The overwhelming majority of
    respondents felt that their tribal college experience had prepared them
    well for further education and noted that it had a very positive impact
    on their personal and professional achievements.
                             some additional facts
        (a) Enrollment Gains & New TCUs.--Compounding existing funding
    disparities is the fact that although the numbers of TCUs and students
    enrolled in them have dramatically increased since 1981, appropriations
    have increased at a disproportionately low rate. Since 1981, the number
    of colleges has increased from 6 to 27 and Indian student enrollments
    have risen a remarkable 348.2 percent. Over the last four years, the
    enrollments have increased an average of 7 percent. In fiscal year
    2005, two newly established TCUs, Saginaw Chippewa Tribal College
    (Michigan) and Tohono O'odham Community College (Arizona) became
    eligible to receive funds under the Tribal College Act. White Earth
    Tribal and Community College (Minnesota) is expected to become eligible
    for funding in fiscal year 2006. 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 TCUs to
    slice an already inadequate pie into even smaller pieces. Our fiscal
    year 2006 request would fund operations at Title I colleges at
    approximately $5,160 per ISC, which after 25 years is still short of
    the $6,000 per ISC currently authorized by Congress.
        (b) The Absence of State Funds for Institutional Operations.--While
    mainstream institutions have enjoyed a foundation of long-term 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 contribute basic operating
    funds to the institution.
        (c) Local Tax and Revenue Bases.--TCUs cannot rely on local tax
    base revenue. Although tribes have the sovereign authority to tax, high
    reservation poverty rates, the trust status of reservation lands, and
    the lack of strong reservation economies hinder the creation of a
    reservation tax base. On reservations where tribal colleges are
    located, anywhere from 32.4 to 59.3 percent of the eligible workforce
    is unemployed. In comparison, the national unemployment rate for March
    2005 is 5.2 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 that no other institutions of higher
    education are willing, or able, to provide by helping the Federal
    government fulfill its responsibility to the American people,
    particularly in rural America. Despite the fact that only students that
    are enrolled members of a Federally recognized Indian tribe are counted
    when determining the level of 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 2006
        The President's fiscal year 2006 budget calls for a $9,766,000
    decrease in institutional operating funds, an 18.5 percent cut, to an
    already inadequate funding level and once again calls for the
    elimination funding for the two tribally chartered vocational colleges.
    Despite a $5 million increase in the fiscal year 2005 Appropriation,
    the 26 colleges currently funded under Title I of the Act are receiving
    $4,447 per full time Indian student (ISC), less than 75 percent of the
    authorized level of $6,000 per ISC. The cut proposed in the President's
    fiscal year 2006 budget, if enacted, would cause some TCUs to no longer
    be able to meet minimum requirements for stable funding needed to pay
    overhead and the salaries of faculty and staff. This would not only
    jeopardize their accreditation status but would most likely force some
    of the colleges to close their doors.
              aihec's appropriations request for fiscal year 2006
        We respectfully request a total appropriation of $69.8 million for
    our Tribal College Act authorized programs. Our first priority within
    this request is to increase funding for the day-to-day operations of
    institutions funded under Titles I & II of the Act, for this we
    specifically request $67.5 million; of which, $49.8 million would be
    for Title I grants (funding 26 tribal colleges) and $17.7 would be
    allocated for Title II (Dine College). This request is an increase of
    $9 million for Title I grants and a $6.6 million increase for Dine
    College over fiscal year 2005 levels and a total of $24.275 million
    over the President's budget request. This increase would bring funding
    for the basic operations of the 26 Title I colleges to approximately
    $5,160 per ISC, which is still short of the authorized amount of $6,000
    per ISC. Additionally, we seek: $215,000 for the technical assistance
    contract under Sec. 105 of the Act, an increase of approximately
    $100,000 over the President's request. These funds will 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, an increase of $1,030,000 over fiscal year
    2005 and the President's budget request.
        For our two tribally controlled vocational institutions, we support
    $4.5 million for United Tribes Technical College; and $2.25 million for
    Crownpoint Institute of Technology to restore and expand the funding
    for these programs that the fiscal year 2006 President's budget
    recommends eliminating.
                                   conclusion
        Tribal colleges provide higher education to thousands of American
    Indians who might otherwise not have access to such opportunities. The
    modest Federal investment in the Tribal Colleges and Universities has
    paid great dividends in terms of employment, education, and economic
    development. 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 2006 appropriations requests.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the American Society for the Prevention of
                               Cruelty to Animals
            bureau of land management--wild horse and burro program
        On behalf of more than 74,000 supporters or the American Society
    for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (hereinafter ``ASPCA''), I
    respectfully submit the following testimony regarding the Bureau of
    Land Management Wild Horse and Burro Program.
        In fiscal year 2001, the BLM received a $9 million budget increase
    to halve the number of wild horses on the range within four years.
    Despite the agency's inability to meet this goal, large numbers of
    horses were removed from the range and this new level of funding was
    maintained through fiscal year 2004. Last year, the agency requested
    another increase of $10.5 million (plus another $2.3 million from
    Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act funds) so that it can once
    again begin mass roundups to drastically reduce the number of wild
    horses and burros on the range from a rough estimate of 35,000 to just
    25,000 in a mere two to three years. Yet the agency has failed to
    conduct the most basic research to justify its proposed action. Despite
    a statutory requirement to base roundups on current data, the agency
    now spends less than 4 percent of its budget on 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. In fact, most herd management areas
    haven't been censused for at least five years.
        The removal of large numbers of horses creates a management crisis,
    witnessed by recent events including the slaughter of 41 wild mustangs.
    Although the BLM has recognized the shortage of good adoptive homes and
    has subsequently opened several long-term holding facilities where
    horses are pastured in large groups, it is unclear how the agency can
    sustain this plan of action; as more horses are rounded up, additional
    facilities are needed. For 2005, BLM intends to round up 9,800 wild
    horses and burros but estimates it will only be able to place 7,150
    through the adoption program. Already the agency spends some 40 percent
    of its annual budget on caring for approximately 21,000 horses removed
    from the range, with nearly another 40 percent of the budget going to a
    marketing and adoption program that cannot successfully place the
    thousands of wild horses and burros rounded up annually.
        Furthermore, the BLM has not submitted a biannual report regarding
    the status of the wild horse and burro program to Congress, as provided
    for in the 1971Act. Astonishingly, 1997 was the last year the BLM
    presented a report to Congress, covering the years from 1992-1995.
    Since that time, the BLM has, for all intents and purposes, not been
    held accountable for its actions. Congress and the general public have
    been denied an opportunity to scrutinize the agency's management
    actions. Requesting additional funds to conduct massive and
    indiscriminate wild horse and burro removals to levels that jeopardize
    the welfare of these animals, while at the same time wasting hundreds
    of millions of taxpayer dollars on the environmentally destructive
    livestock grazing program, is nothing short of indefensible. The agency
    has apparently lost sight of its legal mandate to protect wild free-
    roaming horses and burros.
        Most importantly, in light of the huge number of wild horses and
    burros being rounded up through emergency and scheduled gathers and the
    passage of a last-minute rider in the fiscal year 2005 omnibus spending
    package to allow for the slaughter of wild horses, it is imperative
    that the ``no-kill'' provision that has been attached to the Interior
    Appropriations bill for several years be included again in fiscal year
    2006. The Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act's core principles have
    always reflected the understanding that Americans want these animals to
    remain free from slaughter or other forms of killing. Therefore, we
    join with the Doris Day Animal League and other animal protection
    organizations in urging that the following language be incorporated
    into the bill:

        ``No appropriations made herein shall be available for the sale,
    slaughter or destruction of healthy, unadopted, wild horses and burros
    in the care of the Bureau of Land Management or its contractors.''

        Recent reports that 41 horses went to slaughter directly after they
    were sold by BLM highlights the urgent need for this language.
        Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck
                               Indian Reservation
        The Fort Peck Tribes are pleased to present testimony on the fiscal
    year 2006 BIA and IHS Budget. The Tribes are disappointed that the
    Administration has proposed a $108 million decrease in funding in BIA
    programs, including cuts to the Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA)
    account, and an $86 million reduction in Indian Health Service
    Construction. We urge the Appropriators to reject these cuts and
    recognize the need to increase funding for critical tribal programs
    like law enforcement, resource management, child welfare and general
    assistance, community health nurses, and education.
                            bureau of indian affairs
    The Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System
        The Tribes request $200,000 for the operation, maintenance and
    replacement (OM&R) of the Fort Peck Reservation Water System. Congress
    enacted the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System Act of 2000,
    Public Law 106-382, to ensure safe and adequate municipal, rural and
    industrial water supply to all of the residents of the Fort Peck Indian
    Reservation. This law directs that funding for the operation of the
    water system is to come from the BIA. After several years of
    construction, the Tribes and the Bureau of Reclamation have completed
    the raw water intake facility and we now seek funding for the
    operation, maintenance and replacement costs for this facility as
    required by the Act. To date, the BIA has informed the Tribes it has no
    OM&R funds to award us for this project.
    Funding for Law Enforcement Programs
        In the fiscal year 2006 budget, the Administration has failed to
    request sufficient funds to fulfill its basic trust responsibility in
    the areas of health and safety. The Fort Peck Tribes are particularly
    concerned with the failure of the Administration to request any
    increase in law enforcement funding across Indian county. The only
    increase for this account was directed for the operation and
    maintenance of detention facilities. The Tribes are facing a crisis in
    direct law enforcement services, most particularly in the area of
    staffing. Tribal and BIA law enforcement departments are unable to
    compete with local and other federal law enforcement agencies in salary
    and benefits packages. Thus, even when a Tribe has the resources to
    hire an officer, it is unable to retain him once he is fully trained
    and certified.
        This problem will become more acute for the Fort Peck Tribes at the
    end of this year because the Fort Peck Tribes will no longer be able to
    receive Department of Justice COPS hiring retention grants. Without
    this federal funding to support the Public Safety Department, the Fort
    Peck Department will go from a department of 47 to a department of 14
    positions, with only 8 patrol officers, a loss of 70 percent of our law
    enforcement personnel. Eight officers cannot adequately patrol a 2
    million acre Reservation with a population of over 11,000, with a high
    incidence of substance abuse and violent crimes. A survey of current
    officers has shown that they will not continue to work for the Tribes
    under conditions where they must patrol alone, respond to calls without
    backup, and work longer hours for the same or less pay.
        To address this need, the Fort Peck Tribes request $907,840 to be
    added to the Tribes' law enforcement base budget to ensure the
    continued staffing and operation of the Fort Peck Tribes Public Safety
    Department. Without these funds, the Fort Peck Tribal Council will
    reluctantly be forced to consider returning the operation and
    management of the law enforcement department, which the Tribes have
    operated under an Indian Self-Determination Act contract since 1995,
    back to the BIA.
    Tribal Priority Allocations
        The BIA's Tribal Priority Allocations system is intended to give
    tribes an additional measure of flexibility to determine how best to
    use available fund for local needs. However, the Administration has
    requested a $9.3 million reduction (more then 10 percent) in this
    account. The basis for this reduction is remised on the need to
    reevaluate the TPA funding distribution formula and to divert funds for
    the Office of Special Trustee. We do not believe that there is a need
    to reevaluate the distribution formula or fund the OST at the expense
    of Tribal governments. We are certain that the needs in Indian Country
    far exceed the existing level of funding for the TPA account. The
    Administration is simply wrong in seeking a reduction in this account.
    Particularly alarming are proposed reductions for the welfare
    assistance and the Johnson O'Malley programs. Many tribal members or
    families who do not qualify for assistance under the Temporary
    Assistance to Needy Families (TANIFF) program receive welfare
    assistance (general assistance for unemployed individuals and child
    welfare assistance) from the Fort Peck Agency. The BIA follows the
    State of Montana's payment standards under TANIFF when making welfare
    assistance payments. Monthly rates just increased by $30. The BIA
    estimates that the fiscal year 2006 monthly payment to Welfare
    Assistance clients on the Fort Peck Reservation will total $48,000 or
    $576,000 for the fiscal year. Unless Congress increases funding for
    this program of last resort, eligible tribal members in need of
    assistance will be turned away.
    Education
                Higher Education
        We urge the Committee to support the education needs of Indian
    people. The President's budget requests $27.4 million for scholarships
    for Indian students to attend accredited post-secondary schools. This
    cuts $500,000 from the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. 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 low. 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 funds. 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 $9.7 million. 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, which can
    strain important cultural ties. The need for rural Tribal colleges is
    critical for many of our students, especially our single parent
    students, who need family members in close proximity so that they can
    assist in child care duties. These students do not have the resources
    or the network to attend school in Billings or Missoula. 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 for IHS services and construction
    is inadequate and will not keep pace with medical inflation rates. 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 sorely missing
    from the Administration's fiscal year 2006 budget requests. The Federal
    government has a trust responsibility reaffirmed through treaties,
    legislation, executive orders and policies by Congress and Presidential
    Administrations to provide health care to Native Americans, an
    obligation that was paid for by the Native people of this county with
    millions of acres of land, resources, and our traditional way of life.
    While the Administration has lost sight of this obligation, Congress
    cannot abdicate its responsibility to meet this well documented need.
    The costs that the United States will incur through lost business
    productivity, bankruptcies, and disrupted families by not funding
    preventive health care needs, and the costs that Indian tribes will
    incur through the unmet health needs of their members, will far exceed
    the funds Indian tribes will request the Congress to restore to the
    fiscal year 2006 budget.
    Contract Health
        The Tribes' request a near doubling of our inadequate Contract
    Health budget to $10.413 million to meet the growing health demands of
    our more than 11,000 tribal members. Far too many members are not
    referred out for contract health care services which their primary
    health care professionals determine are medically necessary. Members
    are told that no funds are available for contract health services.
    Patients requiring surgeries are mostly given prescriptions for pain
    instead of receiving contract health services. The need for Contract
    Health care funding only highlights the Tribes need for a fully staffed
    and equipped health facility capable of providing a full range of
    medical services. The United States boasts the best health care system
    in the world. The time for improved health care services in Indian
    country is long overdue.
    Health Program Specialist
        The Tribes' IHS funding request is $132,000 to continue funding
    four our Health Programs Specialist. This position was created by the
    Tribes in partnership with the IHS to better coordinate the delivery of
    preventative and treatment programs for the people of the Fort Peck
    Reservation. Specifically, the Health Programs Specialist coordinates
    Health and Wellness Promotion, Disease Prevention and Substance Abuse
    Treatment programs for all eligible Indian beneficiaries within the
    exterior boundaries of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation. For fiscal
    year 2005, the Indian Health Service was able to utilize carry-over
    funds to fund this position, although it was initially thought that the
    position would be funded by IHS Headquarters using Health Promotion and
    Disease Prevention (HP/DP) program funds. Unfortunately, we have now
    been informed by the IHS that if the Tribes want this program to
    continue then this position must be absorbed by our already underfunded
    Service Unit. We request that the Congress earmark an additional
    $130,000 for the Verne E. Gibbs Service Unit to fund our Health
    Programs Specialist position. We do not understand why the IHS is
    currently advertising for a GS-14/15 Health System Administrator
    position for the Billings Area Office at a time when they claim to have
    no funds for the Tribes' Health Program Specialist position.
    Health Facilities Needs
        The Fort Peck Tribes are shocked and dismayed by the
    Administration's $86 million cut in IHS facilities construction. The
    Fort Peck Tribes are in dire need of an inpatient facility where our
    people can receive care and not have to be flown to Billings or
    Williston to receive adequate medical care. However, when we discussed
    this with Indian Health Service officials, we were told that the IHS
    will not consider the Fort Peck Reservation for a new in-patient
    facility. We further understand that it will take years to get on the
    list for a new facility and receive facilities funding. It is clear
    that there is extraordinary need for health facilities construction in
    Indian County, which is mostly rural in character and in dire need of
    additional medical facilities. We urge the Congress to examine this
    matter and restore the IHS facilities construction budget. This is the
    first step toward addressing this unmet need in Indian Country. We
    request that the IHS Regional Office be instructed to undertake a needs
    assessment regarding the proposed facility. Thank you for allowing us
    to submit these comments.

        LEVEL OF DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR BUREAU OF INDIANS AFFAIRS AND IHS
                           FUNDING TO FORT PECK TRIBES
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Fiscal year
                                             -------------------------------
                                               2005 current    2006 adequate
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Bureau of Indian Affairs

    Fort Peck Agency:
        Aid to Tribal Gov't.................  ..............         $36,800
        Social Services.....................        $464,681         532,909
        Welfare Assistance..................         289,325         576,000
        Wildland Fire Protection............         173,413         246,807
        Economic Development................         147,705         191,668
        Probate.............................         119,621         175,476
        IBDP Grants.........................  ..............         375,000
        Other Rights Protection.............         159,661         205,027
        Real Estate Services................         707,780         989,524
        Executive Direction.................         109,907         147,674
        Administrative Services.............         282,800         359,510
        Trust Services......................          49,640          90,652
        Lease Compliance....................          67,650         105,682
        Safety Management...................  ..............           1,800
        Road Maintenance....................         422,000         447,000
        Irrigation O&M......................  ..............         299,200
        Facilities Op./Maintenance..........         441,460         494,376
                                             -------------------------------
          Total.............................       3,435,643       5,275,105
                                             ===============================
             Indian Health Services

    Fort Peck service unit:
        Hospitals & Clinics.................       4,638,300       7,055,100
        Direct Operation....................           6,700           9,100
        Dental..............................         551,500       1,529,800
        Mental Health.......................         452,400         767,100
        Contract Health.....................       5,671,900      10,413,000
        Public Health Hearing...............         326,200         441,000
        Maintenance & Improvements..........          59,100         215,100
        Environmental Health................         316,000         427,200
        Facilities..........................         325,900         521,700
        Quarters............................          40,300         257,300
        AIDS Prevention.....................  ..............         135,200
                                             -------------------------------
          Total.............................      12,388,300      21,771,600
                                             ===============================
          Tribal Public Law 93-638 BIA

    Contracts & grants:
        Assiniboine and Sioux Rural Water     ..............         200,000
         System O&M.........................
        Scholarships........................         326,817         345,000
        Adult Voc. Tech./Direct Employment..         277,893         304,000
        Johnson O'Malley Program............         157,945         172,000
        Housing Improvement Program.........         222,950       5,179,000
        Indian Child Welfare Act............          66,915          96,915
        Sexual Abuse Victim. Prog...........         148,670         150,600
        Water Resources.....................         104,561         126,426
        Fish & Wildlife.....................         112,000         212,614
        Tribal Courts.......................         235,784         549,764
        Law and Justice.....................       1,104,299       1,782,372
        Detention Services/juvenile services       1,782,372       2,140,764
        Appraisals..........................          50,782          50,782
        Water Mang. Planning................         105,600         105,600
        Noxious weed eradication............           9,630          25,000
        Natural resources...................         284,466         333,252
                                             -------------------------------
          Total.............................       4,990,684      11,774,089
                                             ===============================
          Tribal Public Law 93-638 IHS

    Contracts & grants:
        Tribal Health Specialist............  ..............         130,000
        Tribal Health Administration........         140,255         147,268
        Community Health Rep................         704,838         740,080
        Environmental Health Program........         396,426         101,247
        Health Education....................         150,431         157,953
        Nutritionist........................          70,476         115,475
        Janitorial Services.................         121,550         127,627
                                             -------------------------------
          Total.............................       1,283,976       1,519,650
                                             ===============================
    Spotted Bull Treatment Center:
        Alcohol Prevention/Education........         783,667         928,566
        Residential Aftercare...............         482,164         578,597
        Youth Services Center...............         114,700         185,471
                                             -------------------------------
          Total.............................       1,380,531       1,692,634
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Awwa Research Foundation
        Thank you for the opportunity to present Congressional testimony on
    behalf of the Awwa Research Foundation (AwwaRF or Foundation) and to
    introduce the work of the Foundation to the Subcommittee on Interior
    and Related Agencies. For fiscal year 2006, AwwaRF requests your
    consideration for a $5 million add-on for drinking water research in
    the EPA Science and Technology account. This request is made with deep
    appreciation for the past 18 years of support provided by Congress and
    with a firm understanding of the future challenges facing the water
    suppliers of the United States.
        AwwaRF first requested assistance from the VA-HUD-Independent
    Agencies Committee 22 years ago and was awarded three separate $1
    million earmarks in fiscal year 1984, fiscal year 1985, and fiscal year
    1986. AwwaRF matched the $3 million in earmarks by securing funding
    from leading water utilities. Priority drinking water research was
    initiated, studies were conducted through a process of peer review and
    competitive awarding of research grants, and results transferred to the
    water supply and regulatory communities. That was the beginning of a
    voluntarily funded, industry-sponsored non-profit research effort that
    has become an organizational model for environmental research programs
    throughout the world.
        Beginning in 1985, AwwaRF created the research subscription program
    in which water agencies voluntarily placed a research charge in their
    rate base. The donations from each participating utility are
    collectively used to fund priority research issues of the water supply
    community. To ensure the effective application of the funds, AwwaRF
    manages a comprehensive program of research identification, grant
    awards, and administration of research contractors. Hundreds of
    drinking water agencies throughout the United States and Canada have
    joined the research subscription program, making AwwaRF the most broad-
    based research program in the world. In 1991, AwwaRF approached the VA-
    HUD Committee once again, not for continued seed money, but with a
    request that the Congress help the water supply community leverage its
    own funding in order to address a growing list of drinking water
    research issues. The Committee has responded favorably to each of these
    requests from fiscal year 1992 through fiscal year 2005. During this
    same period, the number of AwwaRF subscribing utilities has increased
    to over 920 including water suppliers in England, Scotland, France,
    Australia, The Czech Republic, and South Korea. This underscores the
    global nature of drinking water research issues as well as the
    collaborative approach to solutions.
        The success of this type of public-partnership approach is evident
    in the fact that since 1983, the VA-HUD Committee's $52 million in
    earmarked add-ons to AwwaRF has been matched with $232 million in
    industry funding and $78 million in contributions. This means that the
    $52 million in Congressional earmarks has been leveraged to a total
    value of $362 million in drinking water research. In these difficult
    budgetary times, this kind of partnership is the best way to fund
    priority drinking water research.
        For fiscal year 2006, we request an earmarked add-on of $5 million,
    which is the same amount provided in fiscal year 2005. Among the
    priority research areas for fiscal year 2006 are:
                             water utility security
        Foresight allowed the Foundation to quickly provide new tools to
    water utilities when the emphasis on security greatly increased after
    September 11, 2001. The Foundation's methodology for vulnerability
    assessment quickly became the core of the drinking water community's
    preparedness planning and is currently being used to conduct
    evaluations mandated by Congress.
                         new and emerging contaminants
        As the science of water advances, so does the ability to detect
    contaminants in drinking water that may affect human health. Research
    information is critical to determine where and to what extent these
    contaminants occur, how effective current treatment methods are at
    removing them, and what new technologies may be needed. The Foundation
    often provides regulators and the water community with the first data
    available on new contaminants. The information is used to identify
    knowledge gaps and develop research plans. Newly emerging contaminants
    such as perchlorate, endocrine-disruption compounds, and MTBE are the
    focus of current Foundation studies including the AwwaRF/East Valley
    Water District perchlorate research partnership funded through the
    efforts of Congressman Jerry Lewis.
                     infrastructure renewal and replacement
        A notable percentage of U.S. drinking water distribution systems
    are reaching the end of their reliable lifespan. The CBO estimates that
    the national cost to replace this infrastructure is from $12 to $20
    billion per year over the next two decades. Research is critical for
    water utilities to make cost-effective, long-term capital planning
    decisions on how to renew, reuse, or replace their infrastructure.
    Fully 30 percent of the Foundation's annual budget has been allocated
    to infrastructure-related research. The findings are providing tools
    and technologies for cost-effective selection of pipe-renewal
    techniques, corrosion-control practices to prolong the life of existing
    pipes, and planning and asset management.
                              new sources of water
        Recurring drought and rapid population growth in regions where
    drinking water is already a scarce commodity has forced water utilities
    to look for new water sources to augment and sustain future water
    needs. The use of reclaimed wastewater, surface water and groundwater
    of poorer quality, seawater, and brackish water requires the
    development and application of new technologies. Foundation research is
    evaluating cost-effective and reliable techniques while considering
    energy costs and the responsible management of residues. Desalination
    and water sustainability are research areas of particular emphasis.
        Over 850 research projects have been completed or are ongoing. The
    collective result has been an expansion of knowledge that is of great
    value to both the drinking water and the regulatory communities.
        AwwaRF's initiatives began in the first term of President Reagan
    when budget deficits were threatening to choke off federal
    discretionary spending. These deficits continue for the fiscal year
    2006 appropriations cycle when the post 9-11 world threatens to curtail
    discretionary spending. In fiscal year 2006, AwwaRF, supported by 22
    years of credibility with Congressional and an internationally
    recognized program of drinking water research management, requests $5
    million in earmarked funding. AwwaRF has historically provided a
    funding leverage of almost $6 for every $1 of Congressional funds. In
    fiscal year 2005, this match was $7.52 for every $1 of Congressional
    add-on. It is expected that in fiscal year 2006 AwwaRF will continue or
    exceed the same level of participation by the water community.
        We trust that the urgency of the drinking water research agenda,
    AwwaRF's international credibility, and the provision for a significant
    funding match, provides a very compelling argument in support of a
    fiscal year 2006 earmark of $5 million.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of Cass County, Minnesota
        Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: I appreciate
    the opportunity to present this testimony in support of a $1.2 million
    appropriation to the State of Minnesota from the Forest Legacy Program
    for the Brainerd Lakes conservation effort.
        I have served in the position of Cass County Land Commissioner for
    13 years. Cass County is a very fast growing rural county in North
    Central Minnesota. The population is increasing at an annual rate of
    approximately 5 percent a year. This is placing tremendous pressure on
    the quality of our natural environment. One of our main goals is to
    maintain the balance between growth and conservation of our natural
    resources for future generations.
        The Brainerd Lakes area of North Central Minnesota, located just
    two hours north of the Twin Cities metropolitan area, is a popular
    four-season recreation spot for residents of Minneapolis and St. Paul
    as well as other visitors attracted by its lakes, streams, rivers and
    forests. Visitors to the area enjoy fishing, hunting, skiing, snow-
    shoeing, wildlife viewing, hiking, canoeing, and camping. In the
    summer, the population of the Brainerd Lakes area quadruples in size,
    and the outstanding recreational opportunities offered throughout the
    region are fueling a growing demand for second home development.
        As development pressures increase, efforts to protect the
    environmental, economic and social values of Minnesota's north woods
    are underway. This year, an opportunity exists to complete a
    conservation easement on 4,790 acres of privately owned forestland in
    the Brainerd Lakes region through the Forest Legacy Program. The
    Brainerd Lakes Forest Legacy project is a collaborative effort among
    the state of Minnesota, the Potlatch Corporation, and local community
    supporters to ensure the continued availability of these strategically
    located productive forestlands for multiple benefits. A conservation
    easement over these lands, which are immediately adjacent to Crow Wing
    and Pillsbury State Forests, will maintain the integrity of this
    productive forest, ensure public access and allow for sustainable
    forest management, thereby providing raw materials and jobs for the
    resource-based economy of northern Minnesota. The protection of these
    lands will also create a contiguous block of more than 22,000 acres of
    undeveloped forestland, one of the most significant remaining areas of
    open space in the Brainerd Lakes area.
        The President's budget proposal for fiscal year 2006 includes the
    $1.2 million needed for the Brainerd Lakes conservation effort. I urge
    you to support the full funding of this project in the fiscal year 2006
    Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present this request.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Board of California
        Support for fiscal year 2006 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 2006 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 (Public Law 93-320) and the Clean Water Act
    (Public Law 92-500).
        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
    human-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 Colorado 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 Basin-wide
    Program and by the U.S. Department of Agriculture through its
    Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). In keeping with the
    Congressional mandate to maximize the cost-effectiveness of the
    salinity control program, the Colorado River Board of California
    (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, 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 2006, 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.
        The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum), on behalf
    of the seven Colorado River Basin states, has submitted testimony to
    your Subcommittee. The Colorado River Board concurs in the fiscal year
    2006 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 $330 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 2006 and in future fiscal years, that the Congress provide
    adequate funds to the Bureau of Land Management for its activities
    related to salinity control in the Colorado River Basin.
        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 Colorado River Board greatly appreciates your support of the
    federal/state Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program and again
    asks for your assistance and leadership in securing adequate funding
    for this important program.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde
                              Community of Oregon
        Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I am Jack Giffen, Jr., a
    Tribal Council Member of the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde
    Community of Oregon. It is my pleasure to submit the Grand Ronde
    Tribe's following comments on the fiscal year 2006 Bureau of Indian
    Affairs and Indian Health Service appropriations items:
      --Reject the BIA's proposed restructuring of its Operation of Indian
            Programs budget and direct the Agency to collaboratively work
            with Indian tribes on any revision to the budget format;
      --Restore BIA Endangered Species funding in Non-Recurring Programs,
            Resources Management, to the $3 million level established in
            fiscal year 2002, and
      --In IHS, adjust the distribution of Contract Health Services funding
            among Regions to reflect the absence of any IHS inpatient care
            facilities within a Region.
        Our concerns are discussed below.
      reject the bia's proposed restructuring of its operation of indian
      programs budget and direct the agency to collaboratively work with
               indian tribes on any revision to the budget format
        Mr. Chairman, to the best of our knowledge, the Confederated Tribes
    of Grand Ronde have never received any specific information from the
    BIA regarding its proposal to ``restructure'' its Operation of Indian
    Programs budget. Nor have we ever been consulted on this proposal. Now
    we understand the BIA is asking your Subcommittee to approve this
    restructured budget. We urge you to reject that request and direct
    instead that the BIA enter into a collaborative effort with tribes to
    address perceived concerns with the current budget structure, and that
    the collaborators jointly report back to this Subcommittee with any
    recommendations for revising the budget structure.
        We particularly urge you to reject the BIA's budget restructuring
    proposal because we understand such a restructured budget is intended
    to pave the way for the BIA changing individual tribal-specific budgets
    from stable historically based amounts to so-called ``needs'' based
    amounts, which would be fluid and uncertain. Such a proposal is
    tremendously complicated and controversial, with very serious and long-
    term consequences for tribal governments, our interaction with the BIA,
    the federal trust responsibility, and the unique government-to-
    government relationship between the tribes and the United States. Such
    a change must not be undertaken without the full understanding and
    participation of the tribes. After all, it is the tribes--not the
    Bureau--that are to be served by the budget.
       restore bia endangered species funding in non-recurring programs,
      resources management, to the $3 million level established in fiscal
                                   year 2002
        Mr. Chairman, our Tribe is what is called a ``restored'' tribe.
    After a long, harsh, and unjust termination, the Confederated Tribes of
    Grand Ronde were restored to federal recognition in 1983. In 1988, with
    the help of Congress, we had a part of our old reservation land base
    restored to us--about 10,000 acres of forest in the Coast Range. Upon
    the restoration of this land to us, it was removed from BLM
    administration and taken into trust by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. At
    that time, the BIA had no identified funding for Endangered Species-
    related activities. In fiscal year 1991, with the listing of the
    Northern Spotted Owl in the Pacific Northwest, our Tribe, along with
    others, worked with Congress to establish a separate $1 million fund
    specifically for NSO ESA compliance activities on Northwest timber
    reservations. In fiscal year 1995 with the listing of the Marbled
    Murrelet, funding was increased to $1.83 million. In fiscal year 1996,
    the ESA compliance funds for Northwest timber tribes was combined with
    funds to reintroduce the Black Footed Ferret on the Cheyenne River
    Sioux Reservation, and the $2.6 million total was established as a
    separate Endangered Species program within BIA Non-Recurring Programs--
    Resources Management. In fiscal year 2002, the Administration proposed
    cutting the program to $1.6 million, but Congress funded it at $3
    million. From then until fiscal year 2005, Administration requests and
    across-the-board cuts have diminished the program to about $2.2
    million.
        For fiscal year 2006, the BIA is requesting that all the Endangered
    Species Program funding except $210,000 be eliminated. Such a reduction
    will eliminate all funding for field-level ESA compliance activities in
    the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Nowhere else in the Agency's budget is
    any funding identified for the conduct of this federal mandate on a
    trust resource, the active harvest of which has long provided our
    Tribal government an important source of revenue. It is our
    understanding the BIA's fiscal year 2006 Budget Justification states
    that this reduction in funding ``will curtail the ESA compliance effort
    for individual timber sales.'' We agree.
        Today, about 6.1 million board feet of timber is harvested annually
    from our Reservation. All of this timber supports local non-Indian
    sawmills, and is becoming increasingly important as other sources of
    timber dry up and as imports place increasing pressure on domestic
    lumber prices. The elimination of field funding for the federal ESA
    mandate will have a significant impact on our ability to continue to
    supply timber into the local market. We will have to either curtail our
    harvest, or force the cost of the federal ESA mandate to be passed
    along to local mills. Neither is an attractive option for our Tribe or
    for the local timber economy.
        We understand that the ESA budgets for other federal agencies are
    proposed to remain relatively robust for fiscal year 2006, including an
    $80 million program for states and territories. We absolutely fail to
    understand how, at the same time, the BIA can propose to eliminate its
    only source of funding for federally-mandated on-the-ground ESA
    compliance for a forest resource it is obliged to manage in trust for
    the benefit of tribes, and upon which many tribes heavily rely for
    basic governmental revenues. It is unjust and unjustifiable, and we
    urge the Subcommittee to restore these funds.
      in ihs, adjust the distribution of contract health services funding
    among areas to reflect the absence of any ihs inpatient care facilities
                                 within an area
        Mr. Chairman, we request that your Subcommittee look into the
    equity of the Indian Health Service's distribution of its Contract
    Health Services funds among the IHS Areas with regard to the presence
    or absence in the various Areas of IHS-funded inpatient health
    facilities, and to direct an appropriate adjustment for those Areas
    that do not have any such facilities.
        The IHS Portland Area, covering Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, does
    not have a single IHS inpatient facility. Almost all other Areas
    (California may be an exception) have numerous IHS inpatient facilities
    offering hundreds of beds, the availability of which provides an IHS-
    funded alternative to otherwise sending a Native American patient to a
    non-federal hospital. In the Portland Area, we do not have that option,
    and all our inpatient requirements must be taken care of at non-IHS
    hospitals and charged against our allocation of Contract Health
    Services funds. Almost all other IHS Areas have two IHS funded sources
    for inpatient care--IHS inpatient facilities and Contract Health
    Services, while the Portland Area has only one source that must cover
    all our needs--Contract Health Services. We do not believe the current
    CHS funding distribution methodology takes this disparity into account,
    and that, accordingly, the Portland Area is inequitably penalized.
        Mr. Chairman, the ability of the IHS to provide reasonable health
    services to all Native Americans is in crisis and getting worse. With
    grossly insufficient resources, IHS personnel every day are making
    quick ``life or limb'' decisions that often turn people away to
    otherwise avoidable or untimely sickness or death. It is exactly
    because the IHS system is so overstressed that we urge your
    Subcommittee to make sure that the Portland Area, with no IHS inpatient
    facilities, is assured of receiving equitably adjusted participation in
    Contract Health Services funding. When every dollar is essential, it is
    essential that every dollar be equitably distributed. So, we ask you to
    review the CHS funding distribution methodology, and adjust it for
    Areas that do not have IHS funded inpatient facilities as an option.
        That concludes my testimony. Thank you.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs
                             Reservation of Oregon
                                    summary
        Mr. Chairman, I am Ron Suppah, Chairman of the Confederated Tribes
    of the Warm Springs Reservation. I hereby present the following
    requests for the fiscal year 2006 BIA and IHS appropriations:
      --Reject the BIA's proposed budget restructuring,
      --Add $2 million to BIA TPA Forestry designated for Warm Springs,
      --Restore Endangered Species funding in Non-Recurring Programs to
            $3,000,000,
      --Restore BIA Water Management Planning & Pre-Development in Non-
            Recurring Programs and add $500,000 for Warm Springs water
            settlement implementation,
      --Add or earmark $750,000 for Warm Springs in BIA Law Enforcement,
            Special Programs and Pooled Overhead,
      --Add $2.5 million to IHS Hospitals and Clinics to fulfill U.S.
            commitments in the Warm Springs IHS Joint Venture Agreement
            Pilot Project,
      --Fully fund BIA's JOM and Welfare Assistance programs,
      --Direct the OST to fully consult with tribes on the implementation
            of OST's trust reform initiatives and that BIA funds shall not
            be diverted to OST, and
      --We request the Committee work with the NW Portland Area Indian
            Health Board to revise the Medicare Modernization Act to
            respect the unique legal relationship between Indian tribes and
            the federal government.
      reject the bia's proposed restructuring of the operation of indian
                                programs budget
        In the early 1990s, Warm Springs participated in the Tribal-BIA
    Joint Task Force that developed the current BIA budget system, which
    the Interior Appropriations Subcommittees adopted in fiscal year 1993,
    to delineate those parts of the BIA budget subject to tribal control
    and eliminate opaque BIA budget practices. The current Tribal Budget
    System continues to be supported by the tribes.
        The BIA now asserts that the budget format, which they helped
    develop and under which they have been operating for twelve years, is
    ``confusing and complex,'' and is urging Congress to adopt a new budget
    format that has not been reviewed by the tribes, provides less detail,
    enables increased internal transfers without oversight or explanation,
    and is intended to facilitate a drastic and fundamental change in the
    sensitive fiscal relationship between tribes and the Bureau--changing
    from a stable and predictable historically based tribal budget to an
    uncertain, shifting and murky ``needs'' based tribal budget. These
    changes entirely favor the BIA and disadvantage the tribes. Yet the BIA
    budget is for the benefit of tribes, not the BIA. Especially when
    budgets are tight, the federal obligation should be to the tribes and
    not the BIA. There is no need to rush to adopt the BIA's proposal, and,
    in fact, there is great reason to proceed with caution and due
    deliberation. The BIA must explain to its ``stakeholders'' why it feels
    budget change is needed, and then work with the tribes, as it did in
    the early 1990s, to address whatever budget structure adjustments might
    be warranted. We urge the Subcommittee to direct the Bureau to do so.
         add $2 million to bia tpa forestry designated for warm springs
        We request the addition of $2 million to the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs Tribal Priority Allocation budget specifically for the BIA
    Forestry program at Warm Springs. The insufficiency of BIA Forestry
    funding has been documented many times. The IFMAT-II report found
    federal Indian forest funding to be strikingly below that for National
    Forests and recommending that BIA Forestry funding be increased by $119
    million annually to achieve funding parity. At Warm Springs, we
    recently were awarded a $14 million judgment in a lawsuit against the
    BIA for timber mismanagement. Since 1996 when the Tribe received its
    initial ruling that the BIA had breached its trust responsibility, BIA
    Forestry funding has not increased on our Reservation, and in fact has
    declined from the early 1990s. The $2 million increase for Warm Springs
    is necessary for BIA to fulfill its trust responsibility for our forest
    resource.
        restore endangered species funding in non-recurring programs to
                                   $3,000,000
        This budget item is the only BIA funding for northern spotted owl
    and marbled murrelet ESA compliance, and was initiated by Congress in
    fiscal year 1993. Since then, BIA has twice sought to significantly
    reduce it, but Congress has steadily maintained the program. Now, for
    fiscal year 2006, BIA requests only $210,000, eliminating all field
    funding and acknowledging in the Justification the cut will ``curtail
    the ESA compliance effort for individual timber sales.'' For fiscal
    year 2006, we ask that the program be restored to at least the fiscal
    year 2002 level of $3,000,000, because our commercial timber harvest
    and economy are so dependant on funding of this federal mandate.
       restore bia water management planning and pre-development in non-
    recurring programs to $7.7 million and add or earmark $500,000 for warm
                springs water settlement implementation studies
        We request $500,000 be specifically provided for the Warm Springs
    Tribe to complete the studies and planning necessary for Water
    Management Planning and Pre-Development on the Reservation. In 1997,
    Warm Springs was the first tribe in many years to reach a negotiated
    water settlement with the United States and the State of Oregon. This
    settlement left most of the water in the Metolius and Deschutes Rivers
    and eliminated the need for the expensive water development legislation
    that normally accompanies tribal water settlements. But financial
    support is still needed for the Tribe to realize many of the benefits
    of the settlement, including development of a Comprehensive Warm
    Springs Water Development Plan, conduct of water quality modeling for
    the Deschutes River Basin, and examining potential energy development.
    Adding or designating $500,000 will allow the Tribe to pursue these
    projects and will allow the Tribe and the United States to realize the
    benefits of settlement.
       add or earmark $750,000 for warm springs in bia law enforcement,
                      special programs and pooled overhead
         Beginning in the early 1960's, as our Tribe began to assert more
    jurisdiction and authority over Reservation law enforcement, the BIA
    responded by gradually transferring federal funding elsewhere. For
    fiscal year 2006, we note that the Administration has requested an
    increase of more than $11 million for Law Enforcement programs.
    However, only $2.5 million of that increase is for officers and
    equipment. Our concern is that this fiscal year 2006 requested increase
    will be directed to those locations where tribes have left law
    enforcement responsibility entirely up to the BIA. Tribes such as Warm
    Springs that have stepped forward to help share local law enforcement
    responsibilities must not be penalized for having done so, and should
    share in BIA LES funding increases.
        The needs at Warm Springs are severe. Our tribal police force is
    extremely overextended. Major crime has increased on our Reservation to
    the degree that the FBI has assigned an additional agent in the area.
    Additionally, the Warm Springs jail, designed and built by the BIA,
    fails to meet current federal requirements, especially for juvenile
    offenders. BIA must meet its responsibilities for the public safety of
    the Warm Springs Reservation. Accordingly, we request that the Congress
    direct an increase of $750,000 in BIA Law Enforcement Services for Warm
    Springs.
    add $2,500,000 to ihs hospitals and clinics to fulfill u.s. commitments
         in the warm springs ihs joint venture agreement pilot project
        From fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2005, the IHS budget
    increased by an average of 3.1 percent annually, but the real
    purchasing power of the IHS budget was diminished by an estimated $886
    million. The Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board estimates that
    it will take an increase of $371 million in fiscal year 2006 to
    maintain current program services levels nationwide. The 2.1 percent
    fiscal year 2006 increase amounts to only $62.9 million. Moreover,
    after covering mandatory pay increases and new facilities staffing at
    $27.4 million, only $34.5 million is available for program increases.
    This increase will amount to less than 10 percent of the amount of
    purchasing power that will be lost to medical inflation. It is truly a
    ``drop in the bucket''.
        In 1993 the Congress, Indian Health Services (IHS) and the Warm
    Springs Tribe entered into an innovative ``Joint Venture Pilot
    Project'' where the Tribe financed and constructed a new clinic to
    federal standards and the Congress and IHS agreed to fully fund and
    staff an enhanced health care program in the new facility. However, IHS
    has failed to live up to its promise. And inadequately funded federal
    mandates have further diminished health services at Warm Springs. Due
    in part to these financial pressures, the Portland Area Office has
    begun to renege on the terms of the JV agreement. We request a $2.5
    million increase in funding IHS Hospitals and Clinics to offset
    unfunded pay costs, to adjust for 12 percent medical inflation and to
    provide full direct services for Warm Springs.
              fully fund bia's jom and welfare assistance programs
        The BIA's welfare assistance program cut of $6.4 million, more than
    7 percent, is cruel and short-sighted. The vaunted economic recovery
    has yet to arrive in Indian Country, and the 30 percent unemployment
    level at Warm Springs is more than twice the level in the second-most
    depressed county in rural Oregon.
        Regarding JOM, in 1960 our Tribe entered into an agreement with the
    State and the local public school district to provide our students with
    a better K-12 education. Since that time, the BIA's Johnson O'Malley
    program has provided partial but critical funding to support our
    students in the local school district. The 53 percent cut to the JOM
    program will result in the loss of vital school programs. We urge the
    Committee to reject these cuts.
     direct the ost to fully consult with tribes on the implementation of
       trust reform initiatives and that bia funds not be diverted to ost
        The Administration's budget includes a significant increase for
    trust management within the Office of the Special Trustee (OST). It
    appears that millions of dollars and significant FTE are being
    transferred from the field where they are most needed to centralized
    operations and bureaucracies in Albuquerque, NM and Washington, DC. It
    makes little sense to transfer funding, staff and management authority
    from the very resource management programs needing improvement in the
    name of ``trust reform''. Many of the trust management problems facing
    the BIA have resulted from inadequate systems and insufficient staff in
    the field necessary to properly fulfill their fiduciary trust duties.
    Funding levels for field staff functions including resources
    management, appraisals, inspections, enforcement, collections, title,
    records and probate must be increased and their administrative systems
    overhauled to improve fiduciary trust operations to the ``most
    exacting'' standards. Further, appropriate trust reform improvements
    must provide flexibility necessary to deal with the unique needs,
    circumstances and differences among tribes.
     we request the committee work with the nw portland area indian health
     board to revise the medicare modernization act to respect the unique
      legal relationship between indian tribes and the federal government
        For the past several years the Committee has assumed that both IHS
    and tribes will increase Medicare and Medicaid collections and assumes
    an $8.4 million increase in fiscal year 2006. However, these same
    programs are implementing changes that will result in the reduction of
    collections. The Medicare Modernization Act (MMA) will reduce IHS
    Medicare reimbursements, including reductions of up to $25 million for
    prescription drugs provided through IHS and tribal programs. Also, the
    President has proposed $48 billion in Medicaid cost savings over the
    next 10 years. The Oregon Health Plan is already reducing patient
    eligibility for the program as well as adding new payment restrictions,
    which will increase annual costs to the Tribes' Managed Care Program
    from $600,000 to $1.2 million annually. They will also reduce
    reimbursements for health care services provided by the WSSU. Rationing
    of certain health care services is the logical result if these cuts
    continue. Further compounding this problem is the Administration's
    departure from past policy that acknowledged the federal government's
    unique legal responsibilities to provide services to tribes and
    Indians. We urge the Committee to remind the Administration of the
    unique trust obligation to tribes and Indian people.
        Mr. Chairman, that concludes the Warm Springs' fiscal year 2006
    testimony on BIA and IHS.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the Defenders of Wildlife
        Defenders of Wildlife is a national non-profit organization
    dedicated to saving and restoring wildlife and wildlife habitat. We
    have substantial concerns about the administration's fiscal year 2006
    budget and make recommendations in the following priority areas.
        1. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS): Endangered Species (ESA)
    Program.--Defenders urges a total of $212 million for the four
    endangered species operations accounts, an increase of $68.8 million
    over fiscal year 2005 allocated as follows: $30 million for Listing, an
    increase of $14 million; $15 million for Candidate Conservation, an
    increase of $5.8 million; $110 million for Recovery, an increase of
    $40.1 million; and $57 million for Consultation, an increase of $8.9
    million. In addition, we request revision of the annual earmark for
    California condor recovery through the Peregrine Fund to include
    funding for all three recovery areas, including central California,
    rather than only for Arizona and Southern California as has been done
    historically.
        We are extremely disappointed that the President's $140.1 million
    request cuts FWS ESA implementation by $3 million or 2 percent below
    enacted. Although the administration contends that increases in grant
    programs will meet the same needs, these cannot substitute for mandated
    FWS obligations under the ESA. Recovery funding is substantially cut by
    nearly $6 million or 10 percent even though FWS has said that more than
    200 already listed species are on the verge of extinction, primarily
    due to insufficient recovery funds. The administration requested a $2.2
    million sorely needed increase in listing, but it is paid for by cuts
    in other endangered species accounts--and even that amount will not
    begin to cover the more than $150 million listing backlog and at least
    286 candidate species. While consultation does receive a modest
    increase, candidate conservation is cut by $1 million, yet both of
    these programs are in need of significant increases. Demand for efforts
    to conserve the long list of candidates while they await protection far
    exceeds funding; increases are needed to fund projects with local
    stakeholders and partners. In addition, the number of projects reviewed
    under the Consultation program has increased from 40,000 in 1999 to
    more than 75,000 in 2004 and further increases are expected. Finally,
    the development and implementation of Habitat Conservation Plans
    (HCPs), which allow activities to proceed while still protecting
    species, continues to expand, with funding critically needed to help
    ensure timely and effective development and monitoring of 440 existing
    and nearly 300 new HCPs and to alleviate the two to four year waiting
    period for new HCP applications.
        2. Fish and Wildlife Service: National Wildlife Refuge System
    Operations and Maintenance.--Defenders and the Cooperative Alliance for
    Refuge Enhancement, a diverse coalition of 21 conservation, recreation
    and scientific organizations, are requesting an fiscal year 2006
    increase of $16 million over enacted for a total of $397 million. We
    greatly appreciate the subcommittee's support in the past and ask that
    it be continued. We further request that any increase provided be
    directed to the System's highest operational priorities rather than to
    the ``Cooperative Conservation Initiative,'' as proposed in the
    president's budget, which is administered at the departmental level and
    does not address the most pressing operational needs. The National
    Wildlife Refuge System is our nation's only public lands system
    dedicated to wildlife conservation. Each year, 40 million people visit
    and enjoy wildlife refuges--there is a refuge in every state and within
    an hour's drive of most American cities. Despite its crucial role in
    the conservation of our nation's wildlife, the Refuge System has been
    crippled for years by severe funding shortfalls. Current information
    indicates that the full operations and maintenance backlog totals $2.7
    billion--the operations backlog is $1.4 billion of which the highest
    priority needs total $290 million, while the maintenance backlog is
    $1.3 billion.
        3. Fish and Wildlife Service: Multinational Species Conservation
    Fund (MNSCF).--Defenders urges $10.5 million, an increase of $4.8
    million over the fiscal year 2005 level for this small but highly
    successful program aimed at providing resources for on the ground
    conservation of endangered wildlife in foreign countries. This Fund
    uses small amounts of money appropriated by Congress to leverage a 3 to
    1 match in private dollars for every government dollar. These dollars
    have funded anti-poaching patrols for rhinos in Indonesia and rebuilt
    wildlife reserves destroyed by war in the Congo. Despite this
    tremendous success and the already meager funding for these programs,
    however, the administration has proposed cutting the Fund by $1.4
    million, a damaging 25 percent reduction from last year. Defenders is
    also opposed to a proposal in the budget to place the Neotropical
    Migratory Bird Fund under the MNSCF, a move that will help further the
    administration's tendency to play budgetary shell games. Moreover, the
    two programs are administered through different FWS divisions, so it
    makes no sense to combine them.
        4. Fish and Wildlife Service: Wildlife Without Borders.--Defenders
    urges a total of $2.5 million, an increase of $0.5 million over the
    2005 level of $2 million for Wildlife Without Borders. This is an
    important program that supports the Department of the Interior in
    meeting its obligations to conserve species of international concern
    around the globe. We are particularly concerned that a $394,000
    reduction proposed in the president's budget appears to eliminate most
    of the Mexican portion of the program which helps train indigenous
    people to care for the environment through agricultural methods that
    reduce economic dependency on their forests and lands thus protecting
    important habitat for species such as pronghorn sheep and monarch
    butterflies. This program is an important funding mechanism for trans-
    border work. It is especially important in light of increasing
    pressures on habitat from NAFTA-stimulated development, growing
    Department of Homeland Security activities (fencing, lighting,
    vegetation removal, motorized access into remaining remote areas) and
    urbanization of the border region. Wildlife Without Borders supports
    win-win, collaborative, multi-party and entrepreneurial approaches to
    conservation.
        5. Bureau of Land Management (BLM): Sage Grouse and Range
    Improvement Fund.--Defenders supports the $7.6 million request in the
    president's budget for conservation of the sage grouse and other
    sagebrush dependent species. Fully funding the BLM's sage grouse
    conservation efforts is essential if the BLM National Sage Grouse
    Habitat Conservation Strategy, released in November of 2004, is going
    to have a chance at success. In light of the Fish and Wildlife
    Service's decision not to list the sage grouse under the ESA, BLM, as
    the largest manager of sage grouse habitat in the country, is now the
    primary responsible agency for sage grouse conservation. In addition,
    Defenders is concerned that the administration's failure to request an
    appropriation from the Range Improvement Fund to fund range improvement
    projects will result in direct conflict and competition with already
    under funded BLM wildlife programs through the Challenge Cost Share
    program. If not funded through the Range Improvement Fund, these
    projects will be forced to compete with legitimate wildlife
    conservation projects.
        6. Forest Service: Wildlife and Fisheries Programs.--Defenders
    urges funding at no less than last year's level of $134.7 million for
    the Wildlife and Fish Management account. The president's budget
    slashes this account by almost $10 million, more than a 7.8 percent
    cut. The 193 million acre National Forest System is critically
    important to the conservation of wildlife, fish and their habitat--more
    than 425 species listed under the Endangered Species Act and an
    additional 3,200 at risk species occur on Forest Service lands. Fish
    and wildlife resources on our National Forests are important to people
    all across the nation--about 40 million visits per year are primarily
    for hunting, fishing or wildlife viewing. We also are concerned that
    funding for the Wildlife, Fish, Water and Air activity under the Forest
    Service Research and Development program appears to be substantially
    declining. Several years ago, the budget for Forest Service R&D was
    consolidated such that amounts for individual activities are no longer
    explicitly shown in the president's budget. Agency information shows
    that funding levels for Wildlife, Fish, Water and Air dropped from $52
    million in 2003 to $39.9 million in 2004, nearly a 25 percent cut and
    were only at $45.3 million for 2005 despite a steady increase in the
    R&D budget.
        7. Fish and Wildlife Service: Migratory Bird Programs.--Defenders
    supports the President's request of $41.6 million for Migratory Bird
    Management, an increase of nearly $6.2 million over the fiscal year
    2005 level, and we urge at least $1 million over the fiscal year 2005
    $4 million level for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act.
    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 non-game birds.
    Nearly 100 non-game birds are listed under the ESA and 131 species are
    on the FWS current list of Birds of Conservation Concern. Thus, over 25
    percent of all U.S. migratory birds are in serious need of conservation
    to assure their long-term survival.
        8. Bureau of Indian Affairs: Native American Fish and Wildlife
    Society.--Defenders supports an allocation of $750,000 for the Native
    American Fish and Wildlife Society through the Bureau of Indian Affairs
    resources management account, an increase of $282,000 over the static
    $468,000 level allocated to the Society for many years. The Native
    American Fish and Wildlife Society is a national tribal organization
    incorporated in 1983 to develop a communications network for the
    exchange of information and management techniques to assist Native
    Americans with the conservation, protection and enhancement of their
    wildlife resources. Efforts on tribal lands are critical to the
    conservation of our nation's biodiversity and Defenders believes that
    the Society and its role will become increasingly important in this
    work.
        9. Conservation Trust Fund (CTF).--Defenders urges full funding of
    the CTF (conservation spending category) at its dedicated fiscal year
    2006 level of $1.8 billion for the Interior appropriations subcommittee
    portion of the fund. Unfortunately, the President's budget cuts the
    fund by nearly a billion dollars or 52 percent below its dedicated
    fiscal year 2006 level. While we greatly appreciated the subcommittee's
    strong support for fully funding and maintaining the integrity of this
    historic dedicated fund during its first two years, we are dismayed
    that in subsequent years the subcommittee has backed away from its
    commitment. We understand that the subcommittee continues to be under
    substantial funding constraints not within its control, and we again
    will be working to generate congressional support for a 302(b)
    allocation sufficient to allow full funding for the CTF. Defenders
    continues to believe that establishment of the CTF was the greatest
    piece of conservation funding legislation enacted in our lifetimes and
    a commitment that must be kept.
        State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program.--Defenders and the more
    than 3,000 organizations nationwide in the Teaming With Wildlife
    Coalition request at least $85 million, $16 million above the 2005
    level, for this important program for fiscal year 2006 under the CTF.
    Within this amount, we strongly support increases for the tribal
    portion of the program which provides crucial funding for wildlife
    projects and assessments to conserve the many declining species on 100
    million acres of tribal lands. We are grateful for the subcommittee's
    support and while we appreciate the administration's requested increase
    of $5 million, the amount still falls far below the need. 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. The key to the program's success in its ability ultimately
    to avert the need to list numerous species in the future is the
    planning process which requires states to produce a comprehensive
    wildlife conservation strategy by October 2005. We urge the
    Subcommittee to continue its oversight of this critical process.
        Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).--Defenders urges funding
    of at least $450 million for LWCF under the CTF, $194 million above the
    enacted level: $350 million for federal LWCF and $100 million for state
    LWCF. We further urge Congress to maintain the integrity of the LWCF
    and reject the administration's continued attempts to use it to fund
    other programs. Despite the administration claim that LWCF is funded at
    $680 million, the total for true LWCF purposes is only $132 million.
    Fifteen other important but non-LWCF programs are used to make up the
    difference. In particular, we urge inclusion of $3 million for 2,500
    acres in the Suwannee Wildlife Corridor in Florida between Osceola
    National Forest and Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge and funding for
    acquisition in the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge in
    Texas which protects the highest diversity of birds in the National
    Wildlife Refuge System--lands planned for acquisition are jeopardized
    by rapidly increasing development and more than 40 willing sellers are
    available.
        Other Important Fish and Wildlife Service Grants.--Defenders
    recommends $90 million for the Cooperative Endangered Species Fund, $10
    million over the 2005 level and supports the request of $40 million for
    Landowner Incentive Grants and $10 million for Private Stewardship
    Grants under the CTF. Eighty per cent of habitat for more than half of
    listed species occurs on non-federal lands. The Cooperative Endangered
    Species Fund provides grants to states for conservation activities on
    non-federal lands both for listed and candidate species. Landowner
    Incentive and Private Stewardship Grants provide funding to states and
    private landowners for efforts to conserve species at risk on private
    lands. In addition to supporting the president's request, Defenders
    also supports allocation of $6 million of the total $40 million
    Landowner Incentive Program request to strengthen the technical
    capacity of the national network of state Natural Heritage Programs. By
    making a small proactive investment, Congress can strengthen the
    ability of the network to provide the empirical data needed to inform
    voluntary conservation efforts and natural resource decisions. This
    request would provide funding to each of the 50 states to improve their
    natural heritage information resources, and to NatureServe to ensure
    the national consistency and quality of these state-based data.
                                     ______

               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 testimony pertinent to the Bureau of Land
    Management's Wild Horse and Burro 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.
        In fiscal year 2001, the BLM received a $9 million budget increase
    to halve the number of wild horses on the range within four years.
    Despite the agency's failure to meet this goal, large numbers of horses
    were removed from the range and this new level of funding was
    maintained through fiscal year 2004.
        Last year, the agency requested another monumental increase of
    $10.5 million (plus another $2.3 million from Southern Nevada Public
    Land Management Act funds) so that it can once again conduct mass
    roundups to drastically reduce the number of wild horses and burros on
    the range from an estimated 39,000 to 25,000 in just two to three
    years. Yet the agency has failed to conduct the most basic research to
    justify its proposed action. Despite a statutory requirement to base
    roundups on current data, the agency now spends just 3 percent of its
    budget on 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. In
    fact, most herd management areas haven't been censused for at least
    four years.
        The need for such basic field research cannot be over stressed.
    Multiple roundups in recent years brought in significantly fewer horses
    than had been anticipated. One explanation is the BLM's reliance on old
    data. Further, the agency operates on the premise that wild horses and
    burros have an annual population growth rate of 20-25 percent when the
    rate may be closer to 18 percent. The very real possibility exists that
    the agency may actually take the wild horse and burro population well
    below the arbitrary target Appropriate Management Level of 25,000
    animals, simply because it doesn't actually know how many horses and
    burros roam the range today.
        The removal of such huge numbers of horses also creates a
    management crisis. Although the BLM has recognized the shortage of good
    adoptive homes and has subsequently opened several long-term holding
    facilities where horses are pastured in large groups, it is unclear how
    the agency can sustain this plan of action; as more horses are rounded
    up, additional facilities are needed. Already the agency spends some 40
    percent of its annual budget on caring for some 21,000 horses removed
    from the range, with nearly another 40 percent of the budget going to a
    marketing and adoption program that can never be expected to
    successfully place the thousands of wild horses and burros rounded up
    annually. Allowing these animals to be sold without limitation, as is
    now allowed via a recent amendment to the 1971 Act, is no answer
    either. The recent slaughter of dozens of mustangs sold under this new
    authority demonstrates this in the starkest of terms.
        Ironically, while the government is spending millions to remove
    wild horses and burros from the range, it spends millions more to
    subsidize livestock grazing on public lands, a practice that has been
    cited by the General Accounting Office as being the primary cause of
    range degradation: ``. . . 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). 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.
        Most importantly, in light of the huge number of wild horses and
    burros being rounded up through emergency and scheduled gathers and the
    passage of the last-minute amendment in the fiscal year 2005 omnibus
    spending package to allow for the slaughter of wild horses, it is
    imperative that the ``no-kill'' provision that has been attached to the
    Interior Appropriations bill for several years now remain intact. The
    Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act's core principles have always
    reflected the understanding that Americans want wild horses and burros
    to remain free from slaughter or other forms of killing. Therefore, it
    is imperative that this following language be incorporated into the
    Interior Appropriations bill:

        ``No appropriations made herein shall be available for the
    slaughter or destruction of healthy, unadopted, wild horses and burros
    in the care of the Bureau of Land Management or its contractors.''
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Endangered Species Coalition
        On behalf of the undersigned organizations and the millions of
    members we represent nationwide, we urge you to fully fund programs of
    the Endangered Species Act at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at a
    level of no less than $212 million for the fiscal year 2006
    appropriations process.
        The Endangered Species Act is a safety net for wildlife, plants and
    fish that are on the brink of extinction. This law successfully helped
    to bring back our nation's majestic symbol, the American Bald Eagle. We
    have a responsibility to future generations to protect endangered
    species and the special places they call home. However, for years, the
    Endangered Species Act has been under funded, making it difficult for
    the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service experts to carry out their
    responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act.
        The four Fish and Wildlife Service endangered species operating
    accounts are key to effective implementation of the Endangered Species
    Act, however, President Bush requested a total of only $140.1 million,
    a cut of $3.1 million or 2 percent in his fiscal year 2006 budget.
    These important accounts should be funded at a level of no less than
    $212 million for fiscal year 2006.
        The undersigned organizations request the following funding
    increases for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service endangered species
    operating accounts:
                                    listing
        The listing line item funds the addition of species to the
    endangered and threatened species list and the designation of critical
    habitat. This line item has suffered years of chronic under funding.
    Due to the lack of resources, a backlog of listing decisions and
    critical habitat designations has built up over the years. There are a
    total of 286 species currently awaiting protection on the Candidate
    List. An astounding 65 species have been languishing without protection
    since 1975. The Fish and Wildlife Service has estimated a need of at
    least $153 million to alleviate the backlog. The President's budget
    requested $18.1 million. While this is an increase of $2 million above
    2005 enacted levels, it is still well below the actual need. To begin
    to address the backlog, Listing should be funded at no less than $30
    million for fiscal year 2006.
                                    recovery
        While the Endangered Species Act has been extremely successful at
    preventing wildlife from going extinct, the purpose of the Endangered
    Species Act is to protect and recover endangered and threatened fish,
    plants and wildlife. The President's budget requested $64.2 million for
    recovery, a cut of $5.6 million, or nearly 10 percent, below last
    year's enacted levels. By turning its back on recovery funding, the
    Bush administration is setting the Endangered Species Act up for
    failure. The administration claims that the increases in the grant
    programs will benefit recovery. However, there are no assurances that
    funding provided through the grant programs will help the Fish and
    Wildlife Service meet its mandatory responsibilities under the Act to
    research, develop and implement recovery plans; to monitor the
    populations of listed species; or to oversee species recovery. The Fish
    and Wildlife Service has indicated that more than 200 currently listed
    species may be extremely close to extinction because of the lack of
    resources dedicated to recovery. Recovery should be funded at no less
    than $110 million.
                                  consultation
        The consultation program is the ``look before you leap'' mechanism
    that the federal departments and agencies must go through in order to
    proceed with a federal project in areas where endangered and threatened
    species are located. This process reviews the impacts to species, while
    identifying alternatives and mitigation measures needed to ensure that
    the federal government is not driving species to extinction through its
    actions. It is an important part of the checks and balances system to
    ensure that endangered fish, wildlife, and plants are protected on the
    ground. Shortage of personnel in this program area causes delays of
    project reviews thus creating conflicts between agencies. The
    consultation budget also funds the Service's work with non-federal
    entities for permitting and development of Habitat Conservation Plans;
    lack of funding prevents the Fish and Wildlife Service from ensuring
    that these plans are properly developed, implemented and monitored. The
    President's budget requested $49.4 million for consultation, an
    increase of approximately $1 million over the fiscal year 2005 enacted
    amount. Consultation should be funded at no less than $57 million.
                             candidate conservation
        This program protects species before they are actually listed, thus
    in theory averting the need to ever list them at all. The theory fails
    to hold up when not enough money is provided to arrest the decline of
    candidate species. The President's budget request is $8.3 million, a
    cut of $1 million below last year's level. Candidate Conservation
    should be funded at no less than $15 million.
        The Endangered Species Act is a broadly supported and very
    successful law. Without the necessary funding, an increasing number of
    species will slip closer to the brink of extinction. We ask the members
    of the Appropriations Committee to fully fund the Endangered Species
    Act this year.
        Abyss Marine Technologies, Hunstville, AL; Alaska Wilderness
    League, Washington, DC; American Bird Conservancy, Washington, DC;
    American Malacological Society, Wilmington, DE; American Rivers,
    Washington, DC; Animal Protection Institute, Sacramento, CA; Animal
    Protection Voters, Santa Fe, NM; Arizona Native Plant Society, Tucson,
    AZ; Aveda, Minneapolis, MN; Black Bear Conservation Committee, Baton
    Rouge, LA; California Turtle and Tortoise Club, Van Nuys, CA;
    Californians for Radioactive Safeguards, Atherton, CA; Center for
    Biological Diversity, Tucson, AZ; Center for Native Ecosystems, Denver,
    CO; Colorado Wild, Durango, CO; Conservation Science Institute, Front
    Royal, VI; Conservation Havens LLC, Boulder, CO; Defenders of Wildlife,
    Washington, DC; Delaware-Otsego Audubon Society, Oneonta, NY;
    Endangered Habitats League, Los Angeles, CA; Endangered Species
    Coalition, Washington, DC; Environmental Commons, Gualala, CA; First
    Class Fitness, Inc., Hicksville, NY; Forest Guardians, santa Fe, NM;
    Foundation for Global Sustainability, Knoxville, TN; Glen Canyon
    Institute, Salt Lake City, UT; Great Egg Harbor Watershed Association,
    Newtonville, NJ; Greendale Environmental Group, Greendale, WI; Green-
    Rock Audubon Society, Beloit, WI; Habitat Education Center, Madison,
    WI; High Country Citizens Alliance, Crested Butte, CO; Humane Education
    Network, Menlo Park, CA; The Humane Society of the United States,
    Washington, DC; Jumping Frog Research Institute, Angels Camp, CA;
    Kittatinny Group, Sierra Club, Kutztown, PA; Mass Audubon, Boston, MA;
    Maricopa Audubon Society, Tempe, AZ; National Audubon Society,
    Washington, DC; National Forest Protection Alliance, Missoula, MT;
    National Wildlife Federation, Washington, DC; Native Plant Conservation
    Campaign, San Francisco, CA; Natural Resources Defense Council,
    Washington, DC; New England Wild Flower Society, Framingham, MA; New
    Mexico Audubon Council, Los Alamos, NM; Northwest Ecosystem Alliance,
    Bellingham, WA; Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Huntington, WV;
    Pacific Green Party, Portland, OR; Predator Conservation Alliance,
    Bozeman, MT; Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility,
    Washington, DC; Puget Sound Urban Wildlife Photography Club, Issaquah,
    WA; The Rewilding Institute, Albuquerque, NM; Rogue Valley Audubon
    Society, Medford, OR; Sagebrush Sea Campaign, Chandler, AZ; Salem
    County Watershed Task Force, Woodstown, NJ.; Southern Appalachian
    Biodiversity Project; Asheville, NC; Southern Maryland Audubon Society,
    Inc.; Waldorf, MD; Stanford Open Space Alliance, Stanford, CA; Students
    for the Environment and Animal Life, Barrington, IL; T&E, Inc.;
    Cortato, AZ; Tennessee Native Plant Society; Nashville, TN; Turtle
    Island Restoration Network, Forest Knolls, CA; U.S. Public Interest
    Research Group, Washington, DC; Western Nebraska Resources Council,
    Chandron, NE; Wild Virginia, Charlottesville, VA; and The Xerces
    Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Portland, OR.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of Friends of Balcones Canyonlands National Wildlife
                                     Refuge
        Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Subcommittee, my name is
    Heidi Wittenborn, President of Friends of Balcones Canyonlands National
    Wildlife Refuge, and on behalf of the Friends organization I would like
    to express my appreciation for this opportunity to submit our
    testimony. Friends urges you to appropriate $1.9 million from the Land
    and Water Conservation Fund for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
    acquire a conservation easement for Balcones Canyonlands National
    Wildlife Refuge. The property to be protected is key Golden-cheeked
    Warbler habitat and would connect the two largest blocks of habitat on
    the Refuge, creating a continuous habitat corridor. Its acquisition
    would be a significant step towards the long range goal of completing
    the Refuge. Acting now is particularly important, as the window of time
    is closing rapidly as a result of urban expansion, and the opportunity
    for protecting the species is at risk.
        Friends is a nonprofit, volunteer organization. Its mission is to
    support, complete, and enhance Balcones Canyonlands National Wildlife
    Refuge and its diverse ecology, and promote its use for recreational,
    educational, and scientific purposes. The organiza-tion's membership is
    drawn primarily from Central Texas communities situated near the
    Refuge.
        Balcones Canyonlands Refuge is located in the Texas Hill Country
    northwest of Austin, Texas and resides in Burnet, Travis, and
    Williamson counties. The Refuge was formed in 1992 to conserve habitat
    of the endangered Golden-cheeked Warbler as a step towards recovery and
    eventual delisting of the species. In addition to the Golden-cheeked
    Warbler, the Refuge serves to protect the habitat of the endangered
    Black-capped Vireo and numerous other wildlife species.
        State-sponsored biological studies show that to stabilize and
    sustain these endangered songbirds, Balcones Canyonlands needs a total
    of 46,000 acres of habitat. It presently has some 21,000 acres. The
    Refuge augments a similarly named Preserve in Austin, comprised of
    nearly 30,000 acres and operated by the City and Travis County. The two
    parts were established for the same purpose and together are intended
    to provide habitat needed to enable recovery of these species.
        Balcones Canyonlands Refuge, although 13 years old, is not yet half
    complete. It is important to act now as time is a critical
    consideration in completing the Refuge. Because of the proximity of the
    Refuge to the Austin metropolitan area, urban expansion is a serious
    threat to habitat needed by the Refuge. There are already three real
    estate developments within the acquisition boundary of the Refuge.
        This year, a conservation easement is available on the 623-acre
    Armstrong property, which contains a substantial amount of Golden-
    cheeked Warbler habitat, and on which this important bird has been
    sighted. Portions of the property also may be suitable for management
    of Black-capped Vireo habitat. The property is in a strategic location
    and will connect major segments of the Refuge, alleviate cumulative
    habitat fragmentation within the approved acquisition area of the
    Refuge, and preclude development and land uses that would be
    incompatible with the Refuge's objectives. It is anticipated that the
    conservation easement covering this segment of the Refuge could be
    acquired for $1.9 million and that the transaction could be consummated
    within 6 months following appropriation of the needed funds.
        In addition to the recovery of these endangered species, Balcones
    Canyonlands Refuge is a source of eco-tourism for the surrounding area.
    Over the longer term, the Balcones Refuge is expected to become a major
    draw for birders interested in viewing the endangered Warbler and
    Vireo, for which this area provides unique habitat. The Refuge has been
    described as one of the Last Great Places by the Nature Conservancy and
    as an ``Important Bird Area'' by two national conservation groups based
    on its ``global importance'' to the endangered Warbler and Vireo.
        Also, Balcones Canyonlands offers Central Texas a variety of
    recreational opportunities compatible with wildlife protection. Once
    completed, Balcones Canyonlands will be a step towards providing
    additional accessible public outdoor areas, identified as a critical
    need in a recent study for Texas Parks and Wildlife.
        For all of these reasons Friends of Balcones Canyonlands National
    Wildlife Refuge strongly recommends that you set aside $1.9 million
    from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for Balcones Canyonlands
    Refuge for fiscal year 2006.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to present this statement to
    the Subcommittee.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of Friends of Big South Fork National River and
                             Recreation Area, Inc.
        I want to thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony on
    behalf of the Friends of Big South Fork National River and Recreation
    Area, Inc. The Friends of the Big South Fork is a non-profit group of
    interested citizens formed to support and promote the Big South Fork
    National River and Recreation Area by raising funds to preserve,
    restore and enhance the park's natural and cultural resources, to
    provide improved services and facilities for visitors, to increase
    public awareness and support of the park and to enhance educational and
    interpretive activities, thus increasing public appreciation,
    understanding and protection of the park. The Friends recognize the
    Park as both a National Treasure and one of our most important Local
    Resources. We Proactively Assist the National Park Service in
    protecting, preserving and interpreting this National Resource, and
    particularly in educating the public to the many resources it offers.
    We are requesting in Priority form for the Big South Fork NRRA,
    $4,458,300 and for the Obed Wild and Scenic River $3,174,000.
        The following are two needs we have in the region in the process of
    fulfilling our boundaries for Big South Fork National River and
    Recreation Area and Obed Wild and Scenic River. It is important to this
    region and the Cumberland Plateau to fully fund these land
    acquisitions.
                    land acquisition for big south fork nrra
        There are approximately 5,900 acres of privately held property
    within the authorized boundary of the Big South Fork NRRA (125,000
    acres). One parcel of 242.6 acres has already been subdivided for
    development and is a threat to the gorge. A second parcel of 404 acres
    (approximately 90 acres of which fronts the gorge) is currently being
    developed by the property owner who says that he intends to develop all
    the way down to the gorge. A group of concerned organizations
    approached the landowner about buying a portion of the property to
    buffer the creek but he said it was all or nothing and wanted $1
    million for the parcel.
        BISO submitted two NPS LARS for fiscal year 2006 with the following
    requests:
    Priority 1
        Proposed number of tracts: 2
        Proposed number of acres: 625
        Estimated dollar amount: $2,062,500
    Priority 2
        Proposed number of tracts: 6
        Proposed number of acres: 726
        Estimated dollar amount: $2,395,800
                land acquisition for obed wild and scenic river
        Currently one-third of the land within the park boundary is in
    private ownership. The fiscal year 2006 LARS request states, ``Last
    year, one of the largest tracts of land in private ownership was sold
    to a private developer because the NPS did not have the funds to
    purchase the land. This developer plans to subdivide the tract for home
    sites. This tract of just under 200 acres included approximately 2
    miles of river frontage, an old road that leads to the river, and
    several rock shelters. The park is concerned about the developer
    reopening the old road and providing access to the river that will
    diminish the wild' values for which it was set aside.''
    NPS LARS for fiscal year 2006
        Proposed number of tracts: 40 (all remaining)
        Proposed number of acres: 1,397
        Estimated Cost: $3,174,000 \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The park received $750,000 for land acquisition in fiscal year
    2004 which will reduce this total dollar amount as well as the number
    of tracts and acres remaining to be purchased once the money is
    expended.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
        Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I, Peter J. Defoe, Chairman
    of the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, would like to thank
    you for this opportunity to present testimony on fiscal year 2006
    appropriations. 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. The Band provides employment
    or services to nearly 6,500 Indian people living within the service
    area of the Reservation. Because federal funds are essential to meet
    the needs of Indian people, the Fond du Lac Band urges Congress to
    restore or increase funding in the following areas:
    Bureau of Indian Affairs
      --Tribal Priority Allocation--restore full funding, including $8.8
            million for Johnson O'Malley
      --Public Law 93-638 Pay Cost Increases
      --Fond du Lac Law Enforcement and Resource Management Appropriation--
            $10 million increase
      --Circle of Flight--$592,000
      --Natural Resources--restore full funding to resource management
            programs
      --Tribal Colleges and Universities--restore $9.8 million
      --School Construction and School Operations--restore full funding to
            education programs
    Environmental Protection Agency
      --Indian General Assistance Program (GAP)--restore $5 million
      --Clean Water Program--restore $131.8 million
      --State and Tribal Assistance Grants--restore $643.9 million
      --Clean Water State Revolving Fund--restore $120 million
    Indian Health Services
      --Increase funding for Indian health care
                            bureau of indian affairs
        The fiscal year 2006 BIA Budget proposes substantial cuts which
    would be a decrease of $110 million from the fiscal year 2005 enacted
    levels. If implemented, these funding reductions would severely reduce
    our ability to provide essential services to our members, educate our
    children, care for our elderly and infirm and protect and manage our
    natural resources.
        Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA).--We request that Congress
    restore full funding to the TPA program and specifically restore $8.8
    million to the Johnson O'Malley program. TPA funds enable tribes to
    provide vital programs and services, including education, social
    services, law enforcement, courts, resource management, road
    maintenance and administrative services. Johnson O'Malley funding,
    which helps Indian children with tutoring, cultural enrichment and
    Native language education, is critical to tribal education programs.
    Nearly $100 million was cut from the TPA in 1996, and this cut has
    never been restored. Proposed cuts for fiscal year 2006 include $8.8
    million to Johnson O'Malley, $6.4 million to welfare assistance and
    $431,000 for energy development programs. If implemented, these cuts
    would severely erode this irreplaceable source of funds for essential
    tribal government services. The proposed $9.9 million fixed costs
    increase does not offset the loss in funds from the permanent, across-
    the-board reductions each year, and the targeted cuts in this year's
    budget.
        Public Law 93-638 Pay Cost.--We ask Congress to restore full pay
    cost funding for all tribes in fiscal year 2006, and restore pay cost
    funding not received in fiscal year 2002-2005 through a special
    appropriations equitable adjustment. The only general increase tribes
    could count on each year was a cost of living pay increase, known as
    the 638 Pay Cost account. Tribes received only 75 percent of their 638
    pay cost funding in fiscal year 2002, only 15 percent in fiscal year
    2003 and about 30 percent in fiscal year 2004. As a result, tribes'
    core service funding is far less, in real terms, than nearly a decade
    ago. I strongly urge the Committee to restore full pay cost funding for
    all tribes in fiscal year 2006 and to consider restoring funds not
    received in past years.
        Fond du Lac Law Enforcement and Resource Management Program.--We
    request a one-time appropriation of $10 million to the Fond du Lac
    Resource Management Program for law enforcement and natural resource
    protection ($1.5 million in base funding for court operations and law
    enforcement, $1.5 million for resource management and conservation
    enforcement, and $7 million for expansion of office space). We strongly
    support the Administration's request for additional funding under the
    Indian Country Law Enforcement Initiative but request that additional
    funds be made available to the Band.
        In 1997, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that certain traffic
    regulations are ``civil-regulatory'' in nature and are unenforceable on
    the Reservation under Public Law 280. In order to fill this void, the
    Band established its own police force, using COPS, BIA 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. However,
    because of the short-term, limited financial resources available, there
    are significant unmet needs in this area, particularly in light of
    proposed reductions in COPS funding. Given this increased
    responsibility, the Band needs funding to expand the staff and its
    capabilities. With this in mind, we request that $1.5 million be added
    to our base budget to continue to implement the enforcement systems for
    the Band.
        The Band is also responsible for enforcing Band law in connection
    with members' exercise of hunting, fishing and gathering rights
    reserved under Treaties with the United States in 1837 and 1854. The
    courts, including the Supreme Court, have expressly reaffirmed the
    Band's hunting and fishing rights under these Treaties, which can be
    exercised over approximately 8 million acres in northern and central
    Minnesota. It is also essential that the Band continue to manage on-
    reservation resources in order to meet the demands of an increasing
    population. The on-reservation resources and the off-reservation Treaty
    rights are vitally important to Band members as they provide the
    foundation for our culture, subsistence, employment and recreation.
    Therefore, we seek an additional $1.5 million in base funding for the
    Fond du Lac Resource Management Division to enable us to protect these
    resources for future generations. The funds for this program have not
    been increased since 1991. We also request $7 million for the expansion
    of office space, as our current building is inadequate to house both
    law enforcement and natural resource management staff.
        Circle of Flight.--We ask Congress to restore the Circle of Flight
    program to the BIA's fiscal year 2006 budget to at least the fiscal
    year 2005 level of $592,000, and to consider providing the fiscal year
    2006 requested amount of $1.113 million. The Tribal Wetland & Waterfowl
    Enhancement Initiative (Circle of Flight) was again eliminated by the
    President in his fiscal year 2006 budget request. Circle of Flight has
    been one of Interior's most effective resource programs for many years.
    Since fiscal year 1991, Great Lakes tribes and our partners have
    restored or enhanced more than 66,000 wetland, grassland and native
    prairie acres. The 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 an impressive
    match ratio of 3 to 1.
        Natural Resources.--We support full restoration of funding for all
    natural resource programs including: $452,000 to the Central Office
    Natural Resources Program, $11.2 million to Non-Recurring Programs and
    $2 million for Water Management Planning & Development.
        Tribal Colleges & Universities (TCU).--We ask that the proposed
    decrease of $9.8 million to the TCU program be restored. Tribally-
    controlled colleges are vitally important for Indian education because
    the success of Indian students at tribal colleges is much higher than
    at other colleges. In 1987, the Fond du Lac Tribal and Community
    College--a partnership between the Fond du Lac Band and the State of
    Minnesota--opened its doors. The College currently serves 492 Indian
    students, with a full-year equivalency of 269, a 135 percent increase
    from 1998. The proposed cut would reduce the grant amount available to
    individual colleges. In order to prevent closure of tribal colleges or
    loss of educational services, we ask Congress to fully fund this
    program. Funding for TCUs must be increased from fiscal year 2005
    levels to account for inflation and increases in student enrollment.
    TCUs are significantly under-funded compared to state community
    colleges and desperately need funding for increased operations costs.
        Education: School Construction.--We support restoration of the
    $89.5 million proposed cut to education construction and the
    restoration of proposed cuts to other education programs. School
    construction and operation funding is essential for tribes to provide
    comprehensive educational services to children of all ages. The Fond du
    Lac Band was fortunate to be one of the few tribes in recent years to
    receive funding for new school construction and in 2002, the Band
    completed construction of the Fond du Lac Ojibwe School, which is an
    example of the successful use of tribal education construction funding.
        Education: School Operations.--We support restoration of $1.3
    million to BIA school operations funding and full funding for
    Administrative Cost Grants. While a portion of the proposed budget
    would increase the Indian School Equalization Program (formula funds),
    which we fully support, that increase cannot be offset by other
    reductions in education funding as those other funds are essential for
    tribes to meet the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act. We
    also recommend full funding of the Administrative Cost Grants at $64
    million to meet 100 percent of need. These funds provide critically
    needed administrative support for tribally-controlled schools similar
    to contract support costs. The BIA has acknowledged that currently it
    only addresses 70 percent of need for the Administrative Cost Grants.
                        environmental protection agency
        The Fond du Lac Environmental Program has been addressing a number
    of important environmental problems and projects on our Reservation. We
    support restoration of the following proposed cuts to the EPA budget,
    which would impact our ability to provide environmental services:
      --Restore $5 million to the Indian General Assistance Program (GAP),
            which is essential for development of tribal environmental
            programs and provides vital support for further expansion and
            improvement of the Band's program.
      --Restore $131.8 million to the Clean Water Program, which provides
            grants to tribes under Section 106 of the Clean Water Act to
            protect water quality and aquatic ecosystems. We use this
            funding for water quality monitoring, data collection, and
            protection and restoration of aquatic ecosystems.
      --Restore $643.9 million for State and Tribal Assistance Grants. This
            program is the source of funds for our air quality monitoring
            project.
      --Restore $120 million to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. This
            program provides funds for and state and tribal wastewater
            treatment systems.
                             indian health service
        The proposed increase of $72 million is inadequate, considering the
    substantial unmet need for health care in Indian country. The Band
    supports the efforts of all Indian tribes to receive 100 percent of the
    Level of Need Formula (LNF) so that it can address the serious and
    persistent health issues that confront its community. The Band serves
    about 5,500 Indian people at its clinics, but the current funding level
    meets only 38 percent of our health care funding needs. In addition,
    the Band requests an increase in funding for substance abuse and mental
    health programs in order to combat the growing methamphetamine problem
    on our Reservation.
                     support for proposed budget increases
        Finally, the Band supports the proposed increases in the budget for
    the following programs: $31.1 million for Fixed Costs associated with
    BIA programs; $2 million for the new Leadership Academy; $23 million in
    competitive grants to states and tribes for environmental and health
    projects under the EPA State and Tribal Performance Fund; $5 million
    for Tribal Wildlife Grants and $18.3 million for the Landowner
    Incentive Program, FWS programs addressing the considerable need for
    managing shared natural resources. The Band has received grants from
    the FWS programs this year, which will be used for important fisheries,
    wildlife and wild rice management and restoration projects.
        In conclusion, the needs at Fond du Lac and throughout Indian
    country remain massive. Preservation of current BIA funding is critical
    to maintain program levels. Your consideration of 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. If we can provide any additional information,
    please do not hesitate to contact our counsel, Mary J. Pavel or Anne D.
    Noto at Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endreson & Perry LLP, 1425 K Street
    NW, Ste. 600, Washington D.C. 20005; 202-682-0240(tel); 202-682-0249
    (fax); mpavel@sonosky.com; anoto@sonosky.com. Miigwech. Thank you.
                                     ______

            Letter From the Grand County Council, Grand County, Utah

                                          Grand County Council,
                                            Moab, Utah, April 25, 2005.
    Hon. Conrad Burns, Chairman,
    Hon. Byron L. Dorgan, Ranking,
    Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies,
            U.S. Senate, Washington, DC
        Dear Sirs: I am writing this letter on behalf of the Grand County
    Council expressing our support of our local Bureau of Land Management
    Moab Field Office's application for 2006 Land Water Conservation Funds
    in the amount of $1.2 million.
        The money would allow the BLM to purchase 14 acres of private lands
    in the Colorado River Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA) for
    expansion of BLM's Westwater Ranger Station. This expansion would allow
    the BLM to add additional parking, campsites and a leach field for
    wastewater.
        The money would also be used to purchase a conversation easement of
    530 acres of riverfront property located downstream of the Westwater
    Ranger Station. This easement would prevent development in a habitat
    for nesting bald eagles, four endangered fish species and for
    enhancement of wetland properties.
        We strongly support this application and ask that you do all that
    you can to lobby for the Colorado River SRMA project on behalf of the
    BLM office in Grand County.
        Thank you for consideration of this request.
                Sincerely,
                                       Jerry McNeely, Chairman,
                                                  Grand County Council.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
                                   Commission
     agencies--bureau of indian affairs and environmental protection agency
        1. BIA Treaty Rights Protection/Implementation.--$4.196 million
    ($325,000 above fiscal year 2005 enacted).
        Agency/Program Line Item.--Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian
    Affairs, Operation of Indian Programs, Other Recurring Programs,
    Resources Management, Wildlife and Parks, Rights Protection
    Implementation, Great Lakes Area Resources Management.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The requested BIA funds reflect GLIFWC's allocation of this
    line item that it shares with the 1854 Authority.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Funding Authorizations.--Snyder Act, 25 U.S.C. Sec. 13; Indian
    Self-Determination and Educational Assistance Act, 25 U.S.C.
    Sec. Sec. 450f and 450h; and the treaties between the United States and
    GLIFWC's member Ojibwe Tribes, specifically Treaty of 1836, 7 Stat.
    491, Treaty of 1837, 7 Stat. 536, Treaty of 1842, 7 Stat. 591, and
    Treaty of 1854, 10 Stat. 1109.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ The rights guaranteed by these treaties, and the associated
    tribal regulatory and management responsibilities, have been affirmed
    by various court decisions, including a 1999 U.S. Supreme Court case.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2. EPA Environmental Programs and Management.--$300,000 (fiscal
    year 2004 enacted).
        Agency/Program Line Item.--Environmental Protection Agency,
    Environmental Programs and Management (funneled through the EPA's Great
    Lakes National Program Office).
        Funding Authorizations.--Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1268(c);
    and treaties cited above.
        glifwc's goal--a secure funding base to fulfill treaty purposes
        As Congress has recognized for over 20 years, funding for GLIFWC's
    conservation, habitat protection, and law enforcement programs: (i)
    honors federal treaty obligations to eleven Ojibwe Tribes; and (ii)
    provides a wide range of associated public benefits. The lack of a
    secure funding base jeopardizes GLIFWC's ability to: (i) implement
    federal court orders and intergovernmental agreements governing the
    exercise of treaty-guaranteed hunting, fishing and gathering rights;
    and (ii) participate in cooperative management partnerships in
    Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota.
        1. BIA Treaty Rights Protection/Implementation.--$4.196 million. As
    its primary Indian Self-Determination and Educational Assistance Act
    funding base, GLIFWC seeks to:
        a. Restore $100,000 of base funding that Congress consistently has
    provided since fiscal year 2002 but that the Administration has not
    proposed for fiscal year 2006;
        b. Restore $75,000 of base funding for annual pay cost adjustments
    that the Administration has funded in previous years but has failed to
    include in its fiscal year 2006 budget proposal; and
        c. Provide $150,000 in additional base funding to sustain
    enhancements in conservation law enforcement and emergency services
    capabilities.
        2. EPA Environmental Programs and Management.--$300,000. As an EPA
    funding base for its primary environmental program elements, GLIFWC
    seeks to:
        a. Provide $189,700 for basic scientific/technical capabilities to:
    (i) continue participation in a number of Great Lakes initiatives
    (including the Binational Program to Restore and Protect Lake Superior,
    the Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP), and the Great Lakes
    Regional Collaboration); (ii) carry out habitat and human-health
    related research; and iii) provide the requisite analysis and data to
    support participation in regional initiatives and to assess the impact
    of particular projects on tribal treaty rights.
        b. Provide $110,300 to undertake three habitat and human health-
    related research projects regarding: (i) GLIFWC's fish consumption
    mercury advisory program; (ii) ceded territory sulfide mining site
    evaluation and monitoring; and (iii) a Lake Superior herring
    contaminant assessment.
           ceded territory treaty rights--glifwc's role and programs
        Established in 1984, GLIFWC is a natural resources management
    agency for its 11 member Ojibwe Tribes regarding their ceded territory
    (off-reservation) hunting, fishing and gathering treaty rights. Its
    mission is twofold:
      --Ensure that its member Tribes are able to exercise their rights for
            the purposes of meeting subsistence, economic, cultural,
            medicinal, and spiritual needs; and
      --Ensure a healthy, sustainable natural resource base that supports
            those rights.
        GLIFWC is a ``tribal organization'' within the meaning of the
    Indian Self-Determination and Educational Assistance Act (Public Law
    93-638). It is governed by a Constitution developed and ratified by its
    member Tribes and by a board comprised of the Chairs of those Tribes.
        GLIFWC operates a comprehensive ceded territory hunting, fishing,
    and gathering rights protection/implementation program through its
    staff of biologists, scientists, technicians, conservation enforcement
    officers, policy specialists, and public information specialists.
        Its activities include: (i) natural resource population assessments
    and studies; (ii) harvest monitoring and reporting; enforcement of
    tribal conservation codes in tribal courts; (iii) funding for tribal
    courts and tribal registration/permit stations; (iv) development of
    natural resource management plans and tribal regulations; (v)
    negotiation and implementation of agreements with state, federal and
    local agencies; (vi) invasive species eradication and control projects;
    (vii) biological and scientific research, including fish contaminant
    testing; and (viii) development and dissemination of public information
    materials.
             justification & how the requested funds would be used
        For over 20 years, Congress has recognized GLIFWC as a cost
    efficient agency that plays a necessary role in: (i) meeting specific
    federal treaty and statutory obligations toward GLIFWC's member Tribes;
    (ii) fulfilling conservation, habitat protection, and law enforcement
    functions required by federal court decisions affirming the Tribes'
    treaty rights; (iii) effectively regulating harvests of natural
    resources shared among the treaty signatory Tribes; and (iv) serving as
    an active partner with state, federal and local governments, with
    educational institutions, and with conservation organizations and other
    non-profit agencies.
        And, particularly relevant to the requested EPA funds, Tribal
    members rely upon treaty-protected natural resources for religious,
    cultural, medicinal, subsistence, and economic purposes. Their treaty
    rights mean little if contamination of these resources threatens their
    health, safety, and economy, or if the habitats supporting these
    resources are degraded.
        With the requested stable funding base, GLIFWC will:
        1. Maintain its Core Capabilities to Conserve Natural Resources and
    to Regulate Treaty Harvests.--As was the case with the BIA funding base
    provided by Congress for the past 4 years, GLIFWC would: (i) restore
    program cuts caused by chronic under-funding; \3\ (ii) provide cost-of-
    living pay increases to staff; \4\ and (iii) solidify law enforcement
    and emergency response infrastructure improvements that have been
    instituted with a combination of BIA and U.S. Department of Justice
    COPS funds.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ For example, the previously restored funding base was used to:
    (i) reinstitute fall juvenile walleye recruitment surveys to previous
    levels; (ii) restore tribal court and registration station funding
    cuts; (iii) restore Lake Superior lamprey control and whitefish
    assessment programs; (iv) restore GLIFWC's share in cooperative
    wildlife and wild rice enhancement projects; (v) replace aging
    equipment; (vi) meet expanding harvest monitoring needs; and (vii) meet
    uncontrollable increases in employee benefit costs.
        \4\ Since fiscal year 2002, the Administration has not included
    funding for GLIFWC employee cost of living pay adjustments in GLIFWC's
    base funding levels. Failure to include these adjustments in succeeding
    budgets negates their very purpose and results in recurring de facto
    budget cuts if the adjusted salaries are to be paid in subsequent
    years.
        \5\ GLIFWC has: (i) upgraded its patrol capabilities with new
    vehicles, boats, snowmobiles, and off-road vehicles; (ii) increased
    officer medical training and upgraded first aid equipment; (iii)
    upgraded its radio systems to be compatible with surrounding agencies;
    and (iv) established ongoing joint training with federal, state, and
    local agencies.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2. Remain a Trusted Environmental Management Partner and Scientific
    Contributor in the Great Lakes Region.--With the requested EPA funding
    base, GLIFWC would maintain its ability to bring a tribal perspective
    to the interjurisdictional mix of Great Lakes managers.\6\ It also
    would use its scientific expertise to study issues and geographic areas
    that are important to its member Tribes but that others may not be
    examining.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ GLIFWC currently participates on a regular basis in the
    Binational Program to Restore and Protect Lake Superior, International
    Joint Commission and SOLEC forums, the Great Lakes Regional
    Collaboration, and the development of agreements to regulate water
    diversions and withdrawals under the Great Lakes Charter, Annex 2001.
        \7\ With the requested fiscal year 2006 EPA funds, GLIFWC would:
    (i) continue its long-standing program to collect and test fish for
    mercury and to communicate testing results through health care
    providers and GIS maps; (ii) assess the impacts of contaminants leaking
    from a closed mine in Wisconsin; (iii) conduct water testing and
    baseline monitoring of heavy metals in the area of a proposed sulfide
    mine in Michigan's Upper Peninsula near pristine Lake Superior
    tributaries where native coaster brook trout spawn; and (iv) assess
    mercury, PCB and organochlorine levels in Lake Superior herring, the
    second most commercially-harvested fish in the United States waters of
    Lake Superior.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The lack of a secure, ongoing EPA funding base jeopardizes GLIFWC's
    role as a trusted environmental management partner and scientific
    contributor in the Great Lakes Region. The federal government's treaty
    obligations to GLIFWC's member Tribes compel more than the mere
    opportunity to compete for a diminishing patchwork of discretionary EPA
    grants. This is particularly true given important current initiatives
    such as the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration in which GLIFWC
    participates as a full partner.
        3. Maintain the Overall Public Benefits That Derive From its
    Programs.--Over the years, GLIFWC has become a recognized and valued
    partner in natural resource management, in emergency services networks,
    and in providing accurate information to the public. Because of its
    institutional experience and staff expertise, GLIFWC provides
    continuity and stability in interagency relationships and among its
    member Tribes, and contributes to social stability in the context of
    ceded territory treaty rights issues.
        Over the past 20 years, GLIFWC has built many partnerships that:
    (i) provide accurate information and data to counter social
    misconceptions about tribal treaty harvests and the status of ceded
    territory natural resources; (ii) maximize each partner's financial
    resources; (iii) avoid duplication of effort and costs; (iv) engender
    cooperation rather than competition; and (v) undertake projects and
    achieve public benefits that no one partner could accomplish alone.
                     other related appropriations concerns
        1. BIA Contract Support Costs.--GLIFWC asks Congress to direct the
    BIA to fully fund contract support costs, as GLIFWC has experienced a
    $341,000 shortfall since 1995 despite its consistently low indirect
    cost rate of less than 15.25 percent and its current rate of 14.93
    percent.
        2. BIA Circle of Flight Tribal Wetland & Waterfowl Initiative.--
    Once again, Congress should fully fund this long-standing tribal
    contribution to the North American Waterfowl Management Plan that the
    Administration again proposes to eliminate.
                                     ______

         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
    8.6 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 2006 budget.
           law enforcement division of the fish and wildlife service
        After illegal drugs and arms, trade in wildlife parts is the third
    most lucrative smuggling enterprise in this country. New technology 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. We commend the Administration's $1.295 million
    increase for the Law Enforcement Division in fiscal year 2006. The HSUS
    strongly supports an additional increase of $8.3 million over the
    Administration's request for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Law
    Enforcement Operations and Maintenance, to better house and equip the
    Wildlife Forensics Laboratory and to hire and train additional new
    Special Agents for proper enforcement of the Captive Wildlife Safety
    Act.
        The Captive Wildlife Safety Act, which was signed into law in
    December 2003, as Public Law 108-191, was passed unanimously in both
    the House and Senate and takes aim at the epidemic of private ownership
    of dangerous big cats as pets. We are disappointed that the Service is
    more than eight months late in promulgating the regulations necessary
    for enforcement of this important law. According to some estimates,
    there are up to 15,000 big cats kept as pets in the United States. A
    small increase of $1.3 million over last year's level should be
    appropriated to hire and train one new Special Agent for each of the
    Fish and Wildlife Service's seven regions. Additional funds will allow
    for adequate enforcement of this new law.
        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 laboratory is
    indispensable in the vigorous enforcement of the nation's wildlife
    trade laws. The HSUS urges the Committee to appropriate $7 million to
    enable completion of the renovation of the dermestid colony, and
    morphology, bio-level III containment, and firearms facilities, as well
    as new additions for pathology, an atrium that would include a 60-seat
    conference room for agent and inspector training and scientific
    conferences.
                    multinational species conservation fund
        The HSUS joins a broad 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, tigers, great
    apes, and neotropical migratory birds and marine turtles. Congress has
    been very supportive of these programs in the past. Unfortunately, the
    Administration's fiscal year 2006 request falls short of the funds
    necessary to carry out these valuable missions. We ask that you
    continue to support these highly threatened mammals and birds in fiscal
    year 2006 by appropriating $2 million each for the African Elephant
    Conservation Fund, the Asian Elephant Conservation Fund, the Great Ape
    Conservation Fund, and the new Marine Turtle Fund. We further request
    $2.5 million for the combined Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Fund,
    and $5 million for the Neotropical Migratory Birds Conservation Fund,
    for a total of $15.5 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. Grants made to projects under the MNSCF must be consistent
    with the spirit of the law.
      environmental protection agency--office of research and development
        In 2000, the passage of the ICCVAM Authorization Act into Public
    Law 106-545 created a new paradigm for the field of regulatory
    toxicology, one that promotes chemical testing methods that are often
    faster, more economical than existing methods, as well as more
    responsive to the concerns of many members of the public about the
    continuing use of animals in toxicity testing. The new paradigm
    requires federal agencies to ensure that new and revised animal and
    alternative test methods be scientifically validated prior to
    recommending or requiring use by industry. An internationally agreed
    upon definition of validation is supported by the 15 federal regulatory
    and research agencies that compose the Interagency Coordinating
    Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM), including
    the EPA. The definition is: ``the process by which the reliability and
    relevance of a procedure are established for a specific use.''
        In recent years, thanks to Congressional leadership, efforts to
    provide specific funding for and prioritization of research,
    development and validation of non-animal and other alternative test
    methods have helped to guide EPA's approach to this necessary thrust
    for sound and efficient science that also replaces, reduces or refines
    the use of animals in toxicity testing. However, recent dialogue with
    the EPA has demonstrated a lack of prioritization for funding
    validation studies of non-animal and other alternative methods. This is
    the equivalent of developing a new car that is intended to provide
    reduced emissions without assessing the validity of the reduced
    emissions claim, ensuring the car will never be marketed.
        For several years, the enacted budget for the Office of Research
    and Development has hovered at approximately $500 million, comprising
    just 9 percent of EPA's total budget. Animal protection organizations
    have consistently supported a request for a mere 1-2 percent of this
    budget to go specifically for research, development and validation of
    non-animal, alternative test methods. Chairman Walsh secured a $4
    million appropriation first-ever directive for research, development
    and validation of non-animal test methods in the fiscal year 2002
    budget for EPA. And while the animal protection community is greatly
    appreciative of this directive, we have yet to receive a detailed
    accounting of the expenditure of funds. The agency has stated that
    funding has been provided for bench science that may have future
    relevant applications. EPA contends it has used monies from the Science
    and Technology Account for the Office of Research and Development to
    fund research and development of non-animal and other alternative test
    methods; but the funding stops at the stage when a test method must be
    scientifically validated in order to be considered for incorporation
    into recommendations or requirements. Unfortunately this approach does
    little to support the final development or necessary validation studies
    for non-animal test methods with potential current application in
    reducing costs and increasing efficiency in existing EPA programs.
    Moreover, no detailed reporting on the actual expenditure of funds
    under the Computational Toxicology Program to promote alternative
    methods has ever been submitted to the Congress. Therefore, we join
    with the Doris Day Animal League and other animal protection groups in
    support of including the following report language in the
    appropriations bill:

        ``The Committee recognizes the EPA's commitment to developing a
    Computational Toxicology Program to reduce the use of animal testing
    and the cost of such testing. It is the Committee's expectation that,
    commensurate with Committee approval for full funding of the
    Computational Toxicology Program for the last several years, EPA
    demonstrate real progress not only in development of computational
    toxicology methods, but importantly, in validation of new and revised
    test methods, non-animal methods, and alternative methods so that these
    can be utilized in regulatory program activities. The Committee
    encourages EPA to develop and implement specific plans for validation
    studies of new and revised, non-animal and alternative methods for
    chemical screening and priority setting. The Committee requests that
    EPA submit an annual report detailing results of its Computational
    Toxicology program, to include a section on EPA's overall activities
    and itemized expenditures focused specifically on development,
    standardization and validation of new, revised test methods, non-animal
    methods, and alternative methods. The Committee further requests the
    EPA to report annually on how it is working through public/private
    partnerships to promote newer and more efficient safety testing schemes
    that will reduce animal use and enhance environmental and human
    safety.''
            bureau of land management--wild horse and burro program
        In fiscal year 2001, the BLM received a $9 million budget increase
    to halve the number of wild horses on the range within four years.
    Despite the agency's inability to meet this goal, large numbers of
    horses were removed from the range and this new level of funding was
    maintained through fiscal year 2004. Last year, the agency requested
    another increase of $10.5 million (plus another $2.3 million from
    Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act funds) so that it can once
    again begin mass roundups to drastically reduce the number of wild
    horses and burros on the range from an estimated 35,000 to 25,000 in
    just 2 to 3 years. Yet the agency has failed to conduct the most basic
    research to justify its proposed action. Despite a statutory
    requirement to base roundups on current data, the agency now spends
    less than 4 percent of its budget on 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. In fact, most herd management areas
    haven't been censused for at least 5 years.
        The removal of large numbers of horses creates a management crisis,
    as witnessed by recent events. Although the BLM has recognized the
    shortage of good adoptive homes and has subsequently opened several
    long-term holding facilities where horses are pastured in large groups,
    it is unclear how the agency can sustain this plan of action; as more
    horses are rounded up, additional facilities are needed. For 2005, BLM
    intends to round up 9,800 wild horses and burros but estimates it will
    only be able to place 7,150 through the adoption program. Already the
    agency spends some 40 percent of its annual budget on caring for
    approximately 21,000 horses removed from the range, with nearly another
    40 percent of the budget going to a marketing and adoption the program
    that cannot successfully place the thousands of wild horses and burros
    rounded up annually.
        Furthermore, the BLM has not submitted a biannual report regarding
    the status of the wild horse and burro program to Congress, as provided
    for in the 1971 Act. Astonishingly, 1997 was the last year the BLM
    presented a report to Congress, covering the years from 1992-1995.
    Since that time, the BLM has, for all intents and purposes, not been
    held accountable for its actions. Congress and the general public have
    been denied an opportunity to scrutinize the agency's management
    actions. Requesting additional funds to conduct massive and
    indiscriminate wild horse and burro removals to levels that jeopardize
    the welfare of these animals, while at the same time wasting hundreds
    of millions of taxpayer dollars on the environmentally destructive
    livestock grazing program, is nothing short of indefensible. The agency
    has apparently lost sight of its legal mandate to protect wild free-
    roaming horses and burros.
        Most importantly, in light of the huge number of wild horses and
    burros being rounded up through emergency and scheduled gathers and the
    passage of a last-minute rider in the fiscal year 2005 omnibus spending
    package to allow for the slaughter of wild horses, it is imperative
    that the ``no-kill'' provision that has been attached to the Interior
    Appropriations bill for several years be included again in fiscal year
    2006. Recent reports that 41 horses went to slaughter immediately
    following the sale by the BLM underscore the need for this language.
    The Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act's core principles have always
    reflected the understanding that Americans want these animals to remain
    free from slaughter or other forms of killing. Therefore, we join with
    the Doris Day Animal League and other animal protection organizations
    in urging that the following language be incorporated into the bill:

        ``No appropriations made herein shall be available for the sale,
    slaughter or destruction of healthy, unadopted, wild horses and burros
    in the care of the Bureau of Land Management or its contractors.''
                            protection for walruses
        We urge this subcommittee to appropriate $500,000 in fiscal year
    2006 to fund much-needed research on the Pacific walrus. New promising
    methodologies for surveying walrus populations are being developed and
    require funding support. 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.
                             endangered species act
        The four Fish and Wildlife Service endangered species operating
    accounts are key to effective implementation of the Endangered Species
    Act. However, President Bush requested a total of only $140.1 million,
    a cut of $3.1 million or 2 percent in his fiscal year 2006 budget.
    These important accounts should be funded at a level of no less than
    $212 million for fiscal year 2006.
        Listing.--This line item has suffered years of chronic under
    funding. Due to the lack of resources, a backlog of listing decisions
    and critical habitat designations has built up over the years. The Fish
    and Wildlife Service has estimated a need of at least $153 million to
    alleviate the backlog. The President's budget requests an increase of
    $2 million above fiscal year 2005 enacted levels, but it is still well
    below the actual need. To begin to address the backlog, Listing should
    be funded at no less than $30 million for fiscal year 2006.
        Recovery.--While the ESA has been extremely successful at
    preventing wildlife from going extinct, the purpose of the Act is to
    protect and recover endangered and threatened fish, plants and
    wildlife. The President's budget requested $64.2 million for recovery,
    a cut of $5.6 million, or nearly 10 percent below last year's enacted
    levels. By turning its back on recovery funding, the Bush
    administration is setting the Endangered Species Act up for failure.
    The Fish and Wildlife Service has indicated that more than 200
    currently listed species may be extremely close to extinction because
    of the lack of resources dedicated to recovery. Recovery should be
    funded at no less than $110 million.
        Consultation.--The consultation program is the ``look before you
    leap'' mechanism that the federal departments and agencies must go
    through in order to proceed with a federal project in areas where
    endangered and threatened species are located. Shortage of personnel in
    this program area causes delays of project reviews and creates
    conflicts between agencies. The consultation budget also funds the
    Service's work with non-federal entities for permitting and development
    of Habitat Conservation Plans; lack of funding prevents the FWS from
    ensuring that these plans are properly developed, implemented and
    monitored. The President's budget requests an increase of approximately
    $1 million for consultation, over fiscal year 2005. Consultation should
    be funded at no less than $57 million.
        Candidate Conservation.--This program protects species before they
    are actually listed, thus in theory averting the need to ever list
    them. The theory fails to hold up when not enough money is provided to
    arrest the decline of candidate species. The President's budget request
    is $8.3 million, a cut of $1 million below last year's level. Candidate
    Conservation should be funded at no less than $15 million.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Municipal Subdistrict, Northern Colorado
                           Water Conservancy District
        I am requesting your support and assistance in insuring continued
    funding for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program
    and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program. These
    ongoing cooperative programs have the dual objectives of recovering
    four species of endangered fish while water use continues and water
    development proceeds in compliance with the Endangered Species Act of
    1973, state law, and interstate compacts. Partners in the two programs
    are the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, Indian
    tribes, federal agencies and water, power and environmental interests.
    I respectfully request support and action by the Subcommittee that will
    provide the following:
        An increase of $691,000 in the fiscal year 2006 Recovery Element
    budget (Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services
    Activity; Endangered Species Subactivity; Recovery Element) allocated
    to ``Colorado River fish recovery project'' to allow U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service (FWS) Region 6 to meet its funding commitment to the
    Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. This is the
    level of funding appropriated in fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005 for
    this program. These funds are needed for FWS direct participation in
    managing and implementing the Upper Colorado Program's actions,
    monitoring achievement of recovery goals, managing data associated with
    fish population abundance and sampling, evaluating stocking, and
    monitoring fish and habitat response to recovery actions.
        The appropriation of $437,000 in operation and maintenance funds
    (Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries Activity; Hatchery
    Operations & Maintenance Subactivity, Hatchery Operations Project) to
    support the ongoing operation of the FWS' Ouray National Fish Hatchery
    in Utah during fiscal year 2006.
        An increase of $211,000 in the ``Resource Management Appropriation;
    Ecological Services Activity; Endangered Species Subactivity; Recovery
    Element'' budget allocated to the ``San Juan River Recovery
    Implementation Program.'' These funds are needed to support the FWS
    Recovery Program Coordinator and staff who are responsible for program
    management and support of all Recovery Program activities.
        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. Raising and stocking of the endangered fish
    produced at program hatchery facilities, restoring floodplain habitat
    and fish passage, regulating and supplying instream habitat flows,
    installing diversion canal screens and controlling nonnative fish
    populations are key components of the programs' ongoing capital
    construction projects. 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 these projects;
    and provides for an additional $17 million to be contributed from
    revenues derived from the sale of Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP)
    hydroelectric power. This substantial non-federal cost-sharing funding
    demonstrates the strong commitment and effective partnerships embodied
    in both of these successful programs. The requested federal
    appropriations are critically important to these efforts moving
    forward.
        The support of your Subcommittee in past years is greatly
    appreciated and has been a major factor in the success of these multi-
    state, multi-agency programs as they have progressed forward towards
    delisting the endangered fish species in the Upper Colorado and San
    Juan River Basins while necessary water use and development activities
    are occurring. I request the Subcommittee's assistance to ensure that
    the FWS is provided with adequate funding for these vitally important
    programs.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of the Highlands Coalition
        On behalf of the Highlands Coalition, I would like to offer
    testimony in support of several important projects proposed for the
    fiscal year 2006 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill that
    would significantly advance conservation of the four-state Highlands
    region. The Highlands region has now been the subject of two federal
    studies that have highlighted its importance for conservation of public
    drinking water supplies, wildlife habitat, and recreational
    opportunities. And last year Congress unanimously approved the
    Highlands Conservation Act recognizing the ``national significance of
    the Highlands region to the United States.'' The projects described
    below would help assure that this region can continue to meet the needs
    of the more than 25 million Americans who live within an hour's drive
    of the Highlands.
        The Highlands Coalition includes 117 national, regional, state and
    local organizations working to protect the more than 2 million-acre
    Highlands region that stretches from southeastern Pennsylvania through
    north-central New Jersey, the Hudson Valley of New York and into the
    Litchfield Hills of Connecticut. The Highlands Coalition was galvanized
    by the landmark regional study of the New York-New Jersey Highlands,
    published in 1992, that found the Highlands region to be of national
    significance due to the diversity and quality of its natural resources
    and landscape, all located so close to the nation's most densely
    populated area.
        In 2002, the U.S. Forest Service published a detailed study update
    that reinforced the findings of the 1992 Highlands Study and recognized
    accelerating land use pressures on the region. The study update noted
    that the Highlands are the backyard and lifeblood of a metropolitan
    complex extending from Philadelphia through Newark and New York City
    and up to Hartford, supplying clean drinking water to over 15 million
    people, hosting 14 million recreational visits annually and providing
    habitat for 247 threatened and endangered species.
        The study update further revealed that over 5,000 acres of land in
    the New York-New Jersey Highlands are lost each year to suburban sprawl
    and that the rate of loss of forests and wetlands in particular has
    quadrupled, threatening the quantity and quality of public drinking
    water supplies. Statistics indicate that if the status quo continues,
    the population of the region will increase by nearly 50 percent,
    impacting water quality in over 70 percent of Highlands watersheds and
    causing water demand to exceed supply in many areas. Wildlife habitat
    and recreational outlets in the Highlands will be similarly impacted if
    the current rate and pattern of development continues.
        The Highlands Coalition supports several projects proposed for the
    fiscal year 2006 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill that
    would help improve our understanding of the Highlands region and
    provide immediate protection for some of its most high value resource
    areas:
                             forest legacy program
        The Highlands Coalition supports three important Forest Legacy
    projects in the Highlands that have been put forward by the States of
    New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut.
        The Sparta Mountain South tract in the northwestern section of the
    N.J. Highlands seeks $3.9 million to extend the Sparta Mountain
    greenway in rural Sussex County. These 2,200 acres of rugged mountains
    and streams provide an important greenway corridor between Allamuchy
    State Park and the Sparta Mountain Wildlife Management Area. Sparta
    Mountain South provides habitat for many endangered species and
    neotropical migratory birds.
        The Surprise Lake project in the New York Highlands seeks $1
    million to conserve 648 acres most notable for wonderful recreation
    values and watershed protection. The project lies in the middle of a
    network of protected lands that is being assembled across the Hudson
    Highlands, a scenic area accessible from New York City by public
    transit or automobile in less than an hour. The Surprise Lake project
    area features scenic vistas from high ridgelines, long distance hiking
    opportunities, and represents one of the highest quality mountain
    recreation opportunities within close range of the New York
    metropolitan area. The project area also protects the Breakneck Brook,
    a key tributary of the Hudson River, and provides valuable wildlife
    habitat.
        The Skiff Mountain project, part of a contiguous network of 7,000
    acres in Western Connecticut, seeks $2.3 million to preserve 937 acres.
    Skiff Mountain is part of the Housatonic River Watershed, which extends
    from western Massachusetts to Long Island Sound. The mountain's
    northern uplands-transitional hardwoods forest contains Class A streams
    and habitat for black bear, bobcats, coyotes and neotropical songbirds.
    Skiff Mountain borders on the Appalachian Trail, and is ranked number 1
    among Connecticut projects this year.
                           highlands conservation act
        The four states of the Highlands Coalition support the
    appropriation of $10 million to preserve one Pennsylvania project, one
    New Jersey project, one New York parcel, and three smaller Connecticut
    properties, as listed below, plus $1 million for technical support.

      --Oley Hills, PA
              Cost: $2,800,000
              HCA Request: $1,400,000
              Size: 1,133 acres
        The Oley Hills consists of a grouping of properties in the Oley
    Hills core conservation area of the Reading Prong, the geologic
    formation that lies at the heart of the Pennsylvania Highlands. The
    Oley Hills project area boasts of three state-designated ``exceptional
    value'' streams--Pine Creek, Oysterville Creek, and Saucony Creek.
    These pristine waterways provide important water quality protection for
    the Schuylkill River and are the subjects of state-funded watershed
    protection plans.

      --Wyanokie Highlands, NJ
              Cost: $7,700,000
              HCA Request: $3,850,000
              Size: 1,288 acres (4 parcels)
        The Wyanokie Highlands form the headwaters of Burnt Meadow and West
    Brooks that flow into North Jersey's Wanaque Reservoir, which provides
    drinking water for nearly two million NJ residents. The acquisition of
    these four parcels will help complete a critical greenway in the
    Wyanokies linking Long Pond Ironworks State Park with Norvin Green
    State Forest. These parcels are the largest portion of the missing link
    and include waterways of exceptional ecological significance, which
    drain into the Wanaque Reservoir.

      --Arrow Park, NY
              Cost: $6,141,000
              HCA Request: $3,000,000
              Size: 267 acres
        Arrow Park is the last significant property buffering Sterling
    Forest State Park from residential and commercial development in the
    Town of Monroe. This Project provides habitat for threatened species,
    and protects wetlands critical to the health of the watershed in and
    around Sterling Forest, which, in turn, provides drinking water to
    millions of residents of New York and New Jersey. Matching funds for
    this Project are anticipated from New York State and private
    organizations. Arrow Park will be included in Sterling Forest State
    Park and managed by the State of New York in accordance with the
    Sterling Forest Master Plan.

      --Jones Mountain, CT
              Cost: $1,000,000
              HCA Request: $500,000
              Size: 151 acres
        This 151-acre forested mountain provides the visual backdrop for
    the Town of New Hartford that, along with the Farmington River, defines
    the character of the fast-developing community of New Hartford. The
    property consists of rugged old forest (primarily oak, black birch and
    red maple), meadow and intermittent streams. Preservation of this area
    is critical as half of the property drains into the East Mountain
    Brook, a tributary to the Farmington River, a Federally designated Wild
    and Scenic River. Any development would likely cause erosion that would
    impact the watershed.

      --Sweeton Pasture Lot, CT
              Cost: $200,000
              HCA Request: $100,000
              Size: 44 acres
        The Sweeton Pasture Lot is largely forested. Its forest is
    primarily hardwood, with red oak, chestnut oak, black birch, white
    birch, beech, hickory, as well as some stands of eastern hemlock and
    white pine. The property also contains wetlands. The topography
    primarily slopes to the east and south. There are scenic views in
    several directions from a hilltop in the northwestern part of the
    property. Acquisition of this property will protect habitat for a
    number of migratory songbirds and large mammals, including black bear,
    fisher, coyote, and bobcat.

      --Embree, CT
              Cost: $1,000,000
              HCA Request: $500,000
              Size: 80 acres
        The site is located off of Route 37 on the Sherman/New Milford
    border, and abuts several protected properties and non-subdividable
    lots. The property would create a large undisturbed corridor within a
    proposed trail system, and offer an ideal outdoor classroom for local
    schools, universities and environmental organizations. The project
    contains the highest point in the Town of Sherman and is the Town's
    priority parcel for acquisition. This forested property is steep with
    numerous rock outcrops, and contains an exceptionally large undisturbed
    (ca 3-4 acre) vernal pool. It is very likely that the vernal pool
    contains numerous species of reptiles and amphibians, many of which are
    declining precipitously in the northeastern United States. The site
    contains ideal habitat for Timber rattlesnake, bobcat and black bear as
    well as a suite of other mammals and neo-tropical migratory birds.
    Preservation of this site would be an important connection to already
    protected properties in Sherman.
        The $11 million includes $1 million for technical support and
    research supplied by the U.S. Forest Service as specified in the HCA
    bill, which will be used to extend the 2002 USFS study update to
    Pennsylvania and Connecticut.
        In conclusion, the Highlands Coalition is grateful for the
    considerable federal investment that has been made over the last decade
    to support conservation of the Highlands region. We would appreciate
    the subcommittee's support for the important projects outlined above to
    continue the fine partnership with states and local communities that is
    steadily securing valuable natural resources across the region.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Hoosic River Watershed Association
        Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: I appreciate
    the opportunity to present this testimony in support of a $2 million
    appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the
    acquisition of Broad Brook watershed project in the Green Mountain
    National Forest.
        The Hoosic River Watershed Association is a 501(c)3 non-profit
    citizens' group founded in 1986 and dedicated to the restoration,
    conservation and enjoyment of the Hoosic River and its watershed,
    through education, research, and advocacy. We envision a watershed that
    is ecologically sound and adds to the quality of life of its residents.
    The Broad Brook watershed is a subdivision of the Hoosic watershed. We
    strongly support its acquisition because this is an unusual opportunity
    to protect an entire tributary drainage basin. The potential benefits
    go well beyond protecting habitat and water quality in the Broad Brook
    basin itself. Both published literature and the results of our own
    research in the Hoosic drainage have demonstrated that the type of land
    use in tributary basins has a significant impact on the water quality
    of the river mainstem. Thus the Hoosic's ability to support a healthy
    coldwater fish community depends in large part on the cool, clean water
    from tributaries that traverse forested landscapes. But it is
    unrealistic to expect that these relatively pristine and commercially
    desirable tributary basins will remain undeveloped in the coming years.
    As their landscapes shift from forest and field to higher-impact land
    uses, water quality and habitat will degrade throughout the watershed.
    Making the Broad Brook subwatershed a part of Green Mountain National
    Forest will be an important counter-measure against this trend.
        The acquisition will provide other benefits as well. The Green
    Mountains of Vermont are one of the northeast region's most popular and
    heavily-visited areas, which each year draw millions of tourists
    attracted to its scenic beauty. The Green Mountains region contains
    outstanding natural resources such as wildlife habitat for black bear,
    deer, and neotropical songbirds, as well as extensive timber resources.
    The area boasts excellent trout streams and encompasses the watersheds
    that provide drinking water for many Vermont communities. The
    acquisition of properties in the Green Mountain National Forest
    protects recreational opportunities that have long been important to
    residents and visitors alike, such as camping, hiking, hunting, and
    cross-country skiing.
        Available for acquisition and completion in fiscal year 2006 is the
    3,921-acre Broad Brook watershed property, located in the southernmost
    portion of the forest just north of the Massachusetts border. For many
    years, the Massachusetts city of North Adams, which owns this parcel,
    used the Broad Brook watershed as a source of drinking water for city
    residents. However, several years ago the city ceased depending on
    Broad Brook for its water and is now interested in selling the
    property. Located within the boundaries of the Green Mountain NF in the
    towns of Pownal and Stamford, the Broad Brook property would be an
    outstanding addition to this forest, known for its excellent
    recreational opportunities and critical wildlife habitat.
        The state of Vermont has mapped this parcel as being entirely
    within black bear production habitat, regions which support high
    densities of cub producing females. On the property there can be found
    a large and healthy population of the state threatened Large Whorled
    Pogonia (Isotria verticillata), and close to 7 miles of pristine
    headwater streams. A portion of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail,
    which in this part of Vermont coincides with the Long Trail, passes
    across the Broad Brook property. The tract is adjacent to other Forest
    Service ownership, the Stamford Meadows Wildlife Management Area--a
    state-owned sanctuary--as well as other conservation lands near the
    town of Pownal.
        On November 2, 2004, the town of Pownal voted 2-1 in favor of
    purchase of the Broad Brook parcel by the GMNF. With that approval and
    with an additional $2 million from the LWCF in fiscal year 2006, the
    USFS can move to complete this critical acquisition. The forest is also
    pursuing other high priority acquisitions totaling $1.5 million,
    allowing for continued management of important wildlife species as well
    as ensuring public access to the Appalachian Trail and other recreation
    opportunities in this popular national forest.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present this request.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Institute of American Indian and Alaska
                      Native Culture and Arts Development
               summary of fiscal year 2006 request: $10.5 million
        IAIA's fiscal year 2006 federal budget request for operations,
    endowment, and matching funds for capital construction of a center for
    lifelong education are as follows:

                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fiscal Year 2006 Institutional Operations....................        6.5
    Capital Construction Matching Funds to a W.K. Kellogg                4.5
     Foundation Challenge Grant..................................
                                                                  ----------
          Total Request of Fiscal Year 2006......................       10.5
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               executive summary
        IAIA promotes Native American cultural life and its artistic
    expression through post-secondary instruction, research, artistry and
    scholarship. The Institute enables its Native students to deepen and
    rediscover their living heritage of language, history, and culture
    through the creative arts.
        Academic Programs.--IAIA offers Associate and Baccalaureate degrees
    in Studio Arts (AFA, BFA), Visual Communications (AAS, BFA), Creative
    Writing (AA, BFA) and Museum Studies (AFA and BA).
        Accreditation.--IAIA is fully accredited by the North Central
    Association of Colleges and Schools (NCA) and by the National
    Association of Schools of Arts and Design (NASAD), the only national
    professional accrediting agency in higher education covering the entire
    field of art and design that is recognized by the U.S. Department of
    Education.
        In 2004 IAIA underwent rigorous evaluations and an accreditation
    site review by NCA and NASAD. Both visiting teams not only approved the
    continued accreditation of the Institute, but raised the Institute's
    standing to a ten-year status--the highest level of achievement
    possible for colleges and universities. However, the accreditation
    final report concluded that further emphasis be placed on the
    stabilization of the Institute's base federal funding for operations,
    endowment, and capital construction. In accordance with accreditation
    mandates, this budget request lays out specific recommendations for
    sustained operations, along with appropriate funding increases, for the
    further stabilization and strengthening of IAIA's education programs
    and facilities.
        Operating Budget Request of $6.5 million.--To begin to address
    defined five-year goals, including important assessment and
    accreditation mandates, IAIA's federal budget request represents a
    $500,000 increase over fiscal year 2005 funding. The accreditation
    reports require a stronger assessment and stability of financial
    systems. Because core funding is not obtained from the State of New
    Mexico, it is essential that a particular emphasis be placed on core
    federal support. The Institute will continue to leverage funds to
    ensure jointly supported planned improvements. Further justifications
    for this request are found in the previously submitted comprehensive
    budget.
        Request for Federal Matching Funds of $4 million to meet a W.K.
    Kellogg Challenge Grant.--As authorized by its legislation, the
    Institute is committed to the creation of a center for lifelong
    education, scholarly research and cultural exchange to express the
    various dimensions of Native cultures to all peoples. As presented in
    previous federal requests, IAIA won a national competition for a $2
    million grant from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation to plan and design this
    new center, which will be located on IAIA's campus. The new center is
    projected to serve 16,000 participants annually. Construction and
    development costs are projected at $37 million, of which $21 million
    has been secured. Diversified support for remaining costs is being
    secured through private, state, and tribal partnerships.
        Of critical importance, the Kellogg Foundation has committed an
    additional $16 million, but requires a federal match of a total of $8
    million. Thus far, IAIA has secured almost $4 million in federal
    dollars through appropriations and competitive programs. IAIA's fiscal
    year 2006 request of the remaining $4 million will secure this large
    private sector grant opportunity for the direct benefit of Indian
    peoples and their communities.
                            background and key facts
        IAIA, originally established in 1962, has produced the majority of
    North America's most successful Indian artists. Founded as a Bureau of
    Indian Affairs (BIA) high school, IAIA has evolved into a federally
    chartered four-year college, building its own campus and operating the
    national American Indian Arts Museum in the historic plaza of Santa Fe.
        Charter and Mission.--IAIA moved out of the control of the BIA into
    a Congressionally chartered institution in 1988 and is authorized under
    Public Law 99-498, as amended. This law affirms and acknowledges that
    Native cultures and arts are critical to the nation and deems it
    appropriate and essential for the federal government to provide base
    support to IAIA in the advancement, preservation, and promotion of
    diverse Native cultures and arts. IAIA's mission is to serve as the
    national center of research, training, language and scholarship for
    Native Americans and Alaska Natives through the dedicated study,
    creative application, preservation and care of our Native cultures and
    arts.
        Governance.--IAIA is governed by a board of trustees (majority
    Native) appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed
    by the Senate.
        Funding.--As a national post-secondary institution, IAIA's
    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 base
    operations.
        Museum.--IAIA's enabling legislation also authorizes funding to the
    IAIA Museum and specifies its dual purpose of public education and
    presentation. Its facilities and collections provide hands-on training
    for students and faculty, and showcase student and alumni works. It
    provides a highly visible venue for public relations, education, and
    outreach, attracting over 50,000 visitors annually. The museum also
    houses the largest National Collection of Indian Contemporary Art with
    more than 6,500 pieces.
        Campus.--In 1989, 140 acres was donated to the Institute for the
    establishment of a permanent campus. IAIA developed the infrastructure
    for site development and created an impressive master campus plan. The
    first phase of new campus construction is nearly complete.
        Student Body.--IAIA's student body represents virtually every state
    in the country, as it enrolls 70-90 percent of the 562 federally
    recognized tribes. On average, over 90 percent of enrolled students
    come from impoverished reservations located in isolated communities
    with family income levels below federal poverty standards. Graduates
    become renowned artists and/or highly respected professionals in tribal
    communities and mainstream society.
        Tuition.--IAIA is strongly committed to assisting its student body
    access both federal and private sources of scholarship, financial aid
    and other tuition assistance public and private programs. Tuition rates
    are similar to community colleges in the Santa Fe area.
        Performance Measures.--IAIA undergoes rigorous assessment through
    reviews by mainstream accreditation committees and meets strict
    evaluation standards. It holds dual accreditation as a four-year fine
    arts college by the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools
    and the National Association of Schools of Art and Design. In 2004 it
    achieved 10-year accreditation, the highest standard in higher
    education.
        Community Outreach and Support.--Through public education and
    outreach, IAIA serves over 50,000 students, community members and
    national and international visitors annually. Please note that this
    budget request has the unanimous support of the American Indian Higher
    Education Consortium, All Indian Pueblo Council, National Congress of
    the American Indian, and National Indian Education Association.
               justifications and highlights of major successes.
        Student Graduation Rates.--While IAIA's Baccalaureate degree
    programs are new and still under evaluation, IAIA's Associate degree
    programs have a 42 percent graduation success rate as compared with the
    22 percent national average rate of mainstream higher education
    institutions.
        Library and Technology Center (LTC).--Through federal, state and
    private support, IAIA built a new center for academic learning,
    research, and study. The LTC houses a Computer Lab, Learning Resource
    Center, a student support center, and extensive book collections and
    photographic archives. The library's collection is available locally
    and internationally via the online catalog on our Web site.
        Native Circle.--A Program for Student Success. IAIA instituted a
    groundbreaking initiative to increase student academic success and
    retention through culturally-based learning assistance. Native Circle
    creates culturally integrated support to meet the needs of our unique
    population of students. Native Circle promotes student success and
    provides support in all arenas of the student experience.
        Film Program for Native American Writers, Directors, and Actors.--
    In partnership with ABC Entertainment, Walt Disney, Screen Actors Guild
    and the National Museum of the American Indian, IAIA created a new
    initiative to further the advancement of Native Americans pursuing
    careers in the entertainment industry. Several participants won highly
    competitive ABC Talent Scholarships, and Walt Disney and ABC
    Entertainment Writing Fellowships.
                               current challenges
        Federal investment has been critical to IAIA's evolution and
    numerous achievements. Appropriations for new campus construction were
    leveraged by over 60 percent in state, private, and other federal
    competitive grant programs, allowing the Institute to establish the
    first phase of its own campus.
        Although IAIA has developed from a two-year college into a four-
    year institution, appropriations increases have averaged less than four
    percent from 1998 to 2004. Operating expenses have had to be kept to a
    minimum despite the tremendous development of a four-year curriculum.
    Although the Institute achieved the highest accreditation for its four-
    year programs, it suffers from inadequate resources to build an
    appropriate infrastructure to support its new designation.
    Institutional assessments conducted by accreditation boards this past
    year highlighted key shortfalls within IAIA's infrastructure. The
    following three major areas were identified:
      --Operations.--Strengthening of current operational systems and
            stabilization of core operations financed by the Federal
            Government.
      --Compensation.--Implementation of an appropriate compensatory
            structure to support competitive markets, factoring in Santa
            Fe's high cost of living, and the professional development, and
            new hires of credentialed faculty for four-year programs.
      --New Systems.--Implementation of new systems and reorganization to
            address shortfalls in current systems.
                                   conclusion
        It is without doubt that the accomplishments of IAIA have been
    outstanding over the past five years. We proudly and respectfully
    commit this budget request to the United States Congress for review and
    consideration. We greatly value our partnership to sustain and
    strengthen this important institution, its many achievements, and a
    future full of promise for the continuous cultural advancement of our
    diverse tribal nations. Thank you for your serious consideration.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the International Society of Tropical Foresters
        As a former member of the USDA Forest Service Research Program and
    current President of the International Society of Tropical Foresters, I
    am pleased to see an increase of $9.016 million in the President's
    fiscal year 2006 budget for Forest Service Research and Development (FS
    R&D). Also pleasing are the increases in funding for the Forest
    Inventory and Analysis and the Biobased Products and Bioenergy programs
    above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. These are important and
    positive increases.
        However, I see problems with the lack of recognition of the need
    for additional silviculturists to strengthen the Healthy Forests
    Restoration program. Silviculturists in Forest Service Programs
    generally (in National Forests, Research and Development, and State and
    Private Forestry) have been reduced in numbers at an alarming rate
    during the past several years. Yet, they are needed to plan and carry
    out thinning of fire hazardous forest lands and in restoring cut and
    burned over forest lands through planting or natural regeneration
    programs. Silviculturists have always been the backbone of Forest
    Service management programs, and they are essential to current Healthy
    Forests Restoration programs working together with other specialists in
    water, fire, insects, diseases, ecology and wildlife habitat. I
    recommend that the Forest Service recognize the need for more
    silviculturists in Research and Development as well as in non-research
    programs of the Forest Service. This would require at least an increase
    in funding of $2 million more for Research and Development and
    additional funding for the other two branches of the Forest Service.
        The rest of the President's fiscal year 2006 budget looks good,
    although I would like to add a little special detail on two
    International Research Institutes that are a part of the overall
    Research programs.
          international institute of tropical forestry in puerto rico
        The International Institute of Tropical Forestry (IITF) has a
    mission of research that contributes to the sustainable use of forest
    resources, the conservation of primary forests, the rehabilitation of
    degraded lands and the management of wildlife and watersheds. This work
    is conducted in an extensive network of collaborators with the
    Institute in Puerto Rico, other Caribbean islands, and in Latin
    America. The decrease of $51,000 in the fiscal year 2006 budget for
    IITF will impact research on watershed conditions and invasive plants
    and animals and the delivery and practical use of all of the research
    programs of IITF.
        I would like to see the $51,000 decrease restored, and an increase
    of $300,000 for silvicultural research aimed at sustainable forest
    management practices in the fiscal year 2006 budget for IITF.
                institute of pacific islands forestry in hawaii
        The Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry (IPIF) in Hawaii has a
    mission of research on invasive species, forested wetlands, and
    ecosystem restoration. The President's fiscal year 2006 budget for IPIF
    includes a $65,000 increase over fiscal year 2005. This increase will
    be used to strengthen research on invasive species. However, other
    programs that supplement or support research on ecosystem restoration
    include watershed research, fire research (especially since invasive
    species have created fire prone situations) and wetlands research. This
    work needs to continue. The $100,000 decrease in mangrove and wetlands
    research, as well as ridge to reef studies, should be restored. An
    additional increase of $300,000 for silvicultural research in the
    fiscal year 2006 budget for IPIF would greatly enhance work to restore
    native ecosystems in Hawaii.
        Previous FS budgets have made possible the construction of an
    office and laboratory facility to house the IPIF R&D and outreach
    programs. The construction of this facility in Hilo, Hawaii began in
    early 2004, and I am pleased to see that IPIF will soon occupy these
    new quarters.
        I would like to be sure that the $65,000 increase in the
    President's fiscal year 2006 budget for IPIF be retained in the overall
    FS R&D budget.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Intertribal Timber Council (ITC)
                                    summary
        Mr. Chairman, I am Nolan C. Colegrove, Sr., President of the
    Intertribal Timber Council. I am a member of the Hoopa Tribe and serve
    as their Forest Manager. I am pleased to present the following
    recommendations for fiscal year 2006 Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S.
    Forest Service and Department of Energy appropriations:
        (1) Reject the BIA's proposed restructuring of the BIA budget,
        (2) Restore Endangered Species funding in Non-Recurring Programs--
    Resources Management, to $2.6 million and add $4 million for activities
    involving ESA,
        (3) Implement IFMAT II report recommendations to--
          (a) increase BIA Forestry base funding by $119.6 million, and
          (b) integrate Interior BIA fire funding into the BIA base
            Forestry budget,
        (4) Add $8 million to Cadastral Surveys in Non-Recurring Real
    Estate Services, and retain the $1.6 million proposed increase for
    Regional Office Land Titles and Records,
        (5) Within Wildland Fire funding in BLM, direct BIA to develop a
    Native American fire crew leadership training program,
        (6) Add $17.5 million to Forest Service State & Private Forestry to
    fund recently authorized Tribal and State Forested Watershed Assistance
    Programs,
        (7) Restore Cooperative Lands Forest Health Management funding in
    Forest Service State and Private Forestry to the fiscal year 2005 level
    of $47.6 million, and
        (8) Add $100 million in Energy Department Energy Conservation for
    biomass programs being authorized in H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of
    2005.
                     intertribal timber council background
        The Intertribal Timber Council (ITC) is a twenty-nine year old
    organization of seventy forest owning tribes and Alaska Native
    organizations that collectively possess more than 90 percent of the 7.7
    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.
           reject the bia's proposed restructuring of the bia budget
        Mr. Chairman, the ITC urges Congress to reject the BIA's proposed
    restructuring of its Operation of Indian Programs budget for fiscal
    year 2006. The restructuring undermines tribal government and Self-
    Determination, and provides the BIA with greater autonomy to shift
    funding as it chooses. In the current climate of intense budget
    pressures, the BIA should have increased responsibility to inform the
    tribes about the use of the money that is supposed to be provided to
    meet tribal needs and federal trust obligations. Greater detail,
    transparency, and accountability are needed, not less. Restructuring
    would eliminate TPA and create amorphous pools of funds that will be
    easier for the BIA to manipulate, out of view of the very tribes the
    budget is to assist. The current budget system was developed and
    implemented by tribes, the BIA and Congress in fiscal year 1993 to
    clearly identify all BIA funds subject to tribal control. The BIA
    budget is intended to serve the tribes, not the bureaucracy.
        Restructuring the BIA budget is exceptionally complicated and
    controversial; tribal involvement and consultation must be required
    before the BIA is granted the authority to implement what it has
    characterized as a ``needs-based budget.'' The BIA is already failing
    to adequately fund almost all of its programs, including its trust
    resource obligations; giving the BIA virtually carte blanche authority
    to shift and distribute this scarcity among the tribes will be an
    unending source of BIA mischief and increasing distrust among the
    tribes. At the very least, any such plan would be disruptive and
    extremely controversial. Shifting funds would destabilize both Self-
    Governance tribes and direct service tribes. Further, the proposed
    budget justification is vague and apparently anticipates differential
    administrative treatment. ``One set of standards should apply to
    programs managed directly by BIA. Another set of standards should be
    applied to BIA's management of grants under Indian Self-
    Determination.'' BIA-OIP-1.
    restore endangered species funding in non-recurring programs--resources
    management, to $2.6 million and add $4 million for activities involving
                                    the esa
        We request that the BIA Endangered Species program be restored to
    its fiscal year 2001 level of $2.6 million, and that another $4 million
    be added to address unmet needs for funding to support tribal
    activities involving the ESA. Even at current levels, for instance, the
    BIA Pacific Region states its ESA program is so underfunded it cannot
    fund one full-time biologist, yet there are over 290 federally listed
    species and 102 federally recognized Indian tribes within the Region.
    For fiscal year 2006, BIA is proposing to cut its ESA program to
    $210,000, effectively eliminating the only funding identified in the
    BIA budget for field-level ESA compliance activity. The fiscal year
    2006 BIA Justification frankly acknowledges this on page BIA-NRP-17,
    stating ``the reduction will curtail the ESA compliance effort for
    individual timber sales.'' We fear that the virtual elimination of the
    ESA program would increase the difficulty of harvesting Indian timber
    in accordance with tribal management plans and violate the federal
    trust responsibility. Tribal governments would be deprived of needed
    jobs and revenue, and tribal forests themselves would be placed in
    jeopardy of catastrophic loss due to wildfire, insects and disease
    because of the inability to properly manage forest stocking levels. It
    is sadly bizarre that the Interior Department's Fish and Wildlife
    Service budget is proposing $80 million for ESA grants to states and
    territories, for which the United States does not have a trust
    responsibility.
    implement ifmat ii report recommendations to--(a) increase bia forestry
      base funding by $119.6 million, and (b) integrate interior bia fire
                   funding into the bia base forestry budget
        The National Indian Forest Resources Management Act (Public Law
    101-630) Section 312 (25 U.S.C. 3111) requires the Interior Secretary
    to provide for an independent assessment and report on the status of
    Indian forests and forest management every ten years. The first Indian
    Forest Management Assessment Team (IFMAT-I) report was issued in
    November, 1993, and the second (IFMAT-II) in December, 2003. In
    addressing its statutory mandates, the IFMAT II report recommends, and
    the ITC urges, that BIA base Forestry funding be increased by $119.6
    million to bring it into per acre funding parity with the Forest
    Service (IFMAT-II page 98). This increase would include funding for
    several unfunded federal mandates that expose tribal timber sales to
    the prospect of challenge and shut-down, hindering forest health and
    depriving tribes of revenue; for example, the current BIA budget
    provides no identified funds for archeological surveys required by the
    National Historic Preservation Act.
        The IFMAT-II report also recommends that fire funding be made a
    permanent part of BIA's base Forestry funding in order to efficiently
    address forest health as part of overall Indian forest management
    (IFMAT-II page 60). The ITC agrees and requests the Committee to shift
    funding for BIA fire and fuels management and preparedness to Forestry
    in Non-Recurring Programs. IFMAT-II stresses the contribution that
    fire-related funding (fuels management, preparedness, and emergency
    stabilization) has made to tribal forestry since 1991. For 2001, the
    total BIA Forestry budget including base program funding and fire
    funding is $9.38 an acre, or two-thirds the $13.70 per acre combined
    base and fire funding for the Forest Service. While fire funding has
    helped reduce the funding disparity with National Forests, integration
    of BIA fire funds with funding for other programs would lead to more
    effective and coordinated management, while avoiding duplication of
    effort and other inefficiencies.
       add $8 million to cadastral surveys in non-recurring real estate
     services, and retain the $1.6 million proposed increase for regional
                         office land titles and records
        We request that fiscal year 2006 BIA funding for cadastral surveys
    be increased to $16 million. We also note that the BLM itself has
    statutory responsibilities to provide cadastral surveys on Indian trust
    lands, and we ask that the BLM be directed to institute such a program
    as part of its baseline responsibilities. Reliable and accurate
    boundaries and clear, current title are essential for the management of
    Indian trust lands and resources. Without them, land use and management
    are clouded, its income subject to question, and its protection
    jeopardized. A lack of surveys is a major cause of timber trespass.
        We support the requested fiscal year 2006 increase of $1.6 million
    for Land Titles and Records in Regional Office Trust Services, although
    we remain concerned about the adequacy of funding for this program.
      within wildland fire funding in blm, direct bia to develop a native
                 american fire crew leadership training program
        We request that the BIA be directed to develop a Native American
    fire crew leadership training program. Native American crews constitute
    25 percent of the line fire work force and have proven to be invaluable
    assets for protecting both Indian and non-Indian forests and
    communities. There is an increasing need for fire crew leadership
    training to improve the readiness and field effectiveness of tribal
    fire crews. Failure to do so could endanger the safety and hinder the
    deployment of otherwise fully trained and able tribal fire crews.
     add $17.5 million to forest service state & private forestry to fund
      recently authorized tribal and state forested watershed assistance
                                    programs
        We request funding to initiate both tribal and state watershed
    assistance programs in fiscal year 2006. Title III of the Healthy
    Forests Restoration Act (Public Law 108-148) establishes needed
    watershed forestry assistance programs for states (Section. 302, $15
    million) and for tribes (Section 303, $2.5 million). The combined
    authorized funding for these two programs is $17.5 million a year. With
    drought now encroaching on the West, healthy forested watersheds are
    becoming especially important for their role in capturing, holding,
    filtering, and releasing steady supplies of clean water, providing
    riparian and other habitat, and assuring sustainable fire-resistant
    forest stands. Fire and drought imperil watersheds that often span
    jurisdictional boundaries. Funding of both the tribal and state
    watershed programs is essential to help communities, particularly
    smaller rural communities like those found on Indian reservations, to
    actively participate in collaborative watershed management.
     restore cooperative lands forest health management funding in forest
      service state and private forestry to the fiscal year 2005 level of
                                 $47.6 million
        Pest, disease, and invasive species management on Indian trust land
    is funded in USFS Forest Health Management for Federal Lands, and the
    ITC supports maintaining the adequacy of that budget. The ITC also
    urges that funding for Forest Health Funding on Cooperative Lands be
    restored to its fiscal year 2005 level. It is essential to address
    forest health on a broad landscape basis; where ownership patterns are
    complex, inadequate coverage on Coop lands increases the prospects of
    damage to neighboring Federal and tribal lands, with a consequent loss
    of forest productivity.
     add $100 million in energy department energy conservation for biomass
       programs being authorized in h.r. 6, the energy policy act of 2005
        Many timber tribes are pursuing biomass to reduce costs of forest
    health treatments by generating electricity, and we urge that $100
    million be added to the Dept. of Energy budget in anticipation of the
    programs being authorized in Section 939 of H.R. 6.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior
                                Chippewa Indians
        As President of the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
    Indians, located in Wisconsin, I am pleased to submit this testimony,
    which reflects the needs, concerns and issues of the tribal membership
    arising from the President's fiscal year 2006 Budget.
                                indian education
        Johnson O'Malley. We urge the Subcommittee to restore $8.8 million
    to the Johnson O'Malley (JOM) program.--The Administration proposes
    substantial cuts to education funding, and Indian education has been
    especially hit hard. Of particular significance to the Band is the
    proposed $8.8 million decrease in JOM funding--cutting funding for this
    program in half. The JOM program provides funding for supplemental
    education programs for Indian students attending public schools.
    Because the Band's member children attend public schools, this funding
    forms the core of the Band's education program. We urge the
    Subcommittee to restore full funding to this program.
        Lac du Flambeau Education Program. The Band also requests an
    additional appropriation of $93,000 for its education program.--The
    Band's education program has been historically under-funded. It is
    impossible to demonstrate the successful performance required by the
    Administration for continued funding when the program has never been
    fully funded in the first instance.
        The Band received only $56,134 in JOM funding in fiscal year 2005.
    Of this, $45,000 supports an Indian Student Mentor at the local high
    school, and the balance is used to partially fund the Tribal Education
    Coordinator. The mentor program is very important to our freshman
    students, who arrive at the high school as a minority after graduating
    from the majority-Indian Reservation grade school. The mentor provides
    support and intervention to ease this transition. However, we have 520
    grade school students who are not served by the JOM program due to lack
    of funding. An additional $93,000 is required to meet the basic needs
    of these students.
                         natural and cultural resources
        Circle of Flight. We strongly urge the Subcommittee to restore
    $592,000 for the Tribal Wetland and Waterfowl Enhancement Initiative
    (Circle of Flight), which the Administration proposes to eliminate
    entirely.--Congress has restored this funding when it was targeted in
    past years, and the Band would like to thank the Subcommittee for
    understanding how important this program is in restoring and preserving
    our Nation's wetlands and waterfowl populations. The preservation and
    restoration of wetlands is vital to the culture and economy of the
    Great Lakes region. Moreover, in addition to waterfowl habitat and
    gathering areas, wetlands are important in providing flood control,
    clean water and recreation, benefiting residents up and down the
    Mississippi Flyway. Your strong support of this program is required
    again.
        Wildlife and Parks. We urge this Subcommittee to restore full
    funding to the Wildlife and Parks budget, including the proposed $4.2
    million cut to tribal management and development programs.--Tribes are
    leaders in natural resource protection and this funding is essential to
    maintain these programs. 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.
        The Band also requests the Subcommittee set aside $200,000 for Lac
    du Flambeau--$100,000 for Fish Hatchery Operations and $100,000 for
    Management and Development.--The Wildlife and Parks budget has not
    increased significantly since 1990, and the Band requires additional
    funding to continue its fish hatchery and management programs.
        Tribal Historic Preservation Officers. The Band requests that $9.9
    million be allocated within the Historic Preservation Fund for Tribal
    Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs).--In 1995, Congress began
    encouraging tribes to assume historic preservation responsibilities as
    part of self-determination. There are currently 54 tribes in the United
    States--six in Wisconsin--approved by the Secretary to administer
    historic preservation programs. These programs conserve fragile places,
    objects and traditions crucial to tribal culture, history and
    sovereignty.
        As was envisioned by Congress, more tribes qualify for funding
    every year. In fiscal year 2001, there were 27 THPOs with an average
    award of $154,000; in fiscal year 2005, there are 54 THPOs, and the
    Band will likely receive $48,000. Paradoxically, the more successful
    the program becomes overall, the less each tribe receives to maintain
    professional services, ultimately crippling the programs. The requested
    appropriation would provide a modest base funding amount of $180,000
    per THPO program.
        Lac du Flambeau Boarding School Historic Restoration. The Band
    requests an appropriation of $337,653 from the Saving America's
    Treasures Account for the restoration of the Lac du Flambeau Boys and
    Girls Indian School, as a historic site.--From 1895-1932, the Lac du
    Flambeau boarding school was operated with the purpose of assimilating
    Indian children from the region. The school's history represents a
    snapshot of a painful era of American Indian policy faced by our
    ancestors. Unfortunately, this story is rarely told in present day
    textbooks. The Band's goals in restoring the buildings are to provide a
    place to tell the story of the boarding school era--a story of cultural
    survival and personal endurance in the face of seemingly insurmountable
    obstacles--and to honor those who kept our tribal traditions alive in
    these difficult circumstances. Funding would cover exterior and
    interior restoration and associated infrastructure, personnel and
    engineering costs.
        Forestry. The Band requests that the Subcommittee earmark $107,000
    for the Lac du Flambeau Forestry Department.--The Reservation contains
    46,000 acres of forested land that supports hunting, gathering and
    employment opportunities for tribal members. Proper management of the
    forest is essential not only to sustain our subsistence lifestyle, but
    also to provide economic growth for the Band. Two foresters and one
    technician undertake a broad range of management activities, including
    tree planting, prescribed burning, forest road design and maintenance,
    and timber sale establishment and administration. The total cost of
    operating the forestry program is $217,000, but the program received
    only $98,672 in fiscal year 2005--a decrease from previous years--and
    has not received a substantial funding increase since 1991. Additional
    funding is needed to maintain forest development, timber sale
    management and wildfire control activities. Forest management requires
    secure, long-term funding to be cost-effective and demonstrate results.
        Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission. The Band also
    supports funding for the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
    Commission (GLIFWC) in the amount of $4,196,000 to meet the needs
    outlined in the Commission's testimony submitted to this
    Subcommittee.--The Band is a member of the Commission, which assists
    the Band in protecting and implementing its treaty-guaranteed hunting,
    fishing and gathering rights.
             pay cost shortages for bia public law 93-638 employees
        We urge the Subcommittee to restore full Public Law 93-638 pay cost
    funding for tribes in fiscal year 2006 and to restore pay cost funding
    not received in fiscal year 2002-2005 through a special
    appropriation.--Under the Indian Self-Determination Act, many tribes
    have assumed responsibility for providing core services to their
    members. If these services were provided by the federal government,
    employees would receive pay cost increases mandated by federal law.
    While tribal governments have assumed this responsibility, Congress and
    Interior have failed to fulfill their obligation to ensure that tribes
    have the same resources to carry out these functions. Tribes received
    only 75 percent of the pay cost adjustment in fiscal year 2002, 15
    percent in fiscal year 2003 and approximately 30 percent in fiscal year
    2004. This inequity threatens to undermine tribal self-determination.
        The Band also requests an appropriation of $59,600 to provide a 5
    percent cost of living increase for its employees.--Funding for the
    Band's most critical core services, including law enforcement, courts,
    education, natural resource management and social services, has eroded
    significantly in recent years because of the lack of appropriate pay
    cost increases. The requested appropriation would cover a 5 percent
    cost of living adjustment for the Band's program employees within TPA,
    Management and Development and Fish Hatchery Operations.
                        environmental protection agency
        Indian General Assistance Program. The Band requests that the
    Subcommittee increase funding for the Indian General Assistance Program
    (GAP) by $10.8 million.--GAP funding is the primary federal mechanism
    available for tribes to protect our lands. These funds, which provide
    support for many of our programs, enable tribes to assume environmental
    responsibilities delegated by EPA. We ask the Subcommittee to restore
    the proposed $5 million cut to this program and to increase GAP funding
    to at least $68.3 million to enable tribes to continue developing
    environmental management infrastructure. We also ask you to clarify
    that GAP funding can be used for development, implementation and
    continued support of tribal environmental programs, not merely
    ``capacity building.''
        Clean Water Program. We request restoration of full funding to the
    Clean Water Program, including restoration of $171,000 from this fund
    for the Band's Water Resources Program.--The Clean Water Program
    provides grants to tribes under Section 106 of the Clean Water Act to
    protect water quality and aquatic ecosystems. We received $171,000 in
    fiscal year 2005, the minimum required to support the Band's program.
    In fiscal year 2006, the Administration proposes to reduce this to
    $150,000. Continued operation of the program requires restoration of
    this $21,000 cut.
        State and Tribal Assistance Grants. The Band supports restoration
    of $643.9 million for State and Tribal Assistance Grants.--These grants
    are used to support a variety of tribal environmental programs,
    including water quality programs, and are an essential source of tribal
    environmental funding.
                                 indian health
        We urge the Subcommittee to significantly increase funding for
    Contract Health Care (CHC).--Federal funding for health services has
    fallen dramatically behind the rising cost of health care over the past
    five years. In fiscal year 2000, The Band's shortfall for health care
    was $1.2 million. We anticipate the fiscal year 2005 shortfall to be in
    excess of $2.9 million. This deficit has increased 136 percent or an
    average annual increase of 27 percent. Despite rising costs, the
    Administration proposes an increase of only $27 million for CHC. A
    substantial funding increase is needed to address the need across
    Indian county. In addition, we urge the Subcommittee to look at ways to
    reduce costs for Indian health care. For example, currently vendors for
    CHC are paid at full rates, rather than medical assistance rates. A
    rate change would cut the Band's health care budget shortfall in half.
        The Band also requests an appropriation of $8 million for
    construction of a new clinic facility.--The inadequate design of the
    present facility, which was not intended for use as a clinic, restricts
    access to patient care and limits the quality of service we are capable
    of providing to community. A new facility would improve patient access
    to providers, enable the Band to provide wellness education and health
    screenings for cancer and diabetes, and reduce payments to outside
    vendors because more high cost services could be provided on-site.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Mesa County Commissioners
        The Mesa County Commissioners urge you to support the proposed $1.5
    million appropriation to the Bureau of Land Management from the Land
    and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) for the Colorado Canyons National
    Conservation Area.
        As you may be aware, Mesa County lies on the Western border of
    Colorado and covers 3,309 square miles. The percentage of public lands
    in Mesa County is 71 percent. We work very closely with the Bureau of
    Land Management.
        Located in west central Colorado and straddling a 23-mile stretch
    of the Colorado River within Colorado and Utah, the 122,300-acre
    Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area (NCA) contains a multitude
    of nationally significant resources. This landscape supports a varied
    range of recreational uses--activities such as floating the Colorado
    River, big game hunting, hiking, camping, mountain biking, horseback
    riding, and fossil viewing.
        The 1.5-mile ``Trail Through Time'', administered by the BLM and
    the Museum of Western Colorado, interprets fossilized dinosaur remains
    found in a 140-million-year-old quarry. Twenty-five miles of the
    internationally renowned Kokopelli Mountain Bike Trail pass through
    Colorado Canyons NCA. The Kokopelli Trail receives 31,000 annual
    visitors, and usership is projected to double by 2025. In addition, a
    53-mile trail network, known as the Kokopelli Loop, lies within the
    NCA.
        In fiscal year 2006, the BLM has the opportunity to acquire and
    protect a number of private parcels both on the Colorado River and at
    other critical locations within the NCA from willing sellers, and which
    represent the last significant in-holdings in the NCA.
        Without protection, these properties face imminent threats from
    rural residential development. Conserving them this year will
    consolidate federal ownership within the Colorado Canyons NCA and
    protect the area's unique richness of essential natural and
    recreational resources.
        Again, we urge you to give this project your strongest support
    during the Congressional deliberations of the fiscal year 2006 Interior
    Appropriations bill.
        Thank you for your support.
                                     ______

       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 parks for present and future generations. On behalf of
    approximately 300,000 NPCA members, we appreciate the opportunity to
    share our funding priorities and respectfully request the Committee
    consider these views as you shape the fiscal year 2006 Interior budget.
                     operations of the national park system
        A top NPCA priority is to significantly increase funding for Park
    Service operations. NPCA is requesting an increase of $100 million
    above the President's fiscal year 2006 request, $150 million above
    current fiscal year 2005 spending levels, for a total of $1.8 billion
    for Operations of the National Park System.
        NPCA appreciates and supports the efforts in the President's budget
    to cover fixed costs. In recent years, the parks have been stretched
    thin by unbudgeted cost-of-living increases, un-reimbursed storm
    damage, and insufficient funding for homeland security needs, which
    have contributed to and compounded the burden of the annual operating
    deficit.
        However, the increase of $50.5 million for Operations of the
    National Park System does not leave room for any programmatic increase
    in the base operating budgets for the 388 NPS units. Without increased
    programmatic funding to the parks, visitor service and resource
    protection needs remain unmet at parks throughout the system.
        NPCA greatly appreciates the effort of the Committee to work on a
    bipartisan basis to address the core operating needs of the parks,
    particularly the successful effort last year to significantly increase
    the base operating budget of the parks. Continuing this effort in the
    fiscal year 2006 is crucial.
    Land Acquisition
        NPCA supports a number of projects included in the President's
    fiscal year 2006 National Park Service Federal Land Acquisition budget
    request including: $8 million for Big Thicket National Preserve, $1.6
    million for Lewis and Clark National Historic Site, $5.8 million for
    Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, $1.9 million for Wrangell-St.
    Ellias National Park and Preserve, $3 million for Pinnacles National
    Monument, $1.6 million for the Carter G. Woodson National Historical
    Site, and $4.3 million for Flight 93 National Memorial.
        In addition, NPCA respectfully requests the consideration of a
    number of priority NPS land acquisition projects listed below.
      --Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area, TN
        Request.--$2,062,500
        Description.--Funding is needed to purchase 625 acres (2 tracts)
    within the authorized boundary of the Big South Fork NRRA. There are
    approximately 5,900 acres of privately held property within the
    boundary of the park, much of it threatened by development near the
    gorge.
      --George Washington Birthplace National Monument, VA
        Request.--$2,000,000
        Description.--Funding is needed to purchase two tracts of land in
    the expanded boundary of the park. Public Law 107-354, signed into law
    by President Bush in 2002, authorized expansion of the park's boundary
    by 112 acres. Now being marketed by commercial real estate interests,
    this land is surrounded by parkland, the Potomac River, and its
    tributary, Pope's Creek.
      --Gettysburg National Military Park, PA
        Request.--$2,000,000
        Description.--Funding is needed to purchase in-holdings from
    willing sellers. Of the 5,989 acres inside Gettysburg's boundary,
    nearly 20 percent or 1,154 acres remains privately owned. The last
    funding provided to acquire threatened lands at Gettysburg was in
    fiscal year 2001.
      --Grand Teton National Park, WY
        Request.--$4,600,000
        Description.--Funding is needed to purchase from willing sellers
    4.37 acres adjacent to the Moose-Wilson road, known as the ``Hartgrave
    Property.'' This property is a critical wildlife area and highly
    visible to park visitors.
      --Harpers Ferry National Historical Park, WV
        Request.--$3,000,000
        Description.--Funding is needed to acquire Schoolhouse Ridge
    properties inside the park boundary. Public Law 108-307 authorized the
    addition of 1,240 acres (191 acres which is privately owned) to the
    park. The $2.9 million approved in fiscal year 2005 will be applied to
    acquisition of two tracts totaling 111 acres. This land outside
    Washington, DC faces significant development threats.
      --Lewis & Clark National Historic Park, OR/WA
        Request.--$3,750,000
        Description.--Funding is needed to complete acquisitions to
    coincide with the Lewis and Clark bicentennial celebration in November
    2005. Public Law 108-387 re-designated Fort Clatsop National Memorial
    as Lewis and Clark National Historical Park, expanding the boundary of
    the park. The President's fiscal year 2006 Budget includes $1,600,000
    to purchase approximately 160 acres of property from Cathlamet Timber
    to complete the Dismal Unit in Washington. An additional $2,150,000 is
    needed to acquire property from the Garvin family and complete the new
    Station Camp unit in Washington, and a smaller acquisition adjacent to
    Fort Clatsop to complete the acquisition from Weyerhauser in Oregon.
      --Mount Rainier National Park, Carbon River Valley, WA
        Request.--$4,000,000
        Description.--Funding is needed to complete acquisition of 800
    acres from willing sellers to address seasonal flooding and improve
    road access to the park. Local land conservancies are purchasing
    options on these lands to protect the lands from development adjacent
    to the park.
      --Obed Wild and Scenic River, TN
        Request.--$3,174,000
        Description.--Funding is needed toward the acquisition of 1,397
    acres to protect from development the wild values for which the park
    unit was established. Currently one-third of the land within the park
    boundary is in private ownership. $750,000 was appropriated in fiscal
    year 2004 for such purposes.
      --Petrified Forest National Park, AZ
        Request.--$5,000,000
        Description.--Funding is needed to begin the purchase of private
    lands incorporated into the park through the Petrified Forest National
    Park Expansion Act signed into law by President Bush in 2004 (Public
    Law 108-430). The expansion will protect globally significant
    paleontological resources, as well as nationally significant
    archeological resources. There are currently approximately 79,500
    privately owned acres within the expansion.
      --Valley Forge National Historic Park, PA
        Request.--$4,500,000
        Description.--Funding is needed to acquire lands north of the
    Schuylkill River. Nearly 400 acres within the park boundary remains
    privately-owned in one of the fastest growing areas in the state.
    Valley Forge preserves, protects, and maintains the cultural and
    natural resources associated with the encampment of Gen. Washington's
    Continental Army.
      --Virgin Islands National Park, USVI
        Request.--$850,000
        Description.--Funding is needed to acquire a 1-acre high priority
    land tract (Penn Property) located adjacent to the 376-acre Maho Bay
    Estate. This area is under significant development pressure that
    threatens to disrupt the character of the park, including the
    spectacular views of Maho Bay and public access to the scenic shoreline
    and waters of the park. This fragile area contains large nesting
    colonies of brown pelicans, as well as migratory warblers and terns
    that make their winter homes on St. John.
      --California Desert Parks, CA (Death Valley NP, Joshua NP, Mojave
            National N. Pres)
        Request.--$1,000,000
        Description.--Funding would be used in fiscal year 2006 toward the
    purchase of desert park in-holdings from willing sellers. There are
    substantial numbers of private property parcels located within the
    boundaries of the Mojave National Preserve, Joshua Tree and Death
    Valley. For example, within Mojave alone there are over 1,100
    privately-owner parcels and over 300 willing sellers. These funds would
    match private dollars raised by the National Park Foundation, which has
    already worked to identify, map, and prioritize in-holdings for
    purchase from willing sellers.
    Construction
      --Death Valley National Park, CA--Install Photovoltaic System on
            Visitor Center/Headquarters Complex and Replace Roof
        Request.--$606,000
        Description.--The roof on the Furnace Creek Visitor Center and
    Headquarters Complex needs to be replaced. It currently leaks and
    drains into the visitor center at the front desk area where visitors
    pay entrance fees and receive information. Death Valley proposes to
    replace the old roof and install a new one with a 50 kW photovoltaic
    (PV) system. The PV system would provide approximately 30 percent of
    the Furnace Creek complex's annual energy demand. The PV system would
    be interpreted to the public to showcase National Parks Service's
    sustainability efforts.
      --Everglades National Park, FL--Modify Water Delivery System
        Request.--$25,000,000
        Description.--NPCA supports the Presidents fiscal year 2006 request
    of $25,000,000 within the Department of Interior budget for a Modify
    Water Delivery System, as well as the $35,000,000 from the U.S. Army
    Corps of Engineers. This funding is critical to ensure significant
    restoration benefits for Everglades National Park and the South Florida
    Ecosystem.
      --Hamilton Grange National Monument, NY--Relocation and Restoration
            of Alexander Hamilton's Home
        Request.--$10,465,000
        Description.--Funding is requested to move the Hamilton house to a
    new location within Hamilton's original property lines. Public Law 106-
    482, signed into law in 2000 authorized the Secretary of the Interior
    to acquire by donation suitable land to serve as the new location for
    the home of Alexander Hamilton and to authorize its relocation to the
    acquired land. The 1995 approved General Management Plan for the Grange
    called for its relocation and restoration.
      --Seward, Alaska--Mary Lowell Visitor Center
        Request.--$9,800,000
        Description.--Funding is requested to replace the Park Service's
    deficient visitor center/administration facility with a multi-agency
    facility in Seward that will serve the Park Service, U.S. Forest
    Service and Alaska State Parks. Under previous appropriations,
    sufficient land has been acquired for such purposes.
    Other
      --National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom
        NPCA supports the President's Budget request of $482,000 for the
    Network to Freedom (NTF) program managed by the Park Service and
    respectfully requests an additional $1 million for NTF operations, and
    $500,000 for NTF grants for a total request in fiscal year 2006 of
    $1,982,000 for the Underground Network to Freedom program.
        The Underground Railroad Network to Freedom program was created to
    promote and preserve sites, partnerships, and programs that educate the
    public about the historical significance of the Underground Railroad.
    The current funding level of $482,000 for operations does not
    adequately cover staff salaries or basic programmatic needs. The
    President's fiscal year 2006 does not include any funding for NTF
    grants nor any increase in operations.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the National Recreation and Park Association
        This statement shares with the Subcommittee the views of the
    National Recreation and Park Association on fiscal year 2006
    appropriations for selected programs within its jurisdiction.
    Referenced programs are administered by the National Park Service.
        We recommend the following:
      --$100,000,000 from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for state
            assistance to be invested by state and local governments on a
            50/50 matching basis. Funds should be appropriated to the
            states as authorized by the Land and Water Conservation Fund
            Act, Public Law 88-578, as amended.
      --$25,000,000 to address the most distressed urban recreation
            resource conditions and deficiencies identified and aided
            through the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program. This
            program funds no land acquisition.
      --$9,700,000 for the Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance
            (RTCA) program to support field-based technical assistance that
            yields conservation and recreation benefits through
            collaboration with state and local interests.
      --Sufficient funds to enable the National Park Service, through
            Federal Lands to Parks and related programs, to collaborate
            with state and local recreation and park officials and others
            on the conservation and use of surplus federal real property.
        If substantially adopted, our recommendations will help address an
    increasing national imperative to improve physical and mental health
    and to sustain the environment.
               land and water conservation fund state assistance
        Our recommendations relative to LWCF assistance and urban park
    restoration are also supported by Advocates for Health, Public Parks,
    and Recreation, a broad coalition of health and recreation-related
    groups. A statement by that coalition accompanies our statement.
        We commend the Subcommittee for continuing national support for
    fiscal partnerships with state and local recreation and park
    authorities. Concurrently, we believe the President's proposed
    termination of LWCF State Assistance and zero funds for fiscal year
    2006 is remarkably shortsighted. In our judgment, the administration's
    reasons for these actions reflect limited awareness of program purpose,
    public and personal health, actual long-term impact and value results
    arising from investments, and actual fiscal conditions of state and
    local governments.
        Ironically, the President's budget continues to recommend that
    other programs be funded from the LWCF account, thus creating the
    illusion that LWCF is at least partially funded. If the Congress in its
    wisdom determines to fund these programs from the LWCF account then all
    jurisdictions and agencies presently eligible for LWCF and assistance
    engaged in wildlife habitat and forest conservation should be equally
    eligible to participate in programs drawn from the LWCF treasury
    account.
        The Interior Department's claim that state and local governments
    should, in effect, go it alone financially ignores one of the key
    tenants of the act: That a portion of annual OCS receipts should be
    reinvested through the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The record of
    LWCF grants to both small rural communities and large jurisdictions is
    evidence that the LWCF assistance is a highly efficient way to get OCS
    receipts back to the people for resource conservation and public
    recreation.
        The fiscal needs of state and local governments are well
    documented. For example, unfunded fiscal year 2004 requests for LWCF
    from local and state officials exceeded $836 million, according to
    applications submitted to the National Park Service for fiscal year
    2006. Our April 2005 interim report on local park and recreation
    capital investment needs for the period fiscal year 2005-2009 indicates
    that these local governments alone need once $72 billion for park and
    recreation facilities and lands. This reflects both the need for
    investment and program effectiveness, while suggesting that our request
    is very conservative. NRPA's priorities reflect a nationwide demand to
    increase the recreation capacity of public systems, especially those
    relatively close to home.
        We continue to note our concern that the administration's proposed
    budget again offers to divert access of the Land and Water Conservation
    Fund to a number of other non-LWCF activities. The LWCF act, broad in
    its application and resultant diversity of projects, is very specific
    in its policy objectives--provision of recreation opportunities to
    improve human health through direct access to lands and waters and
    recreation facilities.
        Non-federal recreation and park resources are essential to quality
    recreation experiences for all people. These systems provide the
    majority of public recreation destinations, services, and visitor
    experiences. They are not incidental to sustaining the social and
    environmental integrity of federal land systems.
                   urban park and recreation recovery program
        The Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program recognizes the
    recreation values associated with conservation of the built
    environment. Funds are restricted to restoration and, thus, renewed and
    expanded public use of local recreation facilities and sites that have
    been worn out by use, age, or the elements. These facilities and sites
    are no less important 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. It is
    reflected in both the number of requests for assistance and the quality
    and objectives of projects when the program has been funded. Based on
    demand for fiscal year 2001-2003 appropriations, for example, our
    recommendation would support from 50 to 90 projects.
               national park service intergovernmental activities
    Rivers and Trails Conservation Assistance Program
        We recommend $9.7 million for the Rivers, Trails, and Conservation
    Assistance Program. The program continues to illustrate the critical
    importance of federal contributions to public/public and public/private
    partnerships for conservation of natural and cultural resources and
    public recreation access. The program provides technical assistance to
    local governments, citizens, and community organizations, and state
    agencies to consider recreation and conservation strategies. The
    results include planning, restoration, and development of waterways and
    trails, and conservation of open space and greenways, among other types
    of projects. In most cases, local governments continue to invest non-
    federal funds in projects stimulated by local public interests and
    federal technical assistance.
    Federal Lands to Parks Program
        We recommend an appropriation of at least $1 million to support the
    Federal Lands to Parks program, also part of NPS Recreation and
    Conservation Assistance activities. The FLP program is an exemplary
    service. It guides federal agencies and state and local governments in
    the conversion of federal surplus properties to public recreation and
    park uses and conservation of historic or wildlife values. The number
    of surplus properties potentially available for state and local parks
    and demands for assistance has increased beyond the present capacity of
    program staff. A large part of this demand was generated by the closure
    of several military bases between 1988 and 1995. In recent years,
    program staff has assisted in the transfer of about 20-25 properties
    annually. There is a current backlog of some sixty pending transfers.
    Anticipated base closure and reuse decisions will substantially impact
    the capacity of program staff.
        While there is today considerable attention and debate on the
    stewardship and priorities of the National Park System and National
    Park Service, we urge the Subcommittee to not let this situation divert
    attention from other congressional authorities in the Interior
    department's domain.
        Local and state park systems are critical to the health and well-
    being of the American people and others who work and reside among us.
    With sufficient funds, more appropriate recreation resources will
    become accessible and better environmental stewardship will result.
    Local systems can better address diverse public interests and our
    collective need for quality recreation services for children. Local
    agencies, in particular, host programs that serve millions of
    nutritious breakfasts, lunches, snacks, and suppers to needy children.
    Public recreation and park sites and services help reduce crime and
    delinquency, especially during non-school hours, days, and seasons.
    Recreation and park policy-makers and managers recognize that at any
    given time perhaps 45 million people have a physical disability and
    public staff attempt to accommodate their needs for recreation. In
    addition to providing public recreation experiences, state and local
    agencies contribute importantly to sustaining plant and wildlife
    diversity.
        We appreciate this opportunity to share the views of our members.
    Local Government Park and Recreation Capital Investment Survey--Fiscal
                                 Year 2005-2009
                               preliminary report
                                  introduction
        The National Recreation and Park Association is a 501(c)(3)
    education, research, and service organization. It is an advocate for
    progressive policy and programs that support sufficient investment in
    public recreation and park systems and services. NRPA members are
    public executives, managers, elected and appointed citizen policy
    makers, and citizen advocates associated with the creation and use of
    public recreation and park places and recreation services. Over 20,000
    members are associated with public park and recreation agencies and
    allies at all levels of governments, individuals engaged in research,
    undergraduate and graduate education, continuing education and
    training, recreation services and site and program adaptations for
    persons with disabilities, and recreation for members of the Armed
    Forces and their dependents.
        As a national advocate for appropriations from the federal Land and
    Water Conservation Fund and Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program,
    for example, NRPA has a continuing interest in the status of capital
    development and infrastructure needs of local park and recreation
    agencies. Our work on behalf of local general-purpose governments and
    special purpose park and recreation districts requires periodic
    assessments of both the short and longer-term fiscal conditions and
    capital investment needs. Further, this survey increases our awareness
    of both present and longer-term deficiencies and factors that influence
    decisions. This survey reveals a total capital investment need of
    $72.697 billion for fiscal year 2005 to fiscal year 2009, inclusive.
    Funds are needed to increase local parkland by 1.36 million acres, in
    addition to development of public recreation facilities.
        NRPA surveys of local government park and recreation capital
    investment estimates were conducted first in 1990, and have been
    conducted every five years since. The present study assesses the fiscal
    year 2005 capital development and recreation and park spatial needs of
    local agencies. It also projects capital investment program (CIP) needs
    for the period fiscal year 2005-2009.
                                    methods
        A survey of the National Recreation and Park Association-maintained
    chief administrator database was conducted, beginning in December 2004,
    to analyze and assess capital investment needs. From a list of 4,787
    local public government agencies, a 15 percent random sample (n = 734)
    was drawn. Selected agencies were mailed a cover letter explaining the
    importance of the study, a survey instrument, and a pre-stamped return
    envelope. A post card reminder was sent to each agency three weeks
    after the initial mailing; one follow up mailing, again requesting
    participation and a second survey instrument, was sent three weeks
    later.
        During the data collection process, some agency mailings were
    returned as undeliverable. Efforts were made to correct the addresses
    and re-mail the request to participate in the study. In the end, the
    addresses of only four agencies could not be identified. Removing them
    from the effective sample, a total of 730 agencies had the opportunity
    to participate in the study. A total of 333 agencies responded and
    provided usable data for analysis purposes, resulting in an effective
    response rate of 45.6 percent.
                                    results
        Descriptions of Agencies:
      --The overwhelming majority of the respondents (86.7 percent) were
            from agencies they described as general-purpose government.
            Another 11.5 percent of the respondents described their agency
            as being a special purpose district.
      --A slight majority of the agencies (42 percent) operate under a July
            1 fiscal year, but the number of agencies operating under a
            fiscal year that begins January 1 was a close second (38.3
            percent). Twelve percent of the respondents used a October 1
            fiscal year.
      --The largest number of agencies served populations of 10,000-24,999
            (26.3 percent). However, there was a fairly even distribution
            of the remaining agencies across the spectrum of area
            population. For example, 15.4 percent of the respondents served
            the smallest category of population (under 10,000); slightly
            less than 20 percent served populations of 25,000-49,999;
            slightly over 15 percent served populations of 50,000-99,999;
            and, 12.4 percent were in communities of 100,000-249,999.
      --The number of full-time equivalent employees serving these agencies
            ranged from zero to 1,239. Almost 21 percent had no full-time
            employees. However, the average number of full-time equivalent
            staff was slightly under 57 employees. The median was 9.5 full-
            time employees.
      --These agencies also depended on an average of 324 volunteers. The
            estimated number of volunteers working for these agencies
            ranged from zero (26.2 percent) to 15,100.
      --The average size of respondent agency land systems was 1,776 acres.
            Size ranged from zero (7.3 percent) to 65,528 acres. Of that
            total, 28 percent of this acreage was undeveloped.
        Agency Finances:
      --Agencies reported fiscal year 2005 operating budgets of slightly
            under $9.8 million. The smallest 2005 operating budget was
            $3,067; the largest budget was over $1.2 billion.
      --Between the years 2000-2004, most agencies experienced an increase
            in their capital investments (98.4 percent). Only 1.6 percent
            reported a decrease. On average, agencies increased their size
            by over 520 acres during this period through their capital
            investment program. The largest increase reported was 80,000
            acres. However, over 42 percent saw no increase in acreage.
      --Capital investment programs increased the estimated investment
            value of agencies by an average of $4.6 million. One agency
            reported increasing their investment value by $160 million.
      --The average capital improvement budget for fiscal year 2005 was
            $5,366,774. Agency capitol improvement programs (CIP) ranged
            from zero (7.9 percent) to over $756 million. Of their total
            CIP budget, an average of $479,712 will be used for fee simple
            acquisition of land/water. Almost $9,000 will be expended for
            leases or easements; over $1.6 million will be spent for new
            construction and/or development; and, approximately $1.17
            million will be expended for rehabilitation and/or restoration
            of existing lands or facilities.
      --In fiscal year 2005, agencies estimated that they would acquire
            permanent public interest in almost 25 acres of additional
            land. Over 73 percent of the respondents would acquire no new
            acreage in 2005; two agencies expect to increase by 1,000
            acres.
      --Only 27.4 percent of the agencies reported having mandatory
            dedication laws; slightly more had payment in-lieu of
            dedication requirements (29.2 percent). Thirty-five percent
            impose impact fees for parks and recreation.
      --In fiscal year 2005, agencies expect to receive gifts, bequeathals,
            dedications or by other non-purchase means, permanent public
            interest in slightly less than 25 acres of land. Almost 80
            percent expected to receive no new land via non-purchase means
            in fiscal year 2005.
        Agency Needs--fiscal year 2005-2009:
      --Over the next five years, agencies estimated a need to acquire an
            average of 285 acres of recreational land/water. Where 30.4
            percent of the agencies indicated they needed no new acreage
            over the next five years, others' responded that they needed up
            to 16,000 acres.
      --During the same five-year period, agencies estimated a need for an
            average of $15.3 million for capital improvement programs. Very
            few (< 5 percent) indicated no need. One agency reported a need
            of $285 million.
      --Of agencies' total capital investment needs over the next five
            years, agencies reported needing an average of $2.48 million
            for fee simple acquisition of land/water. They also reported
            needing an average of $98,606 for leases, easements, and other
            non-title acquisition, an average of $7.34 million for new
            construction or development, and $4.62 million for
            rehabilitation and restoration.
      --Each of the estimates for space and capital improvement funding was
            derived either through staff assessments and estimates (55.8
            percent) or a comprehensive public planning process (32.2
            percent).
      --When asked the purpose of land acquisition, agencies ranked
            ``expanding public recreational access generally'' as the
            foremost reason. This was followed by ``eliminating or reducing
            specific recreation deficiencies,'' ``conserving specific
            natural resource features,'' and ``shaping and controlling
            direction of land use change.''
      --Over the next five years, three-fourths of all agencies expect a
            shortfall in agency capital investment funding.
      --Agencies reported that approximately 42 percent of the CIP funding
            would come from general tax revenues. Further, they reported
            that local bond and revenue issues would account for 17.5
            percent of their funding. State grants (8.9 percent), fees/
            charges (6 percent), federal grants (5.4 percent), and private
            gifts/donations (2.6 percent) were the other primary sources of
            capital investment funding.
      --Looking to the future over the next five years, respondents
            reported that general tax revenues would decrease as a
            proportion of CIP funding (37.6 percent), as would fees/charges
            (5.9 percent). Local bonds and revenue issues (20.9 percent),
            federal grants (6.4 percent), and private gifts/donations (4.5
            percent) would increase in importance over the next five years.
            The dependency of agencies on state grants will remain about
            the same (8.8 percent).
      --A majority of agencies (70 percent) stated that if greater amounts
            of federal assistance were available, it would leverage an
            increase in capital investments provided through local fiscal
            sources. Twenty-eight percent indicated their investments would
            remain the same. Very few indicated their local investments
            would decrease (2.4 percent).
      --Slightly more than half of the respondents indicated their agency
            had the powers of eminent domain/condemnation authority for
            recreation resource protection and use (58.3 percent). Less
            than 10 percent of the agencies had used this authority to
            acquire land over the past five years.
      --Of those that had used this authority, the reasons for its use was
            (1) to purchase resources from unwilling sellers, (2) to allow
            the courts to set fair market value, (3) to create clear title
            to the property, and (4) to protect the resource from an
            imminent threat.
      --Local factors or other priorities have negatively influenced
            investments in public parks and recreation, in about 68 percent
            of local jurisdictions. Agencies reported that ``local economic
            budget stress'' was the most important factor depressing
            investment, followed by ``homeland security and first
            responder'' priorities.

                           LOCAL GOVERNMENT PARK AND RECREATION CAPITAL INVESTMENT NEEDS, FISCAL YEAR 2005 AND FISCAL YEARS 2005-2009
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Est. local
                                                                Capital    Space needs   Capital needs   Est. local govt     govt  space    Est. local  govt
              Population size            Percent   Factor\1\  budget 2005   2005-2009      2005-2009      capital budget    needs-- 2005-     capital inv
                                         agencies                sample    sample mean    sample mean          2005             2009        needs--2005-2009
                                                                  mean      (acreage)                                         (acreage)
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    9,999 and under...................       15.4    737.198     $459,667       10.875      $1,446,136       $338,865,849           8,017     $1,066,088,835
    10,000-24,999.....................       26.3   1,258.98      405,684       34.490       2,493,045        510,748,287          43,422      3,138,696,855
    25,000-49,999.....................       19.6    938.252    2,789,692       72.153       6,988,100      2,617,433,996          67,698      6,556,599,255
    50,000-99,999.....................       15.1    722.837    1,804,671      219.146      10,114,108      1,304,482,842         158,407      7,310,851,531
    100,000-249,000...................       12.4    593.588    3,102,271      343.239      28,567,877      1,841,470,969         203,743     16,957,548,760
    250,000-499,999...................        4.2    201.054    4,402,255    1,445.830      52,742,385        885,090,876         290,691     10,604,067,396
    500,000 and over..................        6.9    333.303   54,511,580    1,765.170      81,197,401     18,168,873,178         588,338     27,063,337,315
                                       ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Totals......................       99.9  .........   67,475,820    3,890.910     183,549,053     25,666,965,996       1,360,314     72,697,189,947
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Based on total population of 4,787 agencies.

                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District
        I am requesting your support and assistance in insuring continued
    funding for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program
    and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program. These
    ongoing cooperative programs have the dual objectives of recovering
    four species of endangered fish while water use continues and water
    development proceeds in compliance with the Endangered Species Act of
    1973, state law, and interstate compacts. Partners in the two programs
    are the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, Indian
    tribes, federal agencies and water, power and environmental interests.
    I respectfully request support and action by the Subcommittee that will
    provide the following:
        An increase of $691,000 in the fiscal year 2006 Recovery Element
    budget (Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services
    Activity; Endangered Species Subactivity; Recovery Element) allocated
    to ``Colorado River fish recovery project'' to allow U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service (FWS) Region 6 to meet its funding commitment to the
    Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. This is the
    level of funding appropriated in fiscal years 2003, 2004 and 2005 for
    this program. These funds are needed for FWS direct participation in
    managing and implementing the Upper Colorado Program's actions,
    monitoring achievement of recovery goals, managing data associated with
    fish population abundance and sampling, evaluating stocking, and
    monitoring fish and habitat response to recovery actions.
        The appropriation of $437,000 in operation and maintenance funds
    (Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries Activity; Hatchery
    Operations & Maintenance Subactivity, Hatchery Operations Project) to
    support the ongoing operation of the FWS' Ouray National Fish Hatchery
    in Utah during fiscal year 2006.
        An increase of $211,000 in the ``Resource Management Appropriation;
    Ecological Services Activity; Endangered Species Subactivity; Recovery
    Element'' budget allocated to the ``San Juan River Recovery
    Implementation Program.'' These funds are needed to support the FWS
    Recovery Program Coordinator and staff who are responsible for program
    management and support of all Recovery Program activities.
        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. Raising and stocking of the endangered fish
    produced at program hatchery facilities, restoring floodplain habitat
    and fish passage, regulating and supplying instream habitat flows,
    installing diversion canal screens and controlling nonnative fish
    populations are key components of the programs' ongoing capital
    construction projects. 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 these projects;
    and provides for an additional $17 million to be contributed from
    revenues derived from the sale of Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP)
    hydroelectric power. This substantial non-federal cost-sharing funding
    demonstrates the strong commitment and effective partnerships embodied
    in both of these successful programs. The requested federal
    appropriations are critically important to these efforts moving
    forward.
        The support of your Subcommittee in past years is greatly
    appreciated and has been a major factor in the success of these multi-
    state, multi-agency programs as they have progressed forward towards
    delisting the endangered fish species in the Upper Colorado and San
    Juan River Basins while necessary water use and development activities
    are occurring. I request the Subcommittee's assistance to ensure that
    the FWS is provided with adequate funding for these vitally important
    programs.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of 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 23 of the national scenic
    and historic trails for FiscalYear 2006 through these appropriations:
      --National Park Service: $9.980 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: $3.037 million to administer 4 trails and
            $933,000 to manage parts of 16 trails administered by the Park
            Service or Bureau of Land Management; Construction: $1.2
            million for the Continental Divide Trail, $500,000 for the
            Florida Trail, and $1 million for the Pacific Crest Trail.
      --Bureau of Land Management: to administer the Iditarod National
            Historic Trail: $250,000, the Camino Real de Tierra Adentro
            National Historic Trail: $389,000, the Old Spanish National
            Historic Trail: $150,000 and $3.38 million to manage portions
            of 9 trails administered by the Park Service or the Forest
            Service; $407,000 for operating the Casper NH Trail
            interpretive center.
      --We ask that you appropriate $7 million for the National Park
            Service Challenge Cost Share Program and continue to earmark
            $2.5 million for Lewis & Clark Bicentennial projects and one-
            third of the remaining $4.5 million (approximately $1.5
            million) for the other 17 national scenic and historic trails
            it administers or create a separate $1.5 million National
            Trails System Challenge Cost Share Program.
      --We ask that you add $500,000 to the Bureau of Land Management's
            Challenge Cost Share Program and earmark the money for the 12
            national scenic and historic trails it administers or manages.
      --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 a five-year 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, $250,000 for management of the Pacific Crest Trail
            land acquisition program; $150,000 to acquire land for the
            Overmountain Victory Trail in North Carolina;
      --to the Bureau of Land Management: $1.5 million to acquire land for
            the Pacific Crest Trail and $1.6 million to acquire land for
            the Oregon Trail in Oregon;
      --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.
                             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 24 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 $9.980 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 and the $500,000 increases
    provided in fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005. We ask you to direct
    the Park Service to add the $500,000 increase that you provided for
    fiscal year 2005 to the base funding of the trails that received it.
    $73,000 of our requested increase will finally provide significant
    operational support for the Natchez Trace Trail, which currently
    receives only $27,000 in annual operations funding. Another $630,000
    will enable the Park Service to begin managing three new national
    historic trails--Ala Kahakai, El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro, and Old
    Spanish--the latter two administered with the Bureau of Land
    Management. These funds will provide full-time management, support
    projects for these trails and development of Comprehensive Management
    Plans for the Ala Kahakai and Old Spanish Trails. We also request
    $200,000 for maintenance of the Pacific Crest Trail in Kings Canyon/
    Sequoia, Lassen, and North Cascades National Parks.
        We request an increase of $823,000 to continue and expand Park
    Service efforts to protect cultural landscapes at more than 200
    significant sites along the Santa Fe Trail, to develop GIS mapping, and
    to fund public outreach and educational programs of the Santa Fe Trail
    Association. An increase of $451,000 for the Trail of Tears will enable
    the Park Service to work cooperatively with the Trail of Tears
    Association to develop a GIS to map the Trail's critical historical and
    cultural heritage sites so they can be protected and interpreted for
    visitors.
        The $100,000 increase we request for the interagency Salt Lake City
    Trails office will enable the Park Service to continue developing
    comprehensive interpretation and auto tour guides for the Oregon,
    California, Mormon Pioneer and Pony Express Trails with a library of
    images derived from the GIS map database of the trails.
        We request $1,777,000 to continue funding the regular operation of
    the Lewis & Clark Trail and the operation of ``Corps II,'' a major
    component of the Federal government's commemoration of the Bicentennial
    of the Lewis & Clark Expedition in the final year of that
    commemoration.
        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 $845,000
    we request will give them that ability for the first time while also
    providing greater support for the regional and 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 $893,000 we request will enable the Park Service to help WDNR
    and other partners to accelerate acquisition of land for the Ice Age
    Trail and further development of the Trail GIS to more efficiently plan
    resource protection, trail construction and maintenance to correct
    unsafe conditions and better mark the Trail for users. The funds will
    also provide assistance to the 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.
        Challenge Cost Share programs are one of the most effective and
    efficient ways for Federal agencies to accomplish a wide array of
    projects for public benefit while also sustaining partnerships
    involving countless private citizens in doing public service work. The
    Partnership requests that you appropriate $7 million in Challenge Cost
    Share funding to the Park Service for fiscal year 2006 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 $2.5
    million for Lewis & Clark Bicentennial projects and one-third of the
    other $4.5 million for the national scenic and historic trails to
    continue the steady progress toward making these trails fully available
    for public enjoyment. We suggest, as an alternative to the annual
    earmarking of funds from the Regular Challenge Cost Share program, that
    you establish a separate National Trails System Challenge Cost Share
    program with $1.5 million funding.
                              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 16 other trails. We ask you to appropriate $3.037
    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, Caminos Real de Tierra
    Adentro and de Tejas, Lewis & Clark, California, Iditarod, Mormon
    Pioneer, Old Spanish, Oregon, Overmountain Victory, Pony Express, Trail
    of Tears and Santa Fe Trails, we ask you to appropriate $933,000
    specifically for these trails.
        Work is underway, supported by funds you provided for the past five
    years, to close several major gaps in the Florida National Scenic
    Trail. The Florida Trail Association has built 100 miles of new Trail
    across Eglin Air Force Base, in the Ocala National Forest, Big Cypress
    National Preserve and along Lake Kissimmee and the Choctawahatchee
    River. FTA volunteers helped clear trees and other debris scattered
    across 850 miles of trail by four hurricanes in 2004. The Partnership
    requests an additional $500,000 for trail construction in fiscal year
    2006 to enable the Forest Service and FTA to build 90 more miles on
    these and other segments of the Florida Trail.
        The Continental Divide Trail Alliance, with Forest Service
    assistance and funding from the outdoor recreation industry, surveyed
    the entire 3200 mile route of the Continental Divide Trail documenting
    $10.3 million of construction projects needed to complete the Trail. To
    continue new trail construction, begun with fiscal year 1998 funding,
    we ask that you appropriate $1.2 million to build or reconstruct 267
    miles of the CDT in fiscal year 2006.
        A Forest Service lands team is working with the Pacific Crest Trail
    Association (PCTA) and the Park Service National Trail Land Resources
    Program Center to map and acquire better routes for the 300 miles of
    the 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 $1
    million for new trail construction and reconstruction of fire and flood
    damaged bridges along the PCT in California and Washington by the
    Forest Service and the PCTA.
                           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 he 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 2006
    $250,000 for the Iditarod National Historic Trail, $389,000 for El
    Camino Real de Tierra Adentro National Historic Trail, $150,000 to
    continue development of the Comprehensive Management Plan for the Old
    Spanish National Historic Trail, $300,000 for construction of new
    sections of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, $100,000 for
    maintenance of the Pacific Crest Trail, and $2.980 million, as
    requested by the Administration, for management of the portions of the
    seven other trails under the care of the Bureau of Land Management. We
    also request $1.5 million for construction of the California Trail
    Interpretive Center in Elko, Nevada, $407,000 to operate the Historic
    Trails interpretive center in Casper, Wyoming, and $1 million for
    construction of safety and other recreational improvements along the
    Iditarod National Historic Trail.
                        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 $5.250 million we request for the
    Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail will continue acquisition underway
    by the Forest Service and Park Service. The $150,000 requested for the
    Overmountain Victory National Historic Trail will protect a key link
    and access to a 7-mile section of the trail in the Pisgah National
    Forest in North Carolina.
        The $3.1 million requested for the Bureau of Land Management will
    protect a key section of the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail and an
    important historical site 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 matched $6.93 million of fiscal year
    2000-2005 LWCF funding with more than $17.5 million to help conserve
    the resources of the Ice Age National Scenic Trail. With this 2.5:1
    match of State to Federal funds, Wisconsin has purchased 26 parcels
    totaling 5,553 acres and now has another 40 parcels under negotiation,
    appraisal or option to purchase. The National Park Service has spent an
    additional $3 million to protect the Ice Age Trail interpretive site.
    All of the LWCF funds appropriated by Congress for the Ice Age NST have
    been spent. The requested $4 million Land and Water Conservation Fund
    grant to Wisconsin will continue this very successful Federal/State/
    local 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 2004 the trail organizations channeled 668,996
    hours of documented volunteer labor valued at $11,801,091 to help
    sustain the national scenic and historic trails. The organizations also
    applied private sector contributions of $6,449,719 to benefit the
    trails. These contributions are documented in Attachment 1.

     ATTACHMENT 1--CONTRIBUTIONS MADE IN 2004 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....................................         174,902      $3,085,271      $3,099,000
    Camino Real Trail Association...................................           3,230          56,977       \1\ 1,000
    Continental Divide Trail Society................................       \1\ 1,500          26,460  ..............
    Continental Divide Trail Alliance...............................          21,700         382,788         592,948
    Florida Trail Association.......................................      \1\ 60,000       1,058,400         165,000
    Ice Age Park & Trail Foundation.................................          87,256       1,539,196         631,761
    Iditarod National Historic Trail, Inc...........................       \1\ 3,920          69,149      \1\ 80,000
    Heritage Trails/Amigos De Anza & others.........................  ..............  ..............  ..............
    Anza Trail Coalition of Arizona.................................           6,870         121,187      \1\ 12,000
    Lewis & Clark Trail Heritage Foundation.........................          54,737         965,561         300,000
    Mormon Trails Association.......................................           1,390          24,520           2,040
    Iowa Mormon Trails Association..................................         \1\ 750          13,230       \1\ 2,080
    Nebraska Mormon Trails Association..............................         \1\ 125           2,205       \1\ 2,635
    National Pony Express Association...............................          35,647         628,813          25,000
    Pony Express Trail Association..................................           5,685         100,283          38,176
    Nez Perce Trail Foundation......................................           3,140          55,390           5,082
    North Country Trail Association.................................          42,297         746,119         205,877
    Old Spanish Trail Association...................................           8,081         142,549          43,703
    Oregon-California Trails Association............................          57,926       1,021,815         591,559
    Overmountain Victory Trail Association..........................         \1\ 800          14,112  ..............
    Pacific Crest Trail Association.................................          34,100         601,524         434,500
    Potomac Trail Council...........................................       \1\ 1,500          26,460  ..............
    Santa Fe Trail Association......................................      \1\ 32,600         575,064         156,400
    Trail of Tears Association......................................          30,840         544,018          60,958
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          Totals....................................................         668,996      11,801,091       6,449,719
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Estimate.

       ATTACHMENT 2--PARTNERSHIP FOR THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM REQUESTED FISCAL YEAR 2006 APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE
                                                 NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Fiscal year
                                      ---------------------------------------
               Agency/Trail                                          2006         Project/programs possible with
                                        2005 cong.  2006 admin.    partners              increased funding
                                         approp.      request      request
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Park Service:
        Ala Kahakai..................     $229,000  \7\ $231,00     $231,000  Continue preparation of Comprehensive
                                                              0                Management Plan (CMP) for new trail;
        Appalachian..................    1,137,000    1,155,000    1,155,000  Operations of NPS A.T. Park Office;
                                                                               $350,000 of the total supports
                                                                               volunteer-based trail and land
                                                                               management guided by ATC; Park ranger
                                                                               to deal with trail encroachments;
                                                                               support for GIS work;
        Natchez Trace................       27,000       27,000      100,000  Planning & building new trail &
                                                                               bridges; backlog maintenance with
                                                                               SCA;
        El Camino Real...............      111,000  \7\ 111,000      242,000  Full-time administrator; implement CMP
                                                                               with Bureau of Land Management;
        California...................      253,000      253,000      278,000  Continue to develop GIS-based
                                                                               comprehensive interpretation for 4
                                                                               trails auto tour guides;
        Ice Age......................      579,000  \7\ 588,000      893,000  Accelerate Trail corridor planning and
                                                                               land acquisition by agency partners;
                                                                               Increase Trail development,
                                                                               maintenance and resource management
                                                                               by IAP&TF volunteers;
        Juan Bautista de Anza........      256,000  \7\ 262,000      262,000  Coordination of Trail site protection,
                                                                               interpretation & development projects
                                                                               with local agencies & organizations;
                                                                               Outreach to schools and Latino
                                                                               communities;
        Lewis & Clark................    1,749,000  \7\ 1,777,0    1,777,000  Planning, coordination & support for
                                                             00                local Bicentennial projects and
                                                                               ``Corps II'';
        Mormon Pioneer...............      128,000      128,000      153,000  Continue to develop GIS-based
                                                                               comprehensive interpretation for 4
                                                                               trails auto tour guides;
        North Country................      641,000  \7\ 641,000      845,355  Advance Trail construction, route
                                                                               planning, protection and public
                                                                               awareness by providing regional
                                                                               services and technical assistance for
                                                                               volunteers and partners;
        Old Spanish..................       72,000       72,000      157,000  Full-time administrator; continue
                                                                               preparation of CMP with Bureau of
                                                                               Land Management;
        Oregon.......................      253,000  \7\ 261,000      286,000  Continue to develop GIS-based
                                                                               comprehensive interpretation for 4
                                                                               trails auto tour guides;
        Overmountain Victory.........      168,000      171,000      188,000  New route signs & interpretive
                                                                               exhibits; mapping Trail sites for
                                                                               protection inventory, feasibility
                                                                               study for location of Trail
                                                                               headquarters and visitor contact
                                                                               site;
        Pony Express.................      182,000      182,000      207,000  Continue to develop GIS-based
                                                                               comprehensive interpretation for 4
                                                                               trails auto tour guides;
        Potomac Heritage.............      250,000      252,000      252,000  Assistance to local agencies &
                                                                               organizations for planning &
                                                                               educational projects;
        Santa Fe.....................     674,0001      \1\ \7\    1,516,000  Preserve cultural resources; begin GIS
                                                        693,000                mapping; design & distribute
                                                                               interpretive media with SFTA;
        Selma to Montgomery..........      297,000  \7\ 304,000      304,000  Comprehensive management plan
                                                                               developed and trail interpretation
                                                                               begun in collaboration with citizen
                                                                               support organizations & local
                                                                               agencies;
        Trail of Tears...............      333,000  \7\ 333,000      784,000  Develop GIS, interpret critical Trail
                                                                               sites & provide new visitor
                                                                               facilities with TOTA;
        NTS-Washington Office........      294,000  \7\ 297,000      350,000  Program coordination and funding for
                                                                               special projects and training for
                                                                               staff & partners;
                                      ---------------------------------------
          National Trails System.....    7,633,000    7,738,000    9,980,355  Total National Trails System
                                                                               operations funding
                                      =======================================
    Challenge Cost Share.............  \2\ 7,343,0  \3\ 4,916,0    7,000,000  $2.5 M for Lewis & Clark; \1/3\ of
                                                00           00                remaining $4.5 M for rest of National
                                                                               Trails System
    Interagency GIS Project..........  ...........  ...........  \4\ 1,253,0  Development of GIS for National Trails
                                                                          00   System;
    BLM:
        Iditarod Trail...............      165,000      179,000      250,000  Coordination and support for
                                                                               collaborative management with other
                                                                               Federal agencies, Iditarod Trail
                                                                               organizations and State of Alaska;
                                                                               bridges and cabins;
        El Camino Real...............      268,000      308,000      389,000  Collaborative administration and
                                                                               management with National Park
                                                                               Service; Full-time Trail
                                                                               Administrator; Site certification and
                                                                               protection;
        Old Spanish..................      102,000       52,000      150,000  Full-time Trail Administrator;
                                                                               Collaborative administration and
                                                                               management with National Park
                                                                               Service; Continue preparation of
                                                                               Comprehensive Management Plan; Site
                                                                               protection and interpretation;
        Continental Divide...........      115,000      211,000      300,000  Marking 230 miles of CDT in Wyoming
                                                                               and work in Idaho, Montana and New
                                                                               Mexico; Interagency management
                                                                               collaboration;
        Pacific Crest................       90,000       90,000      190,000  PCT maintenance in California;
                                                                               Interagency management collaboration;
        Juan Bautista de Anza........       56,000       84,000       84,000  Interpretive exhibits for Anza Trail
                                                                               in Arizona and California;
        California...................      163,000      179,000      179,000  California Trail resource inventories
                                                                               in Utah, Nevada and California;
        Lewis & Clark................    1,818,000    1,976,000    1,976,000  Lewis & Clark Bicentennial
                                                                               preparations and activities in Idaho
                                                                               and Montana;
        Mormon Pioneer...............      129,000      145,000      145,000  ......................................
        Nez Perce....................       43,000      149,000      149,000  Lewis & Clark Bicentennial
                                                                               preparations in Idaho and Montana;
        Oregon.......................      144,000      210,000      210,000  Interagency management collaboration;
        Pony Express.................      121,000      147,000      147,000  Marking Pony Express Trail in Utah and
                                                                               Nevada;
                                      ---------------------------------------
          National Trails System.....    3,164,000    3,730,000    4,169,000  Total National Trails System
                                                                               operations funding
                                      =======================================
    Casper NHT Center................      407,000  ...........      407,000  Operating Oregon, California, Mormon
                                                                               Pioneer, and Pony Express National
                                                                               Historic Trails interpretive center;
    Construction of:
        California Trail Interpretive    1,500,000  ...........    1,500,000  Continued funding for construction of
         Center-NV.                                                            California National Historic Trail
                                                                               interpretive center in Elko, Nevada;
        Iditarod Trail...............  ...........  ...........    1,000,000  Safety and other recreational
                                                                               improvements along Iditarod National
                                                                               Historic Trail;
    FOREST SERVICE:
        Continental Divide...........     493,000+  ...........      754,000  Continued support for full
                                                                               administrative responsibility and 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 $572,500
                                                                               to plan 382 new miles of CDT;
                                                                               $200,000 for work of full-time Trail
                                                                               administrator and $100,000 for
                                                                               Optimal Location Planning for PCT and
                                                                               $100,000 to increase Trail
                                                                               maintenance by volunteers coordinated
                                                                               by PCTA; $650,000 to continue
                                                                               collaboration with Florida Trail
                                                                               Association to inventory 430 miles of
                                                                               the Florida Trail and further develop
                                                                               Trail GIS; $500,000 to manage lands
                                                                               acquired for the FNST; $49,000 to
                                                                               support education and public outreach
                                                                               activities of Nez Perce Trail
                                                                               Foundation;
        Florida......................     493,000+  ...........    1,150,000
        Pacific Crest................     493,000+  ...........      500,000
        Nez Perce Trails.............     394,000+  ...........      633,000
                                      ---------------------------------------
          Total (+ = plus portion of   \5\ 2,873,0    1,000,000    3,037,000
           $1 million allocation).              00
                                      =======================================
        Appalachian, North Country,        906,000      350,000      933,000  Improved trail maintenance, marking,
         Ice Age, Iditarod,                                                    interpretation, archaeological
         California, Juan Bautista de                                          studies, historic site protection and
         Anza, Caminos Real Tierra                                             trailhead facilities for trail
         Adentro & Tejas, Lewis &                                              segments in National Forests;
         Clark, Oregon, Old Spanish,                                           $200,000 to address deferred
         Mormon Pioneer, Overmountain                                          maintenance, remove blowdown trees on
         Victory, Pony Express, Santa                                          30 miles of trail, make improvements
         Fe, Trail of Tears.                                                   and provide liaison for collaborative
                                                                               management of the North Country Trail
                                                                               with National Park Service; Re-
                                                                               location and reconstruction of
                                                                               sections of the Appalachian Trail,
                                                                               replacement of major bridges and
                                                                               installation of toilets at shelters;
        Continental Divide Trail.....      986,000  ...........    1,200,000  Trail construction projects along the
                                                                               Continental Divide Trail:
                                                                               reconstructing or building 267 miles
                                                                               of trail in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming,
                                                                               Colorado and New Mexico;
        Florida Trail................      493,000  ...........      500,000  Trail construction projects totaling
                                                                               90 miles in Seminole State Forest,
                                                                               Aucilla Wildlife Refuge and along the
                                                                               Choctawahatchee, Kissimmee, Yellow,
                                                                               and Suwannee Rivers;
        Pacific Crest Trail..........      986,000  ...........    1,000,000  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.....    6,244,000    1,350,000    6,670,000  Total: National Trails System funding
                                      =======================================
    Nat. Forest System:
        Trail Maintenance............   41,496,000  ...........  ...........  Trail maintenance throughout the
                                                                               National Forest System.
        Trail Construction...........   35,278,000  ...........  ...........  New trail construction and trail re-
                                                                               construction throughout the National
                                                                               Forest System.
        Capital Improvement &           76,774,000   63,700,000   80,000,000  Trail maintenance and new trail
         Maintenance--Trails.                                                  construction throughout the National
                                                                               Forest System.
    LWCF FOR TRAILS:
        LWCF grant--FS Pacific Crest.  ...........    1,000,000    5,000,000  USDA-Forest Service acquisition of
                                                                               lands in southern California, Oregon
                                                                               and southern Washington to preserve
                                                                               the scenic integrity of the Pacific
                                                                               Crest Trail.
        LWCF grant--BLM Pacific Crest  ...........  ...........    1,500,000  BLM acquisition of Sky King Cole Ranch
                                                                               in the Cascade Siskiyou National
                                                                               Monument, including land along
                                                                               Pacific Crest Trail.
        LWCF grant--FS Pacific Crest.  ...........  ...........      250,000  Land acquisition program management.
        LWCF grant--FS Florida.......    2,000,000  ...........  ...........  ......................................
        LWCF grant--FS Appalachian...    1,500,000  ...........  ...........  ......................................
        1LWCF grant Ice Age--            1,000,000  ...........    4,000,000  Assistance provided to State of
         Wisconsin \6\.                                                        Wisconsin to protect threatened Ice
                                                                               Age Trail corridor and connect trail
                                                                               segments across private land in Dane,
                                                                               Chippewa, Columbia.
        LWCF grant--BLM Oregon.......    1,000,000    1,600,000    1,600,000  BLM acquisition of land along the
                                                                               Sandy River in Oregon.
        LWCF grant--FS Overmountain    ...........  ...........      150,000  USDA-Forest Service acquisition of
         Victory.                                                              land to protect key link in the
                                                                               Overmountain Victory Trail in North
                                                                               Carolina.
        LWCF grant--BLM Lewis & Clark    3,500,000  ...........  ...........  ......................................
        LWCF grant--NPS Lewis & Clark    5,000,000  ...........  ...........  ......................................
                                      ---------------------------------------
          Total......................   14,000,000    2,600,000   12,500,000  ......................................
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Includes $261,000 for operations of Santa Fe Park Service office, not related to the Santa Fe Trail.
    \2\ Includes $4.902 million earmarked for Lewis & Clark Bicentennial projects. One-third of the remaining funds
      (about $813,000 of $2.44 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\ Funding request reflects budget detailed in Park Service GIS report delivered to Congress in January 2002.
    \5\ Appropriation includes: $2.873 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.
    \6\ This would be a grant to the State of Wisconsin to be matched at least 1:1.
    \7\ Includes portion of $500,000 base operations funding increase provided by Congress for fiscal year 2005
      which the Park Service considers available to be reprogrammed to other parks in fiscal year 2006 and
      subsequent years.

              Prepared Statement of the Puyallup Tribe of Indians
        Mr. Chairman, my name is Herman Dillon, Sr., Puyallup Tribal
    Chairman. We thank the Committee for past support of many tribal issues
    and in your interest today. We share our concerns and request
    assistance in reaching objectives of significance to the Congress, the
    Tribe, and to 32,000+ Indians (constituents) in our Urban Service Area.
        U.S. Department of Interior--Bureau of Indian Affairs.--The
    Puyallup Tribe has analyzed the President's fiscal year 2006 budget and
    submit the following detailed written testimony to the Senate Interior
    Subcommittee on the proposed funding bill for the Dept. of Interior and
    Related Agencies. In the fiscal year 2005 budget process, the Puyallup
    Tribe supported actions of Congress to restore the base level funding
    for various programs. We look forward to working with the 109th
    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 2006
    budget. The following provides a brief review of the Puyallup Tribe's
    priorities and special appropriation requests for fiscal year 2006.
        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 21
    commissioned officers to cover 40 square miles of reservation in
    addition to the usual and accustomed fishing 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 detainees 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. These and other issues regarding the
    deplorable conditions existing in Indian Detention facilities are
    documented in the September 2004 report issued by the U.S. Department
    of Interior Inspector General's Office. We respectfully request
    congressional support to fund the BIA Law Enforcement program at the
    $190 million level proposed in the fiscal year 2006 budget to operate
    law enforcement services at a safe and effective method. We further
    request Committee support to fund the Department of Justice--Detention
    Facilities Construction program for fiscal year 2006 at $30 million to
    address deficiencies in tribal detention facilities.
        The following list is a brief summary of law enforcement needs of
    the Puyallup Nation Law Enforcement and Detention Facilities programs;
      --Juvenile Incarceration Facility $2.5 million (est.);
      --Staffing for Juvenile Facility--8 employees @ $320,600;
      --Adult Incarceration Facility $3.5 million (est);
      --Additional staff for dispatching center--3 employees @ $120,800;
      --Additional Officers--4 @ $225,900;
      --Equipment; firearms, radios and equipment--$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 $350,000 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 2004 Congress
            restored TFW base funding for the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
            However, this base funding increase is being proposed to be
            discontinued in the President's fiscal year 2006 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 million to the TFW fiscal year 2006 budget.
      --Unresolved Hunting and Fishing Rights Program.--The Medicine Creek
            Treaty secured the Puyallup Tribe and other tribes the right to
            hunt on open and unclaimed lands. This treaty right is reserved
            in the same paragraph that also reserved the right to fish and
            gather shellfish. Unfortunately, the BIA program that is
            designed to support this treaty activity has not received
            adequate, if any, appropriations in the last several years.
            Funds that were made available to tribes have been on a
            competitive basis with a maximum amount per program due to
            limited funding. The Puyallup Tribe has established a Hunting-
            Wildlife Management program that works cooperatively with
            signatory Tribes to the Medicine Creek Treaty, Washington
            Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Forest Service and the
            National Park Service. For further development and
            participation in unresolved hunting issues, the Puyallup Tribe
            is requesting Committee support for establishment of base
            funding of $95,000 for the Hunting-Wildlife Management Program.
        Tribal Priority Allocation & Contract Support Costs.--The
    President's fiscal year 2006 budget calls for $2.28 billion to be
    allocated to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which is a decrease of $110
    million from the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. This request includes
    $760 million for Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA), a $9.4 million
    decrease from the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. These decreases
    proposed by the Administration are on top of the continued funding
    short fall 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 have not been
    adequate to keep pace with inflation. At a minimum, we request your
    support and endorsement in the following:

      --Support by Congress to fund the TPA fiscal year 2006 request at the
            fiscal year 2005 enacted level as adjusted for inflation, for a
            minimum request of $769.4 million.

        Another concern the Puyallup Tribe has with the fiscal year 2006
    budget request is the on-going issue of contract support costs. The
    President's fiscal year 2006 budget request includes $134.6 million to
    address the Bureau of Indian Affairs continuing contract support costs.
    At a minimum, we request your support and endorsement in the following:

      --Support by Congress to fund the Contract Support Cost fiscal year
            2006 request at the fiscal year 2005 enacted level as adjusted
            for inflation, for a minimum request of $140.6 million. 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 $72
    million over the fiscal year 2005 level for a total of $3.840 million
    for the Indian Health Service in fiscal year 2006. These increases,
    however, are off-set by the historic short fall of funding that has
    failed to keep up with inflation. We request congressional support for
    the fiscal year 2006 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/
            NA population has a 2.1 percent growth rate, growth has not
            been funded for 11 years;
      --Funding for Contract Support Coast should be increased to $284
            million for fiscal year 2006; and
      --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. Contract Health Services should be
            increased to $495 million for fiscal year 2006.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Rivers and Trails Coalition
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, the Rivers and Trails
    Coalition, composed of local, regional, statewide, and national
    organizations representing hundreds of thousands of Americans
    nationwide committed to conservation and recreation, respectfully asks
    that you fund the National Park Service Rivers, Trails and Conservation
    Assistance (RTCA) program at $9.7 million in fiscal year 2006.
        Through its Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance program, the
    National Park Service (NPS) implements its natural resource
    conservation and outdoor recreation mission in communities across
    America. The Rivers and Trails Coalition formed many years ago to
    support this invaluable field-based technical assistance program that
    yields enormous conservation and recreation benefits to communities by
    fostering partnerships between federal, state, and local interests. The
    resulting cooperative efforts restore rivers and wildlife habitat,
    develop trail and greenway networks, preserve open space, and
    revitalize communities--all contributing to improved quality of life
    and close-to-home recreation. RTCA staff provide on-the-ground
    assistance solely at the request and invitation of communities in
    coordinating projects, facilitating public meetings, serving as a
    liaison and convener of government and non-profit groups, assessing and
    mapping resources, developing promotional materials and events, and
    identifying sources of funding.
        RTCA is a very successful and popular program but continues to lack
    adequate funding. Current demand for RTCA services greatly exceeds the
    program's capacity. Despite RTCA's accomplishments in coordinating
    upwards of 300 projects annually, RTCA funding has remained relatively
    stagnant during the last decade, virtually flat for the last four
    years, and has lagged well behind the rate of inflation, resulting in
    real cuts to the program. The program's declining real budget and
    funding shortages have resulted in limiting staff positions in several
    regions, office closures, and reduced staff participation within
    communities and on-the-ground projects, diminishing essential services
    of this field-based program. RTCA currently has 80 staff in 33 field
    offices, compared to 90 staff in 2002. Flat funding results in an
    annual loss of approximately 4 positions, as personnel costs continue
    to rise through inflation and cost-of-living increases, while project
    costs must be cut back. RTCA faces further reductions in service and
    the loss of additional staff in fiscal year 2006 if the program
    receives flat or reduced funding.
        RTCA is a highly effective and cost efficient program. In 2004
    alone, NPS community projects reported more than 680 new trail miles,
    more than 330 newly protected river miles, more than 22,700 acres of
    newly protected natural areas.
        RTCA receives less than \1/2\ of 1 percent of the total funding for
    the National Park Service, yet by building local partnerships it
    succeeds in attracting substantial local funding every year. In 2004
    the program reported more than $40 million leveraged funding from other
    sources. This program is an excellent value for the American taxpayer
    and merits increased funding to accomplish its mission as a community-
    based National Park Service technical assistance and outreach program.
        The Rivers and Trails Coalition supports the NPS current strategic
    planning effort to include an emphasis on working on issues of common
    interest to national parks and gateway communities adjacent to national
    parks. This strategy represents a positive, proactive approach to
    improving management and brings RTCA and its associated projects and
    partnerships into closer contact with NPS superintendents and core
    National Park Service missions. However, the RTCA program is best able
    to fulfill its mission by assisting all types of communities--urban,
    rural, and suburban; local, state, and national--to achieve on-the-
    ground conservation successes for their projects, where the technical
    assistance is requested and based on true needs. In addition to
    regional trail systems and greenway development, open space protection,
    and river corridor protection, projects include transportation
    alternatives, brownfield redevelopment, youth conservation projects,
    and floodplain planning, among numerous other conservation and
    recreation initiatives.
        RTCA plays a critical role in creating a nationwide, seamless
    network of parks and open spaces, supporting conservation partnerships,
    promoting volunteerism, and encouraging physical activity. The
    Administration's HealthierUS Initiative explicitly highlights RTCA for
    its efforts in promoting physical activity through the development of
    local trails, greenways, and parks.
        The President's budget proposal for fiscal year 2006 calls for a
    reduction of $500,000 to the RTCA program. The Rivers and Trails
    Coalition respectfully requests that Congress restores funding to this
    program and increases the program budget by $1.5 million to meet the
    real needs that this program serves.
        We see evidence in community after community of the value of NPS
    involvement through productive partnerships, and we can report the
    unparalleled success of RTCA in bringing greenways, blueways, and
    creative conservation partnerships to fruition.
        Our requested funding level would allow this extremely beneficial
    program to continue current projects without interruption, restore
    recent cuts, put staff closer to the people they serve, and meet the
    outstanding requests from communities around the nation. We strongly
    believe it makes sense to strengthen programs such as RTCA that support
    communities through partnerships and capacity-building, enabling local
    stakeholders to better manage and conserve their recreational and
    natural resources from the bottom-up.
        We urge you to fund the Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance
    program at $9.7 million in the fiscal year 2006 Interior Appropriations
    bill to remedy the program's continued erosion, compensate for losses
    due to inflation, and enable the program to respond to growing needs
    and opportunities in communities throughout the country. Thank you for
    your consideration.
        Respectfully submitted by the Rivers and Trails Coalition,
    comprised of the following organizations:
        The Accokeek Foundation; American Canoe Association; American
    Hiking Society; American Rivers; American Society of Landscape
    Architects; American Trails; American Whitewater; Appalachian Mountain
    Club; Association of State Floodplain Managers; Bay Circuit Alliance;
    Bikes Belong Coalition; Conservation District of Southern Nevada; East
    Coast Greenway Alliance; International Mountain Bicycling Association;
    National Association of Service & Conservation Corps; National Audubon
    Society; National Parks Conservation Association; National Recreation
    and Park Association; New York-New Jersey Trail Conference; New York
    Parks and Conservation Association; North American Water Trails;
    Outdoor Industries Association; Rails to Trails Conservancy; Scenic
    America; Trout Unlimited; Washington Area Bicyclist Association; and
    Washington Trails Association.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the Santa Clara Valley Water District, San Jose,
                                   California
                                    summary
        This statement urges the Committee's support of an appropriation
    add-on of $4 million from the United States Environmental Protection
    Agency in fiscal year 2006 ($2 million under State and Tribal
    Assistance Grants and $2 million under Environmental Programs and
    Management account).
                   perchlorate cleanup in santa clara county
        Background.--The perchlorate originated from a former highway
    safety flare manufacturing plant owned by Olin Corporation, which was
    operated for 40 years. Operations ceased in 1996, and perchlorate
    contamination was discovered in 2000. The Central Coast Regional Water
    Quality Control Board (Regional Board) is providing regulatory
    oversight of the contamination case, which has affected several hundred
    drinking water supply wells. Groundwater is currently the only source
    of drinking water in this area and over 2,000 families are being
    provided with bottled water or treated groundwater. Significant
    concerns remain regarding this community's exposure to perchlorate in
    their drinking water and perchlorate accumulation in agricultural crops
    and livestock. To address these concerns and ensure that the
    groundwater basin in this area is aggressively restored and cleaned up,
    the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) is requesting Federal
    assistance. We request funding to facilitate a prompt and complete
    cleanup of groundwater resources in the Llagas Valley, Santa Clara
    County.
        Perchlorate Investigation and Cleanup Status.--To date, the
    District has sampled more than 1,000 water supply wells in the Llagas
    Valley. In addition, Olin Corporation has sampled about 600 wells.
    Results to date show more than 450 wells with detectable perchlorate
    above 4 parts per billion. Bottled water is currently being delivered
    to over 1,600 families and businesses in the area. Olin Corporation has
    installed perchlorate removal systems on three wells for two small
    water systems in the San Martin area that serve a total of about 450
    customers.
        The full extent of perchlorate contamination has not yet been
    determined. Olin Corporation has installed a groundwater cleanup system
    at their former manufacturing facility. However, they have not yet
    presented a plan for cleaning up the 9.5 mile long plume of
    contamination, controlling additional plume movement, or long-term
    solutions for well water users who currently rely on bottled water.
    Olin has advised state officials that they are not prepared to commit
    to cleanup of perchlorate impacts to private wells until a State or
    Federal Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for perchlorate is established.
    Adoption of an MCL at the State and Federal levels has been delayed.
        Additional funding is necessary to determine the best long-term
    solution for the entire groundwater basin and initiate cleanup efforts.
    Funding for District-led initiatives will help break a regulatory
    deadlock with Olin that is currently preventing meaningful action to
    protect well owners.
        Fiscal Year 2005 Funding.--$1.1 million was appropriated for
    Perchlorate activities under State and Tribal Assistance Grants in
    fiscal year 2005. Project applications for fiscal year 2005 funds will
    include municipal-scale perchlorate removal treatment technology
    demonstration projects and staffing to manage projects and complete
    technical analysis.
        Fiscal Year 2006 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested that the
    Committee support an appropriation add-on of $4 million from the United
    States Environmental Protection Agency in fiscal year 2006 ($2 million
    under State and Tribal Assistance Grants and $2 million under
    Environmental Programs and Management account).
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall
                               Indian Reservation
        On behalf of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall
    Reservation, I appreciate the opportunity to present testimony on
    fiscal year 2006 appropriations for BIA and IHS budgets. We are Idaho's
    largest tribe, with a reservation population of nearly 8,000 residents,
    Indian and non-Indian, spread out over a 753 square mile reservation.
    Like many tribes, we have vast unmet needs in law enforcement, health
    care, natural resources, education and social services. We oppose the
    Administration's effort to further reduce funding for BIA- and IHS-
    funded programs. These proposed reductions impact Indian tribes more
    severely than other program cuts because Indian programs are
    significantly under funded. We are troubled that the President's budget
    contains huge increases for the Office of the Special Trustee (OST)
    while cutting funds for the BIA programs that most directly serve
    Indian people. Congress should not fund the OST at the expense of
    tribal governments. We are grateful to the work of this Committee, and
    to our senators, for your many efforts to improve the lives of our
    members. You recognize the devastating impacts to Tribal communities
    which result from a lack of resources, both human and financial.
        This year alone the Shoshone Bannock Tribes will supplement funding
    for BIA-and IHS-funded programs which serve the Fort Hall Reservation
    by over $4 million dollars. This figure does not include the $3.9
    million the Tribes pays annually to have a fully-funded insurance
    program which in turn allows the IHS health facility at Fort Hall to
    bill third party payors. Without such collections, the IHS program
    serving our reservation is woefully under funded. Our direct service
    IHS ambulatory clinic operates with a $5 million budget, with $1.638
    million of that amount financed from third party collections, nearly a
    third of its budget. Even with these third-party collections, the
    clinic operates at 60 percent of level of need. If the IHS does not
    meet its targeted collection figure, the level of need will drop below
    60 percent. Simply put, our programs are not meeting the needs of our
    members. Congress must prioritize Indian programs.

                         TABLE 1.--SHOSHONE-BANNOCK TRIBES' PROGRAM SHORTFALLS--FISCAL YEAR 2005
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Budget      Funding       Projected
                 Program description                    Funding source         amount       amount       shortfall
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Law Enforcement..............................  BIA....................   $2,022,443   $1,135,395      ($887,048)
    Fire/Ambulance...............................  BIA....................    1,375,080       20,417     (1,354,663)
    Courts.......................................  BIA....................    1,152,101      214,507       (937,594)
    Agricultural Extension.......................  BIA....................       61,164       32,188        (28,976)
    Survey & Mapping.............................  BIA....................       88,767       43,072        (45,695)
    Chemical Dependency..........................  IHS....................      888,163      512,069       (376,094)
                                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total..................................  .......................  ...........  ...........     (3,630,070)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      TABLE 2. TRIBES' TRIBAL HEALTH CONTRACT SUPPORT COST (CSC) SHORTFALLS
                      (FISCAL YEAR 2000-2004 AND 2005 EST.)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Fiscal year                        CSC  shortfall
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2000....................................................       ($12,459)
    2001....................................................        (42,283)
    2002....................................................        (50,072)
    2003....................................................        (86,800)
    2004....................................................       (229,952)
                                                             ---------------
          Total Five Year CSC Shortfall.....................       (421,567)
                                                             ===============
    Estimated FY 2005 CSC Shortfall.........................       (342,127)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The shortfalls I report to you today do not include shortfalls in
    Contract Support Cost (CSC) funding which the BIA, IHS, and tribes have
    been unable to convince the Administration or Congress to fully fund.
    For the four year period ending in fiscal year 2004, we calculate our
    IHS Contract Support Cost shortfall at $421,000. Our fiscal year 2005
    shortfall for IHS CSC is estimated to be $342,000.
        It is difficult to convey to you how these shortfalls impact our
    community. We wish we had more resources so that our Tribes can turn
    around a troubled youth and make him a productive member of society,
    not a burden to it; to provide a job to a hard working adult so he can
    regain his pride and self- worth; to give life-saving medicines to a
    sick Tribal elder to restore her health so that she may remain vital
    and productive. Our programs work. We simply seek our equitable share
    of funds similar to what the federal government provides to states and
    local governments. Our reservation residents are counted when
    determining the size of a block grant the United States awards to the
    State. Without an earmark to pass that grant through to tribal
    governments, however, we do not receive our share. The funds Congress
    and the Administration choose to provide Indian tribes continue to go
    down as our population grows. How great does the crisis need to get
    before proper attention is paid? Are not U.S. Census and other
    statistics on American Indian and Alaskan Native (AIAN) unemployment
    figures, poverty levels, mortality, suicide rates, and motor vehicle
    accidents enough, without any request from Tribal leaders, to move the
    Congress and the Administration to act on our behalf?
        We want to stand shoulder to shoulder with our Federal, state and
    local counterparts to improve our reservation's economy, tackle crime
    and substance abuse, and keep our members healthy and productive
    citizens. Please increase funding above the President's request for the
    BIA and IHS budgets for these mostly pass-through funds to Indian
    tribal governments.
                       tribal justice center ($5 million)
        We seek an appropriation of $5 million that we will put toward the
    construction costs for our Tribal Justice Center. With prior
    appropriations by Congress, for which we are grateful, the Tribes
    completed designs for our Tribal Justice Center. When completed, the
    Justice Center will house a 45-member Police Department, 25-member
    Tribal Court, and an 80-bed adult and 20-bed juvenile corrections
    facility. The $5 million in construction funds we request comprise less
    than 30 percent of the project's estimated cost of $16.8 million
    (fiscal year 2005 dollars). We are financing another third of the
    project with Tribal funds and we are seeking other loans and grants.
    The cost of this project will only increase if we delay funding.
        Police.--The Tribal police department has inadequate storage space
    for evidence. Our police armory needs more safeguards. There is no
    secure booking area. There is no space for confidential interviews with
    witnesses. Public business is often conducted outside the building. The
    dispatchers work in a crowded, under-ventilated space which often
    overheats.
        Corrections.--The Adult Corrections facility currently in use does
    not have multiple exits, sprinklers, or other fire fighting systems. It
    operates at 132 percent over capacity. All these factors create a
    hazard to inmates and corrections staff. There is no work-release
    available. There is no medical facility. We cannot offer educational
    facilities. There is no secure facility for inmates to receive visitors
    or to meet with attorneys. There is inadequate plumbing and ventilation
    at the facility.
        Courts.--The Tribal Court handles 4,000 cases plus 1,500 juvenile
    cases. There is inadequate space and facility for the court's records,
    and only one courtroom. The buildings do not meet plumbing or electric
    standards. There is no space for defendants to hold confidential
    meetings with attorneys. This facility also provides inadequate
    security.
        We are witnessing an increase on our reservation in juvenile
    crimes, methamphetamine abuse, and violence. We need to bring our
    police, courts and corrections facilities into the 21st century.
                      community water system ($3 million)
        We seek $3 million to continue construction of a Community Water
    System. The need for safe drinking water has reached crisis stage on
    our reservation. Water for many of the reservation's 8,000 residents
    has been contaminated by ethylene dibromide (EDB), a probable
    carcinogen. Studies have also found increased levels of nitrate in the
    water. Thanks to prior appropriations, we have built about 31 of the
    145 miles of water line required to be built on our reservation. We
    seek $3.0 million in IHS funds to finance the wells, storage tanks and
    pumps to extend the water line throughout the reservation (requiring
    design and engineering, right-of-way acquisition, environmental
    studies, etc.). Despite the Tribes' efforts to secure funding from
    multiple sources (IHS, USDA, EPA, HUD, ICDBG) as well as provide its
    own funds for the cost of the water line, the cost for pvc pipe has
    soared due to the rising cost of oil. We can only finance 5 miles of
    pipe rather than 15 miles this year due to the increased cost for pvc
    pipe.
                                    gay mine
        We have grown very concerned over environmental contaminants,
    especially selenium, at Gay Mine, an open phosphate mine located on the
    reservation. We, along with the State of Idaho, U.S. EPA, U.S.
    Department of the Interior, and five private mining companies, were
    signatories to a 2001 Consent Order/Administrative Order on Consent to
    identify procedures to ensure cost recovery by governmental entities in
    an Area-Wide Investigation into contamination from phosphate mining
    operations in southeast Idaho, under CERCLA. The BIA funded an on-site
    coordinator (OSC), but since January 2004, this position has been
    vacant. BIA officials inform us that funds to finance site
    investigations, take samplings, and assess damages under the Natural
    Resources Damage and Restoration Program are oversubscribed. We
    submitted a $5.6 million budget to BIA to finance staff and to
    undertake a site investigation of soil, water, vegetation, livestock,
    and big game as well as to build a fence around the affected area.
    public law 93-638 fish and wildlife management programs/american falls
                                   reservoir
        Resident Fisheries Program ($100,000) and Wildlife Program
    ($100,000).--The Tribes request additional funding to restore and
    protect the reservation's streams and tributaries so that they can once
    again support native fish populations. We seek to hire a fisheries
    technician to perform fencing projects, sloping, willow planting, rip
    rap and other activities to repair stream banks and promote habitat
    restoration which have been compromised by land and water use
    practices.
        The Tribal Fish and Wildlife Program is responsible for the
    management of threatened and endangered species, development of hunting
    regulations, monitoring of harvests of various species and resolution
    of conflicts between humans and wildlife. We cannot fulfill our federal
    mandates with current appropriations. Our staff has dropped to two
    full-time employees. Additional funding will permit us to hire an
    additional wildlife technician to perform tagging, game counts, habitat
    work and population counts of threatened and endangered species, and
    replace a 17-year old GMC truck.
        Columbia River Fish Management Program ($270,400).--Federal
    assistance is required in order for the Tribes to participate in the
    basic processes that regulate salmon recovery and harvest. The Tribes
    seek funding of $270,400 in fiscal year 2006 to hire the necessary
    personnel to fulfill our obligations to work with State, federal and
    other agencies regarding fisheries management, recovery and harvest
    activities. Without increased funding, the Tribes cannot ensure that
    adequate numbers of salmon return to reservation streams to spawn.
    Current funds do not cover management and harvest tasks.
        American Falls Reservoir Restoration Plan ($123,000).--The Tribes
    request $123,000 to finance the preparation of a comprehensive
    Restoration Plan for the American Falls Reservoir. The plan will
    involve community stakeholders. It would evaluate existing
    environmental impacts resulting from the Reservoir (stream bank
    erosion, sediment buildup, fish and national flyway habitat reduction)
    and generate a report outlining recommended actions to restore,
    protect, and enhance streams and tributaries and the surrounding
    habitats for wildlife and human recreation.
                   fort hall police dog program ($132,678.72)
        The Tribes request an appropriation of $132,678.72 to implement the
    Fort Hall Police Dog Program. The Tribes have the duty to serve and
    protect all residents of the Reservation. Two major interstates,
    Interstate 15 (North to South) and Interstate 86 (East to West), and
    U.S. Highway 191 (North to South), pass through the reservation. This
    program will assist police officers on patrol, narcotic searches, arson
    (accelerant) detection and cadaver searches. The program would also
    promote interagency cooperation with surrounding law enforcement
    agencies including the Idaho State Police, Bingham and Bannock County
    Sheriff's Offices and the City of Pocatello Police Department.
     increase funding for bia and ihs contract support costs ($136 million)
        Last month, the United States Supreme Court, in Cherokee Nation v.
    Leavitt, issued a unanimous decision holding that the Indian Health
    Service was liable to Indian tribes for failing to pay full contract
    support costs under the Indian Self-Determination Act. Recent figures
    of the collective shortfall in the current fiscal year for all
    contracts between the IHS and tribes are estimated at $99 million, and
    for all contracts between the BIA and tribes are estimated at $37
    million. Indian tribes are entitled to receive the funds negotiated in
    their contracts. To address this, we propose several options. The
    Congress could include language in the fiscal year 2006 appropriations
    bill which amends Public Law 93-638 to read:

        ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, necessary amounts are
    appropriated to pay contract support costs required under Sections
    106(a)(2), 403(g)(3) and 508(c), when not otherwise provided for.''

        This proposal will authorize the expenditure of funds from the
    Treasury in the absence of an ordinary agency appropriation. Another
    alternative would be to ``sweep up'' unexpended and unobligated
    balances similar to existing bill language for trust reform. See,
    Public Law No. 108-7,  113, 117 Stat. 239.
        The United States would not think to shortchange defense
    contractors in their government contracts. Why is it acceptable to
    shortchange Indian tribal governments when the United States insists
    that it is honoring its trust responsibility to Indian tribes? Full
    funding of tribal contract support cost needs should not be funded by
    Congress by offsetting other programs serving Indian tribes. We are
    doing all we can to meet our members' needs. Full funding of Contract
    Support Costs helps us better serve our members.
        Thank you for affording the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes the opportunity
    to make known our comments regarding the President's budget proposal
    and our needs for fiscal year 2006.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Society for Animal Protective Legislation
        The Society for Animal Protective Legislation (SAPL) respectfully
    requests the Senate Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Interior
    and Related Agencies appropriate an additional $19.562 million for the
    United States Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Law Enforcement,
    $12 million for certain funds under the Multinational Species
    Conservation Fund (including $500 thousand for the Great Ape Survival
    Partnership of the United Nations Environment Programme), an additional
    $4.4 million for the Clark R. Bavin National Fish and Wildlife
    Forensics Laboratory, and $1 million to enforce the Captive Wildlife
    Safety Act. SAPL also endorses the testimony of the Doris Day Animal
    League in support of restoring the protections from commercial sale and
    slaughter of wild horses and burros in the care of the Bureau of Land
    Management or its contractors.
      united states fish and wildlife service division of law enforcement
        SAPL urges increased funding to enable the Law Enforcement Division
    of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to undertake its important,
    expanding work. FWS agents are responsible for enforcement of over a
    dozen conservation laws including the Lacey Act, Migratory Bird Treaty
    Act, Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, African
    Elephant Conservation Act, the Wild Bird Conservation Act, and
    implementation of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
    Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Special agents undertake a
    variety of wildlife trade cases involving illegal shipments of caviar,
    elephant ivory, shahtoosh, reptiles, primates, African finches, bear
    viscera, turtle eggs, coral, exotic big cats, and many other species.
    It is well-known that the trade in wildlife is rivaled only by the
    trade in drugs in terms of its magnitude in global commerce.
    Environmental contaminants and industrial hazards also pose a major
    concern to the Law Enforcement Division.
    Special Agents
        In fiscal year 2004, the FWS Division of Law Enforcement
    investigated thousands of cases involving vital wildlife protection
    statutes that are important to millions of Americans. For example, in
    2004, service special agents conducted 12 manatee protection task
    forces and teamed with State officers to complete another six
    cooperative enforcement operations to protect manatees from boat
    strikes in Florida's costal waters. Such work resulted in the issuance
    of over 1,416 citations to boaters speeding in manatee protection zones
    and the collection of over $116,000 in fines. Special agents also
    conduct crucial anti-poaching and wildlife law enforcement training for
    officials in numerous countries across the globe. This training is
    essential to protect threatened and endangered wildlife from being
    poached in range states. Currently there are 222 agents; however, the
    full authorized agent force is 261. We encourage the service to
    expedite the filling of the 39 vacancies. The cost to fill these
    vacancies is $7.254 million. The operational funds for current agents
    are short of that necessary to fulfill each inspector's critical
    responsibilities for the entire fiscal year; an additional $9.768
    million is needed. Therefore, the total needed for full agent staffing
    is an additional $17.022 million.
    Port Inspectors
        Approximately 100,000 shipments worth more than $1 billion are
    processed by FWS inspectors at the 16 Designated Ports of Entry each
    year. In response to wildlife smugglers' attempts to use United Parcel
    Service (UPS) and Federal Express (FedEx) to get their wildlife
    contraband into the United States, Memphis (a FedEx hub) and Louisville
    (a UPS hub) were established as Designated Ports of Entry. However, to
    handle the round-the-clock workload generated by these two hubs, FWS
    will need to operate 3 shifts a day. To allow for 24-hour operation,
    seven days a week, funds are needed for three shifts with 3 inspectors
    each and for an additional special agent to investigate violations
    uncovered by the inspectors. $1.8 million additional dollars are needed
    to provide this enforcement at these extremely active ports.
    Incident Management, Analysis and Reporting System (IMARS)
            Implementation
        As part of Secretary Norton's law enforcement reforms, all
    Department enforcement bureaus are required to implement a uniform
    records system for reporting law enforcement information. SAPL requests
    $500,000 for implementation of IMARS for the Service's Law Enforcement
    Program and its harmonization with the program's existing system, the
    Law Enforcement Management Information System (LEMIS).
        Implementation of IMARS and its integration with LEMIS will ensure
    department-wide access to wildlife enforcement data without sacrificing
    the Law Enforcement Program's ability to meet unique wildlife-related
    data collection and analysis needs.
    Enhancing Computer Forensic Capabilities
        Increasingly, criminals engaged in wildlife trafficking are
    routinely utilizing computers for their illegal operations. Therefore,
    once such computers are seized, computer forensic experts must be
    available to conduct examinations of such computers in an effort to
    identify and retrieve evidence of wildlife crimes. Currently, the
    National Fish & Wildlife Forensics Laboratory has only one computer
    evidence examiner and a supervisor who conducts examination part-time.
    SAPL respectfully requests that $240,000 be appropriated for the
    creation of a centrally located field computer seizure and analysis
    unit staffed with two computer forensic experts.
                    multinational species conservation fund
        Since 1988, the United States has shown its steadfast commitment to
    global conservation efforts by legislatively creating a series of funds
    to assist in wildlife protection in all regions of the world. The
    African Elephant Conservation Fund, the Asian Elephant Conservation
    Fund, the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Fund, and recently, the
    Great Ape Conservation Fund, are vital tools to prevent these species
    from declining further and, in some cases, going extinct. SAPL
    respectfully requests that $2.5 million be appropriated for the Asian
    Elephant Conservation Fund, $2.5 million for the African Elephant
    Conservation Fund, $3 million for the Great Ape Conservation Fund and
    $4 million for the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Fund.
     the african elephant conservation and the asian elephant conservation
                                     funds
        These funds have provided important funding for elephant
    conservation projects. For decades, poachers and smugglers exploiting
    the global ivory trade have targeted elephants. Today, elephants are at
    great risk not only for ivory, but also for their meat, which is
    consumed as ``bushmeat,'' particularly in Africa. Conservation projects
    that have received funding under these Funds include: anti-poaching
    assistance, acoustic monitoring of forest elephants, and research
    utilizing immunocontraception as a means of population control.
                   the rhinoceros and tiger conservation fund
        This find provides essential financial assistance to protect the
    world's remaining five rhino species and tiger subspecies. Rhinos have
    been poached historically for their horns, which are used in
    traditional Asian medicines, while tigers have been exploited for their
    valuable skins, bones and other body parts. In the last century, it is
    estimated that the total number of all wild tigers scattered across
    their range has plummeted to 5,000 animals. Recent U.S. funding has
    contributed to the equipping and operating of anti-poaching patrols,
    studies of population dynamics using DNA technology, establishing
    conservation education programs in rhino and tiger range states to
    increase awareness about these species, and rhino translocations.
                        the great ape conservation fund
        Funds available to address the growing threat of the trade in
    bushmeat and the habitat decimation perpetrated on great apes by timber
    companies and other extractive industries. Chimpanzee, bonobo, gorilla,
    orangutan, and gibbon populations have declined substantially, and
    there is a serious threat to their long-term survival. Grants from this
    fund enable conservation and anti-poaching projects to be established
    and effectively implemented to the benefit of these endangered ape
    species.
        A specific earmark for the Great Ape Survival Partnership (GRASP)
    is needed under the Great Ape Conservation Fund. The United Nations
    Environment Programme has undertaken a significant, ambitious endeavor
    to examine all of the relevant parameters concerning great ape decline
    and survival in range states. A modest additional $500,000 from the
    United States Congress, administered through the Great Ape Conservation
    Fund, would provide support for GRASP's continuing work to undertake
    stakeholder workshops and technical missions in range states. This will
    assist dramatically in the development of long-term national planning
    projects to conserve all remaining great apes.
       the clark r. bavin national fish and wildlife forensics laboratory
        The Service's forensics lab is uniquely capable of providing
    assistance in the prosecution of wildlife crimes and is the world's
    only forensic laboratory devoted specifically to wildlife crime. The
    lab analyzes teeth, claws, hairs, feathers, tissues, blood, and other
    wildlife samples to determine species of origin and connect wildlife
    and suspects to the scene of the crime. This lab has always been on the
    cutting edge of wildlife prosecutions and must be funded adequately to
    fulfill its vital roles. Further, the lab is an internationally well-
    respected icon, and the Secretariat of CITES has, for instance, entered
    into Memorandums of Understanding with the lab to, among other things,
    assist in the analysis of ballistic evidence. At the CITES Standing
    Committee meeting in Geneva, Switzerland in March 2004, the CITES
    Secretariat specifically recommended that Parties contact the Bavin lab
    to assist in the identification of bear parts and derivatives during
    investigations.
        The laboratory has begun an important and significant
    rehabilitation and expansion project, which includes plans to enlarge
    lab capabilities with a 27,000 square foot addition, including a
    training and conference room, a new pathology lab with a bio-level 3+
    containment capability, and a new evidence control area. Sadly, funding
    constraints are preventing the Bavin lab from meeting its planned
    development goals fully. Last session, Congress appropriated $2.6
    million to fit-out the pathology and bio-containment sections of the
    building shell, which is still being constructed with fiscal year 2003-
    2004 funds. We respectfully urge this Subcommittee to appropriate an
    additional minimum of $4.4 million, which represents the balance
    necessary to enable the completion of the fit-out of the one-story
    expansion of the existing facility. This $4.4 million appropriation
    would be extremely modest given the importance of the Clark R. Bavin
    National Fish & Wildlife Forensics Laboratory and the actual expansion
    and renovation needs for the lab.
                        the captive wildlife safety act
        On December 19, 2003 the President signed into law the Captive
    Wildlife Safety Act to prevent the interstate and foreign commerce in
    big cats--lions, tigers, leopards, cheetah, jaguars, or cougars or any
    hybrid of such species--for personal possession as ``exotic'' pets. In
    recent years, the United States has seen a dramatic increase in the
    number of these dangerous animals being kept in private hands, with a
    concomitantly dramatic rise in the number of unfortunate attacks by
    these inherently wild animals. It is imperative that the FWS be given
    the tools it needs to enforce this important law, for the benefit of
    the animals themselves and the humans who are at risk because of the
    big cats who are being kept in captivity. While the legislation
    authorized an appropriation of up to $3 million each year for
    implementation and enforcement of the Act, no funding has been provided
    for enforcement of this relatively new law. SAPL appreciates the
    difficult financial situation confronting Congressional Appropriators
    this year; as a result, we urge a modest appropriation of $1 million
    for enforcement of the Captive Wildlife Safety Act.
                  protection of the toklat wolf pack in alaska
        For more than four decades, the Toklat wolf pack in Alaska has been
    the most studied, viewed and photographed family of wolves in the
    world. However, the fate of this celebrated wolf pack is now uncertain
    as some of its members, including the alpha male and the alpha female,
    have recently been trapped and killed by hunters just outside of Denali
    National Park. Only six young wolves remain. In order to protect the
    last remaining members of the Toklat wolf pack, we respectfully request
    that the distinguished Subcommittee urge the Secretary to take
    immediate action and expand the protective buffer zone established to
    protect wolves which stray outside of Denali National Park. Currently,
    this buffer zone measures only 55 square miles in the northeast corner
    of the park. With the recent deaths of the Toklat members, it is clear
    that this zone has become inadequate to protect the wolves as it was
    intended to do.
        In addition to hunting and trapping, the survival of the Toklat
    wolves is threatened by the Alaska's airborne wolf killing program.
    Currently, the state permits the use of aircraft to shoot wolves for
    the purpose of boosting game populations. Alaskan residents passed
    ballot initiatives in 1996 and 2000 to ban the use of aircraft to hunt
    wolves, but the governor reinstated the practice in 2003. We believe
    hunting wolves by air violates the federal Airborne Hunting Act (passed
    in 1971, primarily to put an end to aerial wolf killing in Alaska). The
    Act specifically prohibits shooting or attempting to shoot or harassing
    any bird, fish, or other animal from aircraft except for certain
    specified reasons, including protection of wildlife, livestock, and
    human life. Wildlife, livestock and humans are not being threatened by
    the wolf, therefore, we respectfully request that the distinguished
    Subcommittee urge the Secretary to clarify that the federal Airborne
    Hunting Act does not permit the use of aircraft to chase down and kill
    wolves in an effort to increase game populations.
         honor the u.s. obligation to phase out steel jaw leghold traps
        Approximately 140 of 517 national refuges currently permit use of
    steel jaw leghold traps. These traps slam with a vice-like grip on the
    limbs of their victims, breaking bones, tearing ligaments and tendons,
    severing toes and causing excruciating pain. Alternative traps, which
    reduce the suffering of trapped animals are available and can be used
    instead.
        The American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Animal
    Hospital Association, the World Veterinary Association and the National
    Animal Control Association have condemned leghold traps as
    ``inhumane''. The vast majority of Americans object to use of these
    traps as evidenced by numerous public opinion polls. Massachusetts,
    Arizona, Colorado, Washington, and California have prohibited use of
    these cruel devices by public referendum. New Jersey, Florida, and
    Rhode Island prohibit use of steel jaw traps too.
        In response to the widespread international opposition to steel jaw
    leghold traps, the U.S. Trade Representative signed an
    ``Understanding'' with the European Union on December 11, 1997 in which
    the United States committed to phase out use of ``conventional steel
    jawed leghold restraining traps.'' The U.S. Department of Interior is
    responsible for honoring this U.S. obligation on lands under its
    jurisdiction and needs to begin implementing a phase out on use of
    these devices. So far, no action has been taken by the Department of
    Interior to comply with this official agreement. We respectfully
    request this distinguished Subcommittee urge the Secretary to take
    action this year.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Southwestern Water Conservation District
        I am requesting your support and assistance in insuring continued
    funding for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program
    and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program. These
    ongoing cooperative programs have the dual objectives of recovering
    four species of endangered fish while water use continues and water
    development proceeds in compliance with the Endangered Species Act of
    1973, state law, and interstate compacts. Partners in the two programs
    are the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, Indian
    tribes, federal agencies and water, power and environmental interests.
    I respectfully request support and action by the Subcommittee that will
    provide the following:
        An increase of $691,000 in the fiscal year 2006 Recovery Element
    budget (Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services
    Activity; Endangered Species Subactivity; Recovery Element) allocated
    to ``Colorado River fish recovery project'' to allow U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service (FWS) Region 6 to meet its funding commitment to the
    Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. This is the
    level of funding appropriated in fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005 for
    this program. These funds are needed for FWS direct participation in
    managing and implementing the Upper Colorado Program's actions,
    monitoring achievement of recovery goals, managing data associated with
    fish population abundance and sampling, evaluating stocking, and
    monitoring fish and habitat response to recovery actions.
        The appropriation of $437,000 in operation and maintenance funds
    (Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries Activity; Hatchery
    Operations & Maintenance Subactivity, Hatchery Operations Project) to
    support the ongoing operation of the FWS' Ouray National Fish Hatchery
    in Utah during fiscal year 2006.
        An increase of $211,000 in the ``Resource Management Appropriation;
    Ecological Services Activity; Endangered Species Subactivity; Recovery
    Element'' budget allocated to the ``San Juan River Recovery
    Implementation Program''. These funds are needed to support the FWS
    Recovery Program Coordinator and staff who are responsible for program
    management and support of all Recovery Program activities.
        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. Raising and stocking of the endangered fish
    produced at program hatchery facilities, restoring floodplain habitat
    and fish passage, regulating and supplying instream habitat flows,
    installing diversion canal screens and controlling nonnative fish
    populations are key components of the programs' ongoing capital
    construction projects. 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 these projects;
    and provides for an additional $17 million to be contributed from
    revenues derived from the sale of Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP)
    hydroelectric power. This substantial non-federal cost-sharing funding
    demonstrates the strong commitment and effective partnerships embodied
    in both of these successful programs. The requested federal
    appropriations are critically important to these efforts moving
    forward.
        The support of your Subcommittee in past years is greatly
    appreciated--and has been a major factor in the success of these multi-
    state, multi-agency programs as they have progressed forward towards
    delisting the endangered fish species in the Upper Colorado and San
    Juan River Basins while necessary water use and development activities
    are occurring. I request the Subcommittee's assistance to ensure that
    the FWS is provided with adequate funding for these vitally important
    programs.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program
       Administrators and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control
                                   Officials
        The State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators
    (STAPPA) and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials
    (ALAPCO) appreciate this opportunity to provide testimony regarding the
    fiscal year 2006 proposed budget for the U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency (EPA), particularly regarding grants to state and local air
    pollution control agencies under Sections 103 and 105 of the Clean Air
    Act. STAPPA and ALAPCO recommend that the budget for federal grants to
    state and local air quality agencies, which was proposed at $223.6
    million, be increased by $100 million, for a total of $323.6 million in
    fiscal year 2006.
        STAPPA and ALAPCO are the national associations of air quality
    officials in 53 states and territories and more than 165 metropolitan
    areas across the country. The Clean Air Act gives state and local air
    quality officials the primary responsibility for implementing our
    country's clean air program. These agencies must work to limit or
    prevent emissions of a variety of pollutants, including particulate
    matter, ground-level ozone, toxic air pollution and acid rain, among
    others, which are emitted from a variety of sources. State and local
    air pollution control agencies are responsible for implementing myriad
    activities and programs designed to protect public health. These
    activities must address the fundamental and continuing elements of air
    quality programs, as well as address emerging problems. Among the many
    activities state and local air agencies must carry out are monitoring
    ambient air quality, providing compliance assistance to the regulated
    community, issuing permits to sources, inspecting facilities, compiling
    inventories of emissions, carrying out enforcement actions, providing
    public education and outreach, formulating control strategies, and
    developing State Implementation Plans.
          is air pollution a significant problem in the united states?
        Air pollution poses a very serious threat to public health and the
    environment. We know of no other environmental problem that presents a
    greater risk. Consider the fact that all of us breathe; we need air to
    live. Most of us have no control over the cleanliness of the air we
    inhale--we are largely dependent on federal, state, and local air
    programs to ensure that our air is healthful to breathe. When
    determining priorities for federal funding, then, it seems reasonable
    to designate the improvement and protection of air quality as one of
    the government's highest priorities.
        While the United States, at all levels of government, has
    accomplished much in terms of improving air quality, we still have
    significant problems. For example, more than 160 million tons of
    pollution are emitted annually in this country. Over 146 million people
    live in areas that violate at least one of the six health-based
    National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Fine particulate matter alone
    is responsible for up to 30,000 premature deaths each year and causes
    other health problems, such as aggravation of existing respiratory and
    cardiovascular disease, damage to lung tissue, impaired breathing,
    irregular heart beat, heart attacks and lung cancer.
        Hazardous--or toxic--air pollution is another huge problem. Over
    200 million people in the United States live in areas where the
    lifetime cancer risk from exposure to those pollutants is over 1 in
    100,000 and 3 million face a lifetime cancer risk of 1 in 10,000. One
    hazardous air pollutant that has received a lot of notice lately is
    mercury. Mercury emitted into the air finds its way into the fish we
    eat. Forty-five states have issued notices that the fish caught in
    their water bodies contain elevated concentrations of mercury. As many
    as 15 percent of women of child-bearing age are exposed to mercury
    levels that are above those EPA considers safe for a developing fetus.
      are there major new activities facing state and local air agencies?
        State and local air agencies must carry out a myriad of activities
    to address our air quality problems. These activities are ongoing and
    continual, in order to both improve air quality and to maintain the
    strides that have already been made. In the coming months, state and
    local air quality agencies will take on significant additional
    activities in an effort to attain new, more stringent health-based
    National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone and fine
    particulate matter (PM2.5). Last year, all or parts of
    nearly 500 counties were designated as nonattainment for the 8-hour
    ozone standard and, in January of this year, EPA designated 225
    counties, in whole or in part, as nonattainment for the
    PM2.5 standard. The nonattainment areas--areas not attaining
    these standards--are required to develop State Implementation Plans
    (SIPs) identifying the measures they will take to reduce emissions in
    their areas in order to attain the standards. They will also have to
    demonstrate to EPA's satisfaction that they will attain the standards
    as expeditiously as practicable and in any event no later than 2010 for
    PM2.5 and between 2007 and 2024--with areas with more severe
    ozone problems getting more time--for ozone. Those who are attaining
    the standards will have to work to maintain their air quality and
    submit plans to EPA to demonstrate how they will do so. States are
    required to submit their plans to EPA by April 2007 for ozone and April
    2008 for PM2.5.
        In addition, on March 10, 2005, EPA finalized a determination that
    28 states in the Eastern United States and the District of Columbia
    contribute significantly to nonattainment of the ozone and
    PM2.5 standards in downwind states and is requiring these
    upwind states to revise their SIPs to include control measures to
    reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide and/or nitrogen oxides. Under the
    Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), these states are required to submit
    these revisions by September 10, 2006.
        Accordingly, during the next fiscal year state and local agencies
    will be consumed with developing and refining emission inventories,
    modeling emission trends, projecting emissions and pollution
    concentrations, identifying emission reduction measures and modeling
    the impact of these emission reduction measures on pollution
    concentrations in their states. In addition, to the extent that any of
    the emission reduction measures requires regulatory or legislative
    action or funding, state and local agencies will need to prepare
    regulatory and legislative proposals to implement these measures.
    Furthermore, they will need to follow their administrative procedures
    for these plans, requiring many states to begin well in advance in
    order to provide a completed plan to EPA by April 2007. For those
    states covered by CAIR, all of this work will need to be concluded in
    fiscal year 2006, since the plans are due by September 2006.
        All of these activities, which are intended to help areas meet the
    standards and protect public health, represent significant effort for
    which adequate funding is essential. These new activities, as well as
    the ongoing responsibilities, lead STAPPA and ALAPCO to recommend an
    increase of $100 million in the federal grant program under Sections
    103 and 105 of the Clean Air Act (increasing the President's request
    from $223.6 million to $323.6 million).
                      how are air quality programs funded?
        Funding for state and local air pollution control programs comes
    from several sources, including state and local appropriations; the
    federal permit fee program under Title V of the Clean Air Act; state
    and local permit and emissions fee programs and federal grants under
    Sections 103 and 105 of the Clean Air Act. Section 103 has usually
    funded specific monitoring efforts (e.g., particulate matter or air
    toxics monitoring), while Section 105 supports the foundation of state
    and local air quality programs, including, but not limited to,
    personnel.
        The Clean Air Act authorizes the federal government to provide
    grants up to 60 percent of the cost of state and local air quality
    programs, while state and local agencies must provide a 40-percent
    match (as per Section 105). In reality, however, the federal government
    provides approximately 25 percent of the total state/local air budget,
    while state and local governments supply 75 percent (not including
    income from Title V permit fees, which state and local agencies collect
    from major sources and can fund only permit-related activities). In a
    time of limited state and local resources, where state and local
    governments are straining to maintain existing programs, additional
    federal funding is needed to meet the challenges of air quality
    programs.
           how much money is needed for state and local air programs?
        The total amount needed for state and local efforts to implement
    the Clean Air Act is estimated to be in excess of $1 billion each year.
    If EPA were to supply 60 percent of that amount, as the Clean Air Act
    envisioned, federal grants would amount to approximately $600 million
    annually.
        The fiscal year 2006 budget request for state and local air quality
    agencies under Sections 103 and 105 of the Clean Air Act, rather than
    being $600 million, is actually $223.6 million. Not only is this far
    short of the amount that is needed, but over the past decade, federal
    grants for state and local air agencies to operate their programs (not
    including the separate monitoring program funded with Section 103
    grants) have decreased by 25 percent in terms of purchasing power
    (based upon U.S. Department of Labor inflation statistics).
                 couldn't permit fees be used to fill the gap?
        Unfortunately, the permit fee program under Title V of the Clean
    Air Act Amendments of 1990 is not the answer to the state and local air
    agencies' financial problems for several reasons. First, the fees must
    support only the operating permit program and must not be used for
    other activities. Second, fees only apply to major sources and do not
    cover the significant costs related to non-major sources, which include
    minor source permits, monitoring, enforcement, compliance assistance,
    etc. Third, the current fees already are substantial and there would be
    considerable resistance to any increases. Fourth, fee revenue is
    decreasing due to reductions in emissions, on which they are based.
    Finally, increases in costs for air quality programs (except for permit
    programs themselves) are not addressed by permit fee programs.
        The Title V fee program, while essential to state and local
    efforts, is not the solution to the funding problem. Federal grants
    must be expanded to meet the significant resource requirements.
                 how else would additional funds be put to use?
        In addition to the attainment activities discussed above, state and
    local air agencies face other high-priority responsibilities on which
    they would spend increased grant funds. These include the following,
    among others: improving emission inventories of toxic air pollution;
    implementing programs to address toxic air pollution; improving risk
    assessment capacity; increasing the frequency of inspections of minor
    sources; expanding criteria pollutant monitoring; reducing
    concentrations of fine particulates; developing SIPs to address
    regional haze; increasing public outreach efforts and response to
    citizen concerns; improving small business compliance assistance;
    purchasing replacements for monitoring equipment that has outgrown its
    expected usage; increasing the number of air toxics monitoring
    locations to better characterize baseline concentrations and localized
    impacts; improving modeling tools to determine the emission reductions
    needed to attain public health standards; and addressing minor sources,
    including issuing permits.
                                   conclusion
        The current budget does not meet the needs of state and local air
    agency efforts and, we believe, should be increased substantially.
    However, we understand that there are many programs competing for
    limited federal funds and that Congress has a very difficult task in
    determining how the resources should be allocated. Therefore, although
    we believe that air pollution poses a significant threat to public
    health and should be among our highest priorities, we recommend that
    federal grants to state and local air quality agencies be increased by
    $100 million above the President's request in fiscal year 2006, for a
    total of $323.6 million. Unless state and local air quality agencies
    receive substantial increases in resources, and are granted the
    flexibility to target them to the activities that are most appropriate
    in individual states and communities, we will find it increasingly
    difficult or impossible to obtain and maintain healthful air quality.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the State of Wyoming, Office of the Governor
        I am writing to request support and action by your Subcommittee to
    provide an appropriation of $986,000 in ``recovery'' funds (Ecological
    Services Activity; Endangered Species Subactivity; Recovery Element;
    ``Platte River Recovery'') to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
    for fiscal year 2006 to allow FWS to continue its necessary
    participation in the development of the Platte River Recovery
    Implementation Program. This is the same level of funding appropriated
    to the FWS in fiscal year 2005 for FWS participation in this project.
    The $986,000 is needed by FWS Region 6 for its Platte River activities
    during this critical time in the development of the Platte River
    Recovery Implementation Program. Congress has appropriated funding in
    this FWS line item each year since 1998--however, once again, as was
    the case last year, the President's recommended budget for fiscal year
    2006 ``zeroed out'' the ``Platte River Recovery'' line item. We have
    been advised that since the Congress--with the much appreciated
    assistance of your Subcommittee--restored this funding last year that
    it was ``zeroed out'' in the budget released on February 7, 2005 for
    the reason that it was an ``earmark'' in the 2005 appropriations act
    providing funding for the FWS. We respectfully request your assistance
    to restore this line item so as to provide the requisite funding.
        In 1997, the States of Nebraska, Wyoming, and Colorado and the U.S.
    Department of the Interior signed a Cooperative Agreement for Platte
    River Research and Other Efforts Relating to Endangered Species Along
    the Central Platte River, Nebraska (Cooperative Agreement). The
    signatories to the Cooperative Agreement realize a comprehensive,
    basin-wide, cooperative approach for addressing the Endangered Species
    Act (ESA) issues in the Central and Lower Platte River Basin region is
    the most equitable and effective means to resolve endangered species
    conflicts and meet the habitat needs of four threatened and endangered
    species--the whooping crane, piping plover, least tern and pallid
    sturgeon. Agreement activities presently underway include the
    development of a Recovery Implementation Program document, a
    programmatic biological opinion and a record of decision. Following
    completion of these actions, a Program Implementation Agreement is to
    be entered into by the three States and Interior in early 2006.
        Given the high level of ongoing activities associated with these
    Cooperative Agreement efforts and the fact that the program, when
    initiated, will provide federal Endangered Species Act compliance for
    existing and new water projects in Colorado, Nebraska and Wyoming, it
    is critically important that the ``Platte River Recovery'' funding be
    provided for fiscal year 2006. The requested Federal appropriation will
    be used in concert with other federal and non-federal cost-sharing
    funding in furtherance of cooperatively resolving long-standing
    endangered species and water resource conflicts. Your Subcommittee's
    assistance in addressing this issue last year was greatly appreciated
    and we will be most grateful for your assistance in again solving this
    same problem for the upcoming federal fiscal year. Thank you.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Village of Wellington, Florida
                        environmental protection agency
        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the
    Village of Wellington, we are pleased to submit this statement for the
    record in support of our fiscal year 2006 request for funding in the
    amount of $2.7 million for the Village's Water Clean Up and Phosphorus
    Removal Project. The Village is most appreciative of the $300,000
    provided by the VA/HUD Subcommittee in its fiscal year 2005 bill.
                           project executive summary
        The 1994 Everglades Forever Act (EFA) established water quality
    goals for the restoration and preservation of the Everglades Protection
    Area. It also identified Basin B within the Village of Wellington as an
    area that will need to meet the new phosphorus standard by December 31,
    2006 for its storm water discharges into the Arthur Marshall
    Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge (Conservation Area No. 1).
        The Acme Basin B Discharge project is one of 55 that comprise the
    Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP). The Basin B drainage
    area is part of the Acme Improvement District, which was created by the
    state of Florida in 1953 to provide drainage for agricultural land in
    central Palm Beach County. During the 50 years since its inception,
    land uses within the improvement district have changed dramatically.
    The Acme Improvement District now serves the Village of Wellington and
    over 50,000 residents. Basin B consists of 8,680 acres of low-density
    development located in the southern half of the Improvement District.
    The western boundary of Basin B abuts the Loxahatchee Refuge.
        The benefits created by the CERP Acme Basin B Discharge project are
    largely related to restoration of the natural environment. The health
    of the Loxahatchee Refuge and Everglades National Park will be enhanced
    with improved quality and quantity of water generated from within the
    basin. Specifically, the project will provide the equivalent of 28.5
    million gallons of water per day to the Everglades, which, without the
    project, would be needlessly sent to the ocean via the Lake Worth
    Lagoon.
        The Village has been working diligently to arrive at a solution to
    meet the EFA requirements in an economic and technically feasible
    manner. The actual phosphorus standard has been adopted by the Florida
    Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) through the Environmental
    Regulatory Commission (ERC). Therefore, the Village has been evaluating
    numerous alternatives to be used, to arrive at a Basin B Water Quality
    Clean Up Solution to meet those requirements.
        Some of these alternatives that have been, or are still being,
    evaluated, are:
        A water quality improvement Pilot Program with CH2M Hill
    Constructors, Inc. was completed and results submitted to SFWMD for use
    in design of STA's.
        Development of a Best Management Practices (BMP) Ordinance with
    phosphorous fertilizer limitations and livestock waste handling
    procedures among others. Two Ordinances have already been adopted by
    the Village.
        Preparation of a Request for Proposals and obtaining responses for
    a ``Multi-Purpose Storm Water Management Program'' as a design/build/
    operate (DBO) contract.
        Development of Basin B Water Quality Clean Up alternatives for
    further evaluation by the South Florida Water Management District
    (SFWMD) through its study consultants, Burns & McDonnell, and Brown &
    Caldwell.
        Work with SFWMD and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers through a
    Cooperation Agreement with SFWMD to develop a Basin B Water Quality
    Clean Up Plan as an already federally authorized Other Project Element
    (OPE) of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP).
        Implementation of a detailed water quality monitoring program to
    identify ``hot spots'' within Basin B for potential individual site
    specific clean up.
        Construction of a $350,000 filter marsh to provide treatment to a
    major ``hot spot'' is set to commence this summer. Construction of a
    $1,000,000 Wetlands Treatment Park near another ``hot spot'' is due to
    be constructed late summer, early fall.
        As part of its Basin B Water Quality Clean Up Initiative, the
    Village of Wellington assembled a ``Surface Water Action Team'' (SWAT)
    comprised of key personnel and expert consultants. The SWAT Team, while
    continuing to work on many of the above initiatives, is presently
    working on a Phase III BMP Ordinance, along with an updated Cooperative
    Agreement with SFWMD.
        The ongoing water quality monitoring program has indicated a fairly
    significant decrease in average phosphorus concentrations since 1999.
    In 1999, the average Basin B phosphorous concentration discharged to
    the Loxahatchee Refuge was 189 parts per billion (ppb). In 2002, the
    average concentration has dropped to 88 ppb, which is a 53.4 percent
    decrease in phosphorus levels. In 2003 the average concentration had
    dropped to approximately 70 ppb. Although inconclusive, it is likely
    that the implementation of the BMP Ordinance played a part in this
    decrease in phosphorus concentrations.
        To date, the Village of Wellington has made a considerable
    financial investment (up to $3 million), not including internal staff
    hours, and is set to spend another $4.5 million this year in an effort
    to meet the standards set by the Everglades Forever Act requirements.
                                 funding needs
        For fiscal year 2006, the Village of Wellington, Florida is seeking
    $2.7 million from the Environmental Protection Agency through the
    Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related
    Agencies.
        Thank you for your consideration of our request.
                                     ______

                  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 2006 appropriations. 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 million individual members and 1,900
    corporate associates. We have programs in all 50 states and in 27
    foreign countries. We have protected more than 15 million acres in the
    United States and Canada and more than 117 million acres with local
    partner organizations globally. The Conservancy owns and manages 1,400
    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.
                          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
        In past years, inadequate wildfire suppression funding has required
    agencies to transfer funds from other key resource programs to cover
    suppression costs. We commend the Subcommittee for providing emergency
    fire suppression funding in fiscal year 2005 and we urge Congress to do
    the same in fiscal year 2006. We also urge Congress to find a long-term
    solution to the suppression funding problem, including cost containment
    measures and increased emphasis on fire management planning and
    wildland fire use.
        We support the increase in the President's budget for BLM and USFS
    Hazardous Fuels Reduction to $492 million. We recommend that $100
    million be directed to hazardous fuels reduction projects supported by
    local communities and consistent with long-term, ecologically-based,
    landscape-scale plans (within and beyond the wildland urban interface)
    with scientifically adequate monitoring protocols. We also support the
    President's proposal for a $5 million grant program for biomass removal
    on public lands, especially for projects that relate to hazardous fuels
    reduction.
        Long-term restoration activities are critical to ensuring that
    unnaturally severe fires are not followed by invasive species and other
    ecologically destructive processes. Congress should provide $15 million
    to the U.S. Forest Service for Rehabilitation and Restoration, and
    should ensure that funding from other sources is sufficient to provide
    effective long-term restoration.
        We support the increase in the President's budget for the Forest
    Inventory Analysis (FIA) to $68.7 million. The FIA is a critical
    program for developing baselines for long-term monitoring of ecosystem
    condition and for development of LANDFIRE data.
    Forest Health Management
        America's forests are under siege by numerous exotic insects and
    diseases, and the pace of introductions appears to be increasing. The
    Conservancy urges the Senate to enhance the Forest Service's crucial
    role in containing or eradicating these devastating organisms and
    minimizing their impacts which can cost hundreds of billions of dollars
    if they are not contained. We recommend that the Forest Health
    Management program (including National Fire Plan funding) be maintained
    at the fiscal year 2005 level of $126 million.
    State and Private Forestry
        We strongly support funding for programs that provide incentives
    for forest stewardship on state and private lands, and critical
    technical and financial assistance to communities and landowners to
    improve forestry practices for conservation. We support funding the
        President's request, $37.1 million, for the Forest Stewardship
    program and funding for demonstration projects under the Healthy Forest
    Reserve title (Title V) of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act.
    Invasive Species
        Next to habitat loss, invasion by non-native species is the most
    pervasive threat to native biodiversity on public land. The Conservancy
    supports funding at the President's request, or greater, for the
    Interdepartmental National Invasive Species Crosscut Budget. It is
    important to coordinate Federal agency actions to achieve prevention,
    early detection, rapid response, control and management and restoration
    of invasive species problems. We also support enhanced funding for
    three areas identified by DOI as fiscal year 2006 priorities: leafy
    spurge on the Great Plains, tamarisk in the Southwest and invasive
    plant control in Florida. We also support continuation of the highly
    successful program of spartina eradication in Willapa Bay and request
    $700,000 in refuge operations for Willapa National Wildlife Refuge and
    $700,000 in targeted Partners for Fish and Wildlife funds for this
    purpose.
                                land acquisition
    Land and Water Conservation Fund
        We strongly support continued federal acquisition of high-priority
    biologically important land and urge 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 Conservancy specifically
    proposes funding of 31 biologically rich land acquisition projects
    totaling $80.25 million. Priorities include multi-year projects to
    protect Montana's Blackfoot Valley and acquisition of key inholdings at
    Cache River NWR, Pinnacles National Monument, St. Marks NWR, and
    Chattahoochee NF. We appreciate the Chairman's strong support for
    community supported acquisitions in the Blackfoot Valley. Several
    projects, including the Northern Tallgrass Prairie NWR and BLM's South
    Fork Snake River, utilize conservation easements to achieve important
    conservation objectives while maintaining the integrity of working
    landscapes. We also urge the Subcommittee to restore funding for the
    state-side of LWCF.
    Forest Legacy
        This program is an increasingly popular and successful model of a
    non-regulatory conservation approach based on partnerships between
    federal and state governments and private landowners. The huge
    potential of this program to achieve conservation goals while
    maintaining sustainable use of private lands requires a significant
    funding increase. We strongly support a $100 million appropriation for
    this program, including such priority projects as the Kamehameha School
    Lands in Michigan., Walls of Jericho in Tennessee, Nevada Creek-
    Blackfoot in Montana and Annaly Bay in the U.S. Virgin Islands.
              payments in lieu of taxes and refuge revenue sharing
        The 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 that
    funds 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. We
    support an additional $500,000 above the President's request for the
    U.S. Geological Survey's National Biological Information Infrastructure
    to increase capacity for migratory bird, wildlife disease and invasive
    species information. We support the President's request for LANDSAT, a
    critically important investment for ecological monitoring in this
    country and globally and $250,000 for ecological systems mapping.
    Within the USGS Water Resources programs, a funding level of $2.5
    million for stream gages is required to maintain current levels of
    information.
                          endangered species programs
        The Conservancy supports $100 million for the FWS's Cooperative
    Endangered Species Fund, an effective and flexible tool for building
    cooperative, voluntary partnerships. 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.
        The Conservancy urges 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, including the
    Candidate Conservation program. Additional funding 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. Increases for
    Consultation/Habitat Conservation Planning would permit the Service to
    respond to the dramatic increase in the use of HCPs. Similarly,
    increased investments in Recovery would permit the development,
    monitoring, and implementation of recovery plans and actions for a
    rapidly increasing number of listed species. Finally, we support $1.75
    million in planning funds to Southern California's Natural Community
    Conservation Planning program.
                        state and tribal wildlife grants
        The Conservancy strongly supports this program and recommends
    funding of $85 million. 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 partnerships
        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 partnerships
    between private landowners, local communities, states and the federal
    government. We endorse the President's request of $40 million for the
    Landowner Incentive Program and $10 million for Private Stewardship
    Grants. We support the President's request of $14.9 million for the FWS
    Coastal Program. We also support the President's request of $44.8
    million for the BLM, FWS and NPS Challenge Cost Share programs. These
    programs leverage appropriated dollars through 1:1 matches with State
    and private partners to implement important restoration and protection
    projects. We support the proposed increase to $52.2 million for the
    Partners for Fish and Wildlife, including $7.5 million for the Upper
    Klamath River Basin Restoration Initiative. We also support earmarked
    funding for the High Plains Partnership.
                            partnership initiatives
      --National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.--Federal support to NFWF
            continues to yield a return of over two non-federal dollars for
            every single taxpayer dollar. We recommend appropriations of
            FWS ($9 million), BLM ($4 million) and Forest Service ($4
            million).
      --North American Wetlands Conservation Fund and Joint Venture
            program.--The Conservancy supports funding for NAWCA at the
            President's request of $49.9 million or more. More than $1.6
            billion in partner contributions has been raised to match $573
            million in federal funds in order to save 20.6 million acres of
            wetlands. The Conservancy supports an increase of funding to
            $15.1 million for Joint Ventures.
      --Connecticut River Atlantic Salmon Commission (CRASC).--The
            Conservancy supports a $2.1 million level of funding for the
            CRASC.
      --Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act (GLFWRA).--The
            Conservancy recommends $2 million in base funding and $2
            million for grants for the GLFWRA.
               department of interior--office of insular affairs
        The Conservancy supports the President's request for an additional
    $1.2 million to support implementation of Local Action Strategies to
    address threats to coral reefs. These strategies are the product of
    collaborative efforts between federal agencies, states and territories,
    and local NGOs. We also support an increase in funding to $1 million
    for the Coral Reef Initiative.
                             international programs
        The Conservancy, as part of an alliance of major international
    conservation groups, supports the International Conservation Budget,
    which calls for $10.5 million to the FWS' Multinational Species
    Conservation Funds. This reflects $2 million each for the African and
    Asian Elephants and the Great Ape fund, the same for the new Marine
    Turtle fund, and $2.5 million for the Rhinoceros/Tiger fund. We support
    $5 million for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund. We
    support $8 million for the Forest Service's International Programs.
                        environmental protection agency
        The Conservancy supports robust funding levels for select EPA
    programs, including $22.7 million for the Great Lakes National Program
    Office. This program funds and conducts projects to protect, maintain
    and restore the chemical, biological and physical integrity of the
    Great Lakes--the largest freshwater ecosystem on Earth.
        The Coastal Watersheds and National Estuaries Program should
    receive enhanced funding to ensure adequate support for the National
    Estuary Programs and the development and implementation of
    Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans. This program also
    funds other activities benefiting coastal watersheds, including
    partnerships to abate threats to coastal habitats and recreational
    waters.
        We also support funding to increase the capacity of the Non-point
    Source Management Program (Section 319). This program, unlike Farm Bill
    programs, can be used to address non-point pollution from diverse
    sources such as urban runoff and leaking septic systems, not only
    pollution from agricultural sources.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present The Nature Conservancy's
    recommendations for the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies
    appropriations bill.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the YMCA of Glendale, California

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Project                              Request
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    YMCA of Glendale Camp Fox Wastewater Treatment Plant.......   $2,000,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        On behalf of the YMCA of Glendale, California, I want to thank the
    Subcommittee for the opportunity to present our request for funding for
    fiscal year 2006.
                          ymca of glendale, california
        The YMCA of Glendale was founded in 1922, born out of the
    resident's desire to enrich the quality of life. Overseen by its own
    members, who volunteer to serve on the Board of Directors, it is
    managed by other volunteers and paid staff. The YMCA has quietly
    provided answers to Glendale's changing needs. Today, its 7,000
    current, active members represent every section of our community. It
    serves thousands more people through outreach programs and its two
    camps on Catalina Island.
        The most important component of all YMCA programs is character
    development. There are four core values that build strong children--
    caring, honesty, respect & responsibility. These values are the tools
    that help kids overcome the negative temptations of youth, like drugs,
    gangs & crime.
        The YMCA is a not-for-profit organization that is particularly
    relevant to today's society because it fills a void in the community.
    It is for everyone--people of all ages, religions, incomes and
    abilities. The YMCA builds community!
        The YMCA believes that people who cannot afford to pay full costs
    deserve the experience the Y offers as much as those who can. Donations
    allow the YMCA to provide membership and programs to people in
    financial hardship. As part of its effort to help people live a healthy
    lifestyle, the YMCA offers a wide variety of fitness programs including
    swimming, fitness classes, strength training, racquetball,
    consultations with fitness experts and much more. There are over 500
    children taking swimming lessons at the YMCA--every month, all year
    round. Another 300 children form youth basketball leagues, and over 250
    children take gymnastics classes every month of the year. Building
    confidence in children by developing their physical skills is one part
    of the YMCA's mission. Showing them how to make sound independent
    decisions and solve problems is another part. Two camps on Catalina
    Island provide a setting for this and serve over 8,000 children a year.
                     camp fox wastewater treatment project
        Since 1924, Camp Fox has been owned and operated by the YMCA of
    Glendale. Located on Catalina Island, each year hundreds of youth
    explore the ocean and terrain of the island on a year-round basis. With
    a weekly capacity of 300 campers, groups have included YMCA family
    groups, church retreats, leadership programs and a full summer of
    weekly sessions for youth and teens. In addition, during the school
    year, Catalina Island Marine Institute (CIMI) conducts outdoor
    education programs at the camp for schools throughout Southern
    California. Camp Fox has a rich history of memories and life changing
    experiences for thousands who have stayed there over the years.
                           current facility challenge
        Because the current septic system that handles the camp's sewage
    treatment needs is failing, the YMCA must install a wastewater
    treatment plant. As a result of this situation, since January 2004, the
    camp has been required to reduce its capacity by 50 percent. Many of
    the YMCA lease groups have left the camp to find other large capacity
    camps. This decrease in campers has put a tremendous financial strain
    on the operation, in addition to disappointing the many people desiring
    to visit the island. The decrease in numbers is outlined below:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Count                    2003         2004      Difference
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Campers..........................       14,495        8,200      (6,295)
    Camper Days......................       40,096       22,442     (17,654)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Replacing this system is costly, with a complex scope of work.
    Removal of all old landfills at the camp is being required as well. The
    new system will be a disinfecting and dechlorinating process which will
    enhance the camp environment and the overall environment on Catalina
    Island. Because of the limited resources available to our non-profit
    organization, I am requesting your assistance in securing funds for
    this project through the programs of the Environmental Protection
    Agency. Specifically, we are seeking $2 million through EPA's State and
    Tribal Assistance Grants Program.
        Again, I thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to present this
    testimony and for your consideration of this request.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the American Geological Institute
        To the Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for this
    opportunity to provide the American Geological Institute's perspective
    on fiscal year 2006 appropriations for geoscience programs within the
    subcommittee's jurisdiction. The president's budget requests vital and
    overdue funding for natural hazards and mapping which AGI greatly
    appreciates and fully supports. The administration seeks significant
    cuts in the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) mineral resources and water
    programs. The Mineral Resources Program would receive a 53 percent cut,
    leaving the program with only $25 million in fiscal year 2006. 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 provide assessments for economic
    development, safety and national security. Specifically, we ask the
    subcommittee to restore funds to the USGS Mineral Resources Program and
    the Water Resources Research Institutes.
        For the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a new responsibility
    of this subcommittee, the proposed fiscal year 2006 is $7.6 billion, a
    5.6 percent decrease from last year with significant cuts for state
    water programs. AGI supports full funding for water programs in EPA and
    USGS, given the importance of clean and readily available water for our
    citizens, industries, local to federal government agencies and for the
    sustainability of a healthy environment.
        Geoscience activities are also found in a number of other agencies
    within the subcommittee's jurisdiction. We ask the subcommittee to
    support the well-informed, yet fiscally responsible increases in the
    administration's budget proposal for the Minerals Management Services
    (MMS) the National Park Service Geologic Resources Division, and the
    U.S. Forest Service Minerals and Geology Management Program. MMS
    manages natural gas, oil and other mineral resources on the outer
    continental shelf and disburses more than $5 billion per year in
    revenues from federal offshore and onshore mineral leases. Geoscience
    programs within the land management agencies provide a scientific basis
    for land-use decisions, a role that they share with the USGS.
        AGI is a nonprofit federation of 42 geoscientific and professional
    associations that represent more than 100,000 geologists,
    geophysicists, and other earth scientists who work in industry,
    academia and government. 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 fourth year in a row, the USGS faces cuts in the
    administration's request. AGI thanks Congress and members of this new
    subcommittee for its past record of restoring critical funds and
    recognizing the Survey's essential value to the nation.
        AGI is a charter member of the USGS Coalition, an alliance of
    nearly 70 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 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. The Survey serves the nation, through specific results that
    can be applied elsewhere to broad assessments used for national
    planning. 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.
        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 2005 appropriated level
    of $54 million. The 53 percent cut, leaving the program with only $25
    million in fiscal year 2006 would decimate the program. It would cost
    at least 240 full time positions and eliminate the collection of
    nation-wide basic geologic and mineral deposit data, the
    internationally coordinated global mineral resource assessment, and
    many mineral commodity reports. The essence of the program would be
    jeopardized at a time when mineral products account for $418 billion of
    the U.S. economy and are a growing and valuable commodity.
        The Mineral Resources Program (MRP) has 6 divisions with offices
    across the United States working on a broad range of initiatives to
    secure the nation's economic base and environmental welfare. Each
    month, the Minerals Information Services of the MRP responds to 2,000
    telephone inquiries and more than 90,000 email or facsimile inquiries
    from the federal government, state agencies, domestic and foreign
    agencies, foreign governments and the general public. Cutting-edge
    research by MRP scientists investigates the role of microbes in the
    geochemical cycles of arsenic, mercury, lead and zinc to understand the
    transport and accumulation of health-threatening toxins related to
    these elements and to distinguish their natural or anthropogenic
    sources. An MRP study analyzed the occurrence and distribution of
    asbestos-bearing vermiculite deposits in the United States, in response
    to the health problems created by Libby Mine's asbestos-bearing
    vermiculite deposit in Montana. MRP scientists also investigated and
    prepared a report on the asbestos-bearing debris in the aftermath of
    the World Trade Center disaster. An MRP report on the diatomite mining
    industry concluded that the U.S. industry is mature and stable,
    accounting for at least 50 percent of all diatomite exported in 2001,
    but may be adversely affected by overproduction in other countries now.
    The Global Mineral Resource Assessment Project of the MRP provides
    unbiased and timely information about the current and future
    availability of mineral resources around the world, which is needed to
    understand and anticipate economic, health, environmental and political
    factors that will affect how these resources are used in this
    increasingly interconnected world.
        The data and analyses of the MRP are used by the Department of the
    Interior, Department of Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency, the
    Department of State, the Federal Reserve, other federal, state and
    local government entities, foreign governments, private companies and
    the general public. Analyses based on the MRP data are essential for
    guiding economic and environmental policy and for providing options for
    land use decisions posed by industry, government and private land
    owners. We urge the subcommittee to restore the Mineral Resources
    Program to its fiscal year 2005 level of $54 million so that it may
    perform its core missions effectively and efficiently.
        National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program.--AGI is encouraged
    by the administration's requested 1 percent increase for the National
    Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program and values Congress' past support
    for much larger increases. 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.
    The program was authorized (Public Law 106-148) to grow by about 10
    percent to 20 percent per year from a starting level of $28 million in
    1999 to $64 million in 2005. The program received $25.2 million in 2005
    and AGI would encourage a 10 percent increase for 2006 because the
    program provides a timely basis for assessing water availability and
    quality, risks from hazards and other major land and resource-use
    issues that are of increasing prominence in many states.
        Natural Hazards.--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. The tragic
    earthquake and tsunami in the Indian Ocean remind us of the need for
    preparation, education, mitigation and rapid response to natural
    hazards. Last year 27 major disasters were declared because of
    earthquakes, landslides, hurricanes, fires and floods. In addition,
    Mount St. Helens began erupting again in 2004 and continues to be
    active in 2005 with a steam and ash plume eruption reaching 36,000 feet
    in altitude on March 8. AGI strongly supports the administration's
    request for increased funding for Earthquake, Volcano and Landslide
    Hazards and appreciates Congress' past support for these programs. With
    great forethought, the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Authorization Act
    of 1999 called for a significant federal investment in expansion and
    modernization of existing seismic networks and for the development of
    the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS)--a nationwide network of
    shaking measurement systems focused 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. ANSS was funded at about 10 percent
    of its authorized level during its first 3 years and received about $16
    million. The law calls for 7,000 instruments to be deployed. Currently,
    62 are active. The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
    (NEHRP) was reauthorized in October 2004 and AGI supports the
    appropriation of full funding for this vital program. AGI strongly
    supports the proposed increase of $5.4 million for fiscal year 2006 for
    earthquake warning systems development related to the Tsunami Warning
    Network enhancements. We hope that all of these under funded systems
    will receive additional support to meet their timely goals of better
    protection and mitigation of earthquake hazards long before we need to
    react.
        Water Programs.--The president's request calls for the termination
    of the Water Resources Research Institutes. AGI strongly encourages the
    subcommittee to oppose these reductions and to fully support this
    program at its small, but effective fiscal year 2005 level of $6.4
    million. 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 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 2006
    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.
                            smithsonian institution
        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 asks the subcommittee to build up Smithsonian research with steady
    increases that are a tiny fraction of the overall budget, but would
    dramatically improve the facilities and their benefit to the country.
                             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 would like to see additional
    support for geological staff positions to adequately address the
    treasured geologic resources in the national parks.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony to the
    subcommittee.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the American Institute of Biological Sciences
        The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) requests that
    Congress provide the United States Geological Survey (USGS) with at
    least $1 billion in fiscal year 2006. This funding level would restore
    administration proposed cuts to important science programs, provide a
    modest but much needed inflation adjustment, and allow implementation
    of important science and information dissemination initiatives. This
    funding level would also help USGS address the cost of maintaining
    research facilities and better address impending workforce issues.
        The USGS provides independent data, information, research support
    and assessments needed by public and private sector decision-makers.
    The Survey's unique combination of biological, geographical, geological
    and hydrological research programs enable USGS scientists to utilize
    cutting-edge interdisciplinary research techniques to answer important
    questions.
        USGS scientists do not work in isolation. Through the Survey's
    nearly 400 offices located in every state and partnerships with over
    2,000 federal, state, local, tribal, and private organizations, the
    USGS has built the capacity to leverage additional research expertise.
    For example, through the Cooperative Research Units program USGS
    scientists are stationed on university campuses.
        This proximity to academic researchers helps bring additional
    intellectual and technical resources to bear on the biological,
    ecological, and natural resource questions USGS seeks to understand.
    The value of Cooperative Research Units extends beyond their immediate
    research productivity, however. Cooperative Research Units are a vital
    component of our national education and training infrastructure. These
    research units enable future natural resource professionals to gain the
    skills and experience government agencies need. Furthermore,
    Cooperative Research Units are one of USGS' mechanisms for providing
    data and technical assistance to local, state, and national decision-
    makers.
        Natural resource managers require reliable, relevant, and timely
    information. The Biological Informatics Program develops and applies
    innovative technologies and practices to the management of biological
    data, information, and knowledge resulting from research, thereby
    increasing the value of that research to scientists, planners,
    decision-makers, educators, students, and the public. Increased funding
    for the USGS would enable the Biological Informatics Program to
    continue on-going activities and begin to implement initiatives that
    the resource management and research communities have identified as
    national priorities.
        USGS biological research programs gather important data and
    information that academic, private sector, or other government
    scientists do not or can not collect. For instance, a clear national
    priority is the prevention and mitigation of future losses resulting
    from non-native species invading new environments. USGS research is
    helping guide our understanding of how invasive species, such as the
    zebra mussel, snakehead fish, or tamarisk, colonize new environments.
    Decision-makers, whether working for the National Park Service, a state
    parks department, or a hydroelectric utility, utilize USGS science to
    develop action plans for combating invasive species.
        Infrastructure is vital to science. Increasingly, coordinated
    networks of databases and data gathering instruments are required to
    answer the questions that public policymakers and scientists are
    asking. For example, biologists may use real-time data from the USGS
    streamgage network to determine how quickly a pollutant travels through
    a watershed, impacts downstream fisheries, or enters a community's
    drinking water supply.
        USGS biologists conduct impartial research that makes it possible
    to assess the vitality of waterfowl, songbirds, large mammals,
    terrestrial plants, amphibians, and their habitats. These data
    subsequently inform state and federal agency conservation planning and
    management. As an example, the USGS bird-banding program allows
    scientists to better understand bird populations, habitat requirements,
    and migration routes. An understanding of these matters is necessary to
    inform the development of hunting regulations.
        Within the Biological Research and Monitoring account, the budget
    request proposes several important funding increases. For instance, the
    budget request includes small increases for ecological systems mapping,
    the Great Lakes Deepwater Fisheries Program, Science on Interior's
    Landscape, support for biological and geological research for better
    decision making in the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, and
    the development of innovative control methodologies for invasive
    plants.
        Unfortunately, the budget request calls for cuts of just over $4.0
    million in the Biological Research and Monitoring account. These cuts
    would end research on the Mark Twain National Forest, pallid sturgeon,
    diamondback terrapins, the grizzly bear population in Montana, the
    ground-water supply at Leetown Science Center, fishery genetics
    research in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions, manatees, the
    Delaware River Basin, and a portion of a general program increase. We
    encourage the committee to work to restore these cuts.
        The administration has also requested potentially damaging general
    funding cuts. Included in this category is a $420,000 cut from the USGS
    vehicle fleet and reduced travel and transportation costs. USGS
    biological research requires that scientists be able to travel to field
    research sites and scientific meetings. Thus, we request that the
    committee carefully review this proposed cut to ensure adequate funding
    is available to support ongoing research activities. Additionally, the
    proposed budget would eliminate the Nebraska Cooperative Research Unit.
    At least $395,000 should be appropriated to maintain this research
    unit. However, we encourage the committee to also work to provide
    additional funding to support the overall Cooperative Research Units
    program.
        In the fiscal year 2005 appropriation, Congress funded
    ``uncontrollable costs,'' such as salary and office space rental cost
    increases. The administration should be commended for accounting for
    these costs in the fiscal year 2006 budget request. We encourage the
    committee to once again work to fully fund these expenses. Without full
    funding of these expenses, USGS science programs would likely be forced
    to reprogram funds that would otherwise support science.
        Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this request.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Kennesaw Mountain Historical Association
        Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: I appreciate
    the opportunity to present this testimony in support of a $2.21 million
    appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund in fiscal year
    2006 to begin acquisition of a prime piece of property at Kennesaw
    Mountain National Battlefield Park.
        The Kennesaw Mountain Historical Association is a nonprofit
    cooperating association working in partnership with the National Park
    Service. Our organization is dedicated to enhancing the public's
    understanding and appreciation of Kennesaw Mountain National
    Battlefield Park. The association operates the visitor center bookstore
    as well as provides staff at the visitor center front desk. All
    proceeds from items sold in the store and from memberships directly
    benefit the park. Our support helps provide lectures, seminars,
    historical and environmental tours, educational materials, and
    interpretive programs.
        Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park was established to
    commemorate the 1864 Atlanta campaign. On June 19, 1864, the Union
    troops of General William Sherman reached Kennesaw Mountain on their
    march from Chattanooga, Tennessee to Atlanta, Georgia. A series of
    attacks ensued as Confederate soldiers, led by General Joseph Johnston,
    attempted to stave off the Union brigades. In the end, Sherman returned
    to his flanking strategy and the Southerners abandoned their Kennesaw
    lines. Nearly 4,000 soldiers lost their lives in the battle at
    Kennesaw.
        An opportunity exists over the next two years to conserve the
    Hensley property, a 45-acre inholding of the park. This prized land
    contains earthen fortifications used by Union Infantry during the siege
    of Kennesaw Mountain and Marietta. The earthworks on the Hensley
    property are an important continuation of those in the park. They are
    part of the federal infantry line, which helped protect the 24-gun
    battery assembled by General Sherman to drive the Confederates from
    their mountain citadel. This tract is a combination of fields, forest,
    and lake, and would significantly enhance the historic value of the
    park. Over the next ten years, the park is expected to improve the tour
    route, add more interpretive signs, and add the 24-gun battery as a
    tour stop.
        The preservation of the Hensley property would protect one of the
    few remaining significant tracts of land in the area. Presently zoned
    for residential and agricultural uses, this land faces the imminent
    threat of development as growth in this area is occurring rapidly. The
    Hensley property is located in west Cobb County, which for a long time
    consisted solely of farmland, and where Kennesaw Mountain National
    Battlefield Park served as a major buffer from burgeoning commercial
    and residential development from the east. In past years, this buffer
    has been overwhelmed by growth from the east and west as a result of
    its close proximity to Atlanta.
        In an area where large tracts of land are disappearing, acquisition
    of this unique inholding is crucial to preserving the cultural history
    of Kennesaw Mountain and its Civil War legacy.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present this request.
                                     ______

        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 $1.0 billion for the U.S. Geological Survey
    (USGS) in fiscal year 2006, an increase of 7.1 percent over the fiscal
    year 2005 enacted level. For the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    (EPA), NCSE urges Congress to appropriate at least $790 million for the
    Science and Technology account, including at least $100 million for the
    Science to Achieve Results (STAR) research grants program and $10
    million for the STAR graduate fellowship program, as well as $10
    million for the Office ofEnvironmental Education.
        As a result of the committee's recent reorganization, the Senate
    Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies now has
    broader jurisdiction over environmental research and education. NCSE
    commends the subcommittee for its past bipartisan leadership in support
    of science to improve environmental decisionmaking. We ask for your
    continued leadership in addressing pressing national challenges by
    appropriating strong and growing funding for environmental research and
    education at the USGS, EPA, and other agencies under the subcommittee's
    expanded jurisdiction.
        The National Council for Science and the Environment is dedicated
    to improving the scientific basis for environmental decisionmaking. We
    are supported by over 500 organizations, including universities,
    scientific societies, government associations, businesses and chambers
    of commerce, and environmental and other civic organizations. NCSE
    promotes science and its essential role in decisionmaking but does not
    take positions on environmental issues themselves.
                             u.s. geological survey
        The vital importance of the USGS in protecting public safety was
    highlighted by the tragic loss of life caused by the tsunami that was
    triggered by a great earthquake beneath the Indian Ocean on December
    26, 2004. Investments in the USGS pay enormous dividends by reducing
    risks from earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, floods, landslides, and
    other natural hazards.
        As a founding member and co-chair of the USGS Coalition, NCSE joins
    with 68 other organizations in recommending an appropriation of $1.0
    billion for the U.S. Geological Survey in fiscal year 2006, an increase
    of 7.1 percent above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. This increase
    would enable the USGS to restore the science cuts proposed in the
    budget request, accelerate the deployment of critical projects (e.g.,
    Advanced National Seismic System and the National Map), and launch new
    science initiatives that would begin to reverse the cumulative effects
    of the long-term funding shortfall that has left the USGS budget
    stagnant for the past decade.
        The fiscal year 2006 budget request would cut funding for the USGS
    by $1.9 million or 0.2 percent to $933.5 million. The budget request
    would offset $36.7 million of cuts in existing program activities with
    $33.4 million in new and expanded program funding. Two large program
    cuts are of special concern to NCSE. The budget request would cut $28.7
    million from the Mineral Resources program, a devastating 53 percent
    decrease in funding. The USGS budget request would also eliminate the
    entire $6.4 million budget for the Water Resources Research Institutes,
    which are located in all 50 states.
        The USGS Mineral Resources program is an essential source of
    objective guidance and unbiased research on our mineral resources that
    helps guide economic development of natural resources and protection of
    the environment. This guidance and research is important to reduce the
    environmental impacts of mining and to maintain the growing value of
    processed materials from mineral resources that accounted for $418
    billion in the U.S. economy in 2004, an increase of 13 percent over
    2003. The proposed cuts in the Mineral Resources program would also
    terminate multidisciplinary research that has important implications
    for public health and environmental protection, such as studies on
    mercury, arsenic and other inorganic toxins.
        The Water Resources Research Institutes have been successful in
    developing cooperative programs that leverage federal investments with
    funds from other sources. Last year, the House Appropriations
    Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies said, ``The
    Administration has placed a high priority on cooperative programs that
    leverage funds from state and local governments as well as private
    entities. The committee believes that bureaus that are successful in
    implementing these policies should be rewarded and not penalized.''
        The proposed budget cuts would adversely affect the ability of the
    USGS to achieve its mission. We encourage Congress to restore these
    cuts, but this funding should not come at the expense of other high
    priority programs elsewhere in the USGS budget.
        The USGS budget request would add $33.4 million in new and expanded
    program funding, including $5.4 million for facilities and operations
    to provide more robust detection and notification of earthquakes that
    could generate a dangerous tsunami. The USGS effort will complement
    NOAA's effort to enhance and expand the tsunami warning system to
    detect any tsunami that might strike anywhere along the U.S. coast. The
    budget request would also provide an increase of $19.5 million for land
    remote sensing activities that support a broad array of economic,
    agricultural and environmental uses. This funding would allow the USGS
    to continue operation of the damaged Landsat 7 satellite and work with
    NASA and NOAA to begin building a ground-based system for a Landsat
    follow-on mission. The USGS budget request would provide small
    increases to improve volcanic monitoring, expand pilot studies to
    assess ground-water depletion in the western United States, strengthen
    ecosystem studies in the Puget Sound, and address other important
    issues. These initiatives deserve the support of Congress.
        The USGS budget request would provide $17.2 million to fully fund
    increases in ``fixed costs,'' such as salaries and rent. In past years,
    increases in fixed costs were partially ``absorbed'' by individual
    programs. Cumulatively, this practice has had a disproportionate impact
    on core USGS programs in biology, geology, hydrology, and mapping,
    which cannot absorb cuts without affecting scientific research and
    monitoring activities. Without full funding of fixed cost increases,
    the USGS may be forced to further curtail ongoing activities, hindering
    or preventing the delivery of data needed by natural resource managers
    and emergency planners. This would increase our vulnerability to
    natural disasters and increase the costs of recovery.
        In addition to restoring the proposed program cuts, we encourage
    Congress to provide additional increases that would enable the USGS to
    meet the tremendous need for science in support of decisionmaking. More
    investment is needed to strengthen USGS partnerships, improve
    monitoring networks, produce high-quality digital geospatial data and
    deliver the best possible science to address societally important
    problems. The USGS has a national mission that encompasses the homes of
    all citizens through natural hazards monitoring, drinking water
    studies, biological and geological resource assessments, and other
    activities.
        During the past ten years, total federal spending for non-defense
    R&D has risen by 64 percent in constant dollars. By contrast, R&D
    funding for the USGS has remained nearly flat over the past decade
    after adjusting for inflation. Even this flat funding for the USGS
    reflects congressional restoration of proposed budget cuts.
        We encourage Congress to provide the USGS with a budget that will
    allow for the modest growth necessary to address emerging needs for
    science. After years of stagnant funding and absorption of
    uncontrollable cost increases, the USGS has a large and growing backlog
    of monitoring and science needs. The National Council for Science and
    the Environment urges Congress to appropriate $1.0 billion for the USGS
    in fiscal year 2006. This investment will help the USGS improve
    monitoring networks, strengthen partnerships, produce high-quality
    data, and deliver impartial science that serves the needs of the
    nation.
                        environmental protection agency
        The National Council for Science and the Environment urges Congress
    to appropriate a minimum of $790 million for EPA's Science and
    Technology account, including at least $100 million for EPA's Science
    to Achieve Results (STAR) research grants program and $10 million for
    EPA's STAR graduate fellowship program. NCSE also urges Congress to
    restore full funding for the Office of Environmental Education at a
    level of at least $10 million. In order to fulfill its mission, EPA
    needs increased investments in both its intramural and extramural
    research programs.
        The fiscal year 2006 budget request for the STAR programs is $63.3
    million, which is 39.5 percent below the fiscal year 2004 request of
    $104.7 million. The budget for the research grants program has been on
    a steady decline despite extremely positive reviews from the National
    Academy of Sciences. The budget for the graduate fellowships has
    oscillated between $5 million and $10 million in recent budget cycles.
    These programs deserve strong and stable funding.
        Last year, Rep. Vernon Ehlers, Chairman of the House Science
    Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards, convened a
    hearing to examine the proposed cuts to EPA's STAR programs. He
    concluded, ``I have not heard a convincing reason today for why the
    STAR program was cut so dramatically. By all accounts, it is a well-
    run, competitive, peer reviewed program that produces high quality
    research. These proposed reductions should not be allowed to take
    effect.'' We believe the same is true today. NCSE recommends a minimum
    appropriation of $100 million for the EPA STAR research grants program
    in fiscal year 2006, the same funding level proposed in the President's
    fiscal year 2004 budget request.
        Deep budget cuts to the EPA STAR program have been proposed less
    than two years after the National Academies issued a laudatory report,
    The Measure of STAR, which concludes that the program supports
    excellent science that is directly relevant to the agency's mission.
    According to the report, the STAR program has ``yielded significant new
    findings and knowledge critical for regulatory decision making.'' The
    report says, ``The program has established and maintains a high degree
    of scientific excellence.'' It also concludes, ``The STAR program funds
    important research that is not conducted or funded by other agencies.
    The STAR program has also made commendable efforts to leverage funds
    through establishment of research partnerships with other agencies and
    organizations.''
        The EPA STAR research program compares favorably with programs at
    other science agencies. According to the National Academies report,
    ``The STAR program has developed a grant-award process that compares
    favorably with and in some ways exceeds that in place at other agencies
    that have extramural research programs, such as the National Science
    Foundation and the National Institute of Environmental Health
    Sciences.''
        The STAR research grants program expands the scientific expertise
    available to EPA by awarding competitive grants to universities and
    independent institutions, to investigate scientific questions of
    particular relevance to the agency's mission. The National Academies
    report says, ``The STAR program should continue to be an important part
    of EPA's research program.''
        NCSE urges Congress to appropriate at least $10 million for the
    STAR graduate fellowship program in fiscal year 2006. This is the only
    federal program aimed specifically at students pursuing advanced
    degrees in environmental sciences. According to the National Academies
    report, ``The STAR fellowship program is a valuable mechanism for
    enabling a continuing supply of graduate students in environmental
    sciences and engineering to help build a stronger scientific foundation
    for the nation's environmental research and management efforts.'' The
    STAR fellowship program is highly competitive, with only 7 percent of
    applicants being awarded fellowships. This level of funding is
    insufficient to allow all students whose applications are rated as
    excellent to receive fellowships.
        The President's budget request has proposed deep cuts in the STAR
    graduate fellowship program in recent years. The budget request would
    have cut funding for the STAR graduate fellowship program by 50 percent
    in fiscal year 2004 and by 100 percent in fiscal year 2003. Congress
    restored full funding for the EPA STAR graduate fellowship program in
    both years. NCSE encourages Congress to restore full funding for the
    program again in fiscal year 2006.
        The fiscal year 2006 budget request proposes no funding for the EPA
    Office of Environmental Education. NCSE strongly encourages Congress to
    restore full funding of at least $10 million to support the
    congressionally mandated programs administered by this office. These
    programs provide national leadership for environmental education at the
    local, state, national and international levels, encourage careers
    related to the environment, and leverage non-federal investment in
    environmental education and training programs.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the National Federation of Federal Employees
                               (NFFE) Local 1957
        I am writing on behalf of the National Federation of Federal
    Employees (NFFE) Local 1957, the bargaining unit for the Minerals
    Information Team (MIT), Geologic Division, U.S. Geological Survey
    (USGS), Reston, VA. We are concerned that the Administration's proposed
    budget for 2006, which includes a $2 million reduction that eliminates
    MIT's core International Information function (collecting, reporting,
    and analyzing data on the foreign supply of minerals needed by the U.S.
    economy), will severely affect the ability of the members of our
    bargaining unit to provide critical information on the nation's mineral
    supply. MIT's mission is to collect, analyze, and disseminate
    information on the domestic and international supply and domestic
    consumption of minerals and materials essential to the U.S. economy and
    its national security. Nonfuel mineral materials processed in the
    United States totaled more than $400 billion in 2004. MIT collects and
    disseminates data on more than 100 mineral materials originating from
    more than 180 countries. The U.S. import dependence for most strategic
    and critical nonfuel minerals exceeds 75 percent, which is greater than
    the country's dependence on foreign oil.
        In 2004, the House Appropriations Committee in its markup
    recognized the contribution of the Minerals Resources Program when it
    wrote that it ``strongly disagrees with the proposed reduction in the
    (U.S. Geological) Survey's mineral resources program. Minerals and
    mineral products are important to the U.S. economy . . .'' Our
    bargaining unit could not agree more with that position and we urge
    Congress to once again retain the international data collection
    function of MIT to enable the NFFE bargaining unit members to maintain
    their capabilities to serve the national interest by providing
    Congressionally mandated information critical to the nation's mineral
    supply.
        MIT was transferred to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in 1996
    under a Joint House-Senate Conference Amendment that provided for the
    minerals information activities, formerly conducted by the U.S. Bureau
    of Mines, to continue within the USGS. The Defense Production Act of
    1950, as amended (1980 & 1992), delegates significant authority to the
    Secretary of the Interior relating to the assurance of an adequate
    supply of mineral materials necessary for the national defense, with
    the specific responsibility for analyses of domestic and foreign
    supplies.
        As the economies of China, India, and other developing countries
    continue to grow, the increasing global demand for mineral resources
    will affect the U.S. economy's ability to have ample affordable mineral
    resources to meet its needs and will require international information
    regarding the production and consumption of minerals. Without data on
    international supply, there would be a critical information gap
    regarding the U.S. mineral supply. Elimination of our international
    function through a 13 percent ($2 million) budget reduction would
    severely limit our ability to fulfill our obligations under the USGS's
    Congressionally mandated mission to supply information on the nation's
    supply of nonfuel minerals.
        Information and analyses produced by the Minerals Information Team
    are widely used and relied upon by our Government and private sector.
    The Minerals Information Team produces more than 500 publications per
    year covering most nonfuel minerals, including the Mineral Commodity
    Summaries for the Congressional Offices. Our web site provides
    approximately 1.4 million publication downloads per year and nearly the
    same number of hits. The U.S. Departments of Commerce, Defense,
    Treasury, and State, as well as the Central Intelligence Agency, the
    Federal Reserve Board, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the
    International Trade Commission, and the Office of the U.S. Trade
    Representative have increasingly relied on the USGS-MIT specialists for
    global minerals-related policy analysis, as have domestic agencies,
    including the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, the Minerals Management
    Service, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Forest Service. MIT
    data are cited in Securities and Exchange Commission filings by mining
    companies requiring an authoritative, impartial source for statements
    of world resources, capacities, production and consumption.
        We sincerely appreciate your consideration of this issue that
    affects the interests of both the Nation and the members of NFFE local
    1957.
                                 summary points
      --The proposed Administration budget for 2006 stipulates a $2 million
            reduction in the MIT budget that eliminates the core
            International Information function.
      --The Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (1980 & 1992),
            delegates significant authority to the Secretary of the
            Interior relating to the assurance of an adequate supply of
            mineral materials necessary for the national defense, with the
            specific responsibility for analyses of domestic and foreign
            supplies.
      --The U.S. import dependence for most strategic and critical nonfuel
            minerals exceeds 75 percent, which is greater than the
            country's dependence on foreign oil.
      --Elimination of the International Information function would limit
            the bargaining unit's ability to fulfill its mission and would
            contradict the USGS's Congressionally mandated mission to
            supply information on the nation's supply of nonfuel minerals.
      --Without data on international supply, there would be a critical
            information gap regarding the U.S. mineral supply.
      --NFFE local 1957 urges Congress to retain the international data
            collection function of MIT which would enable our bargaining
            unit members to maintain their capabilities to serve the
            national interest by providing Congressionally mandated
            information on the nation's mineral supply.
       NFFE Local 1957 Briefing on the USGS Minerals Information Team &
                           Mineral Resources Program
                      usgs minerals information team (mit)
        The Administration's proposed $2 million cut to MIT's current
    funding level would eliminate MIT's international data collection
    function and severely compromise the USGS' ability to meet its mission
    as mandated by Congress.
      --MIT's international information function would be eliminated,
            greatly limiting the MIT bargaining unit's ability to meet its
            core mission--to collect, report, and analyze data on the
            supply of minerals critical to the Nation's economic and
            national defense needs.
      --The USGS, therefore, could not fulfill its Congressional mandate to
            assure there is an adequate and dependable supply of mineral
            materials necessary for national defense, as established by The
            Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (1980 & 1992).
        Because of the global nature of the minerals industry, mineral
    commodity assessments require international information.
      --The Administration's budget proposal comes at a time of increased
            globalization and demand for minerals. The economies of China,
            India, and other developing countries continue to grow, which
            creates an ever increasing global demand for mineral resources.
            This will affect the U.S. economy's ability to have ample
            affordable mineral resources to meet its needs and will require
            international information regarding the production and
            consumption of minerals.
      --The U.S. import dependence for most strategic and critical nonfuel
            minerals exceeds 75 percent, which is greater than the
            country's dependence for oil. In 2004, MIT found that U.S.
            companies relied more than 50 percent on imports to meet their
            needs for 42 of 81 minerals (USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries
            2005). Of those, the import reliance was 100 percent for 17
            minerals and at least 80 percent for another 11.
      --Helping assure the country has ample mineral resources to meet its
            needs simply cannot be done with disregard to international
            factors that affect the supply and demand of those resources.
        MIT's budget should be permanently set as a separate line item, and
    the budget increased to $20 million.
      --Repeated attempts by the Administration to reduce MIT funding over
            the last several years raise the question of the group's long-
            term viability under the current budget structure.
          --In 2002, Congress rejected a similar proposed $2 million
                reduction in MIT's budget.
          --Since then, Congress has continued to reject proposed cuts to
                MIT funding.
      --Since 1998, MIT's budget of about $16 million has fallen about 5
            percent, which represents more than a 20 percent decrease when
            accounting for salary cost of living adjustments and other
            inflationary costs. Such a severely constrained budget
            challenges the group's ability to retain its expertise, attract
            new hires for succession planning, and perform at the highest
            levels.
      --NFFE urges Congress to increase MIT funding to $20 million, which
            is equivalent in today's dollars to MIT's funding within USGS
            in 1998. This represents only about 0.0045 percent of the non-
            defense discretionary budget of $445 billion as estimated by
            the Congressional Budget Office in January 2004, and would
            afford MIT the means to better meet its mission. As the
            nation's only source of comprehensive and unbiased mineral
            commodity data, MIT should be retained and enhanced.
      --At a minimum, MIT's international function should be retained and,
            accordingly, MIT's budget should be restored by $2 million so
            that the MIT bargaining unit can meet its core mission
            functions.
                        mineral resources program (mrp)
        The NFFE is concerned that the proposed budget reduction for the
    MRP overall could adversely impact the MIT collective bargaining unit
    through the Reduction in Force process and elimination of valuable
    information MIT requires in the analyses of global mineral supply.
    Accordingly, we have several points we would like to make regarding MRP
    funding that affect the MIT bargaining unit's ability to carry out its
    mission.
        The proposed $28.7 million reduction in the MRP that assumes
    nonfuel mineral resource assessments are somehow of lesser priority to
    the Nation's economy and security than those of fuel minerals is
    puzzling and diminishes the mission of the MIT bargaining unit.
      --Nonfuel mineral mining and use significantly impacts the U.S.
            economy. Of the total $21 trillion in sales by U.S. industries
            in 2004, preliminary USGS estimates show processed mineral
            materials contributed about $5.2 trillion. The value of U.S.
            raw nonfuel mineral mine production alone is estimated at about
            $47 billion.
      --According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, major industries
            consuming processed mineral materials added more than $1.7
            trillion to the total U.S. GDP in 2003.
      --Without nonfuel minerals, the Nation's infrastructure (including
            that of the energy sector) could not be built or maintained,
            nor its borders and quality of life for its peoples protected.
        The assertion that expertise exists at various universities and
    state geological surveys to continue minerals work that would be
    brought to an end by the proposed budget reduction is optimistic, would
    deprive the MIT bargaining unit of needed expertise, and would not
    include work that is inherently a Federal government function.
      --While it is true that universities and state geological surveys
            have expertise in minerals deposits, without a firm Federal
            commitment and participation, these groups and other
            organizations would not be able to meet the many public and
            private needs for minerals-related information and expertise.
        --For example, 14 of 27 university mining engineering programs in
                the United States have closed since 1985, including those
                at New Mexico Institute of Mining & Technology, University
                of California-Berkeley, and the University of Idaho. Of the
                13 remaining, only 3 have more than 8 faculty members.
                Economic geology programs have a similar pattern though
                they typically consist of only one faculty member.
        --Recognizing the need for Federal funding of mineral-resource and
                related research, the National Research Council recommended
                the USGS fund an external grants program for minerals-
                related research at universities in 1996 and again in 2004.
                In response to these reports and strong interest from the
                minerals community, the USGS MRP created an external grants
                program using internal funds in fiscal year 2004.
                Ironically, this program would be eliminated by the
                proposed fiscal year 2006 budget.
      --Of great concern to us is the Country's trend towards losing more
            of its ability to assess mineral resources and the factors that
            affect them as evidenced by dwindling university programs,
            student enrollment, and number of faculty, as well as
            decreasing Federal funding through the closure of the U.S.
            Bureau of Mines in 1996 and flat MRP funding levels since then.
            This would be further compounded by the loss of 240 MRP
            positions, including 20 in MIT, which would result from the
            proposed fiscal year 2006 budget cut. Like most of the minerals
            on which the country relies, the Nation is at risk of becoming
            import reliant on people with mineral expertise!
        The proposed $28 million reduction in the MRP calling for a focus
    only ``on those needs that are inherently Federal'' would make it
    unduly difficult for MIT to carry out its mission. The MIT and MRP
    missions are ``inherently Federal'' as described on page I-8 of the
    Department of Interior's justification document:

        ``The Federal role in conducting science to understand geologic
    hazards, resources [emphasis added], and processes derives from the
    U.S. Government's responsibilities to protect the lives and property of
    its citizens, to support continued economic growth and competitiveness
    . . .''

      --MRP's core responsibility is to provide unbiased, scientifically
            sound resource assessments about the availability and quantity
            of the Nation's mineral resources, including the economic and
            environmental effects of resource extraction and use. As with
            energy mineral resources, the United States continues to rely
            ever increasingly on foreign sources to meet its needs. In
            trying to focus mineral resources assessments only on domestic
            sources and then those only on Federal lands would surely
            constitute an abrogation of Federal responsibility by putting
            the Nation at great economic and security risk.
      --Further, because the information used in the numerous MIT reports
            is often proprietary, only the Federal government can fulfill
            the role of a trusted third party. Companies and many foreign
            governments would be greatly disinclined to provide proprietary
            information to non-government entities.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the National Institutes for Water Resources
        Mr. Chairman, I am James Moncur, President of the National
    Institutes for Water Resources and Director of the Hawaii Water
    Resources Research Center at the University of Hawaii. My statement
    requests the Subcommittee to provide $8.775 million to the U.S.
    Geological Survey for the state Water Resources Research Institutes
    program.
        First, I want to thank you and this Subcommittee for the strong
    support you have given to this program in past years. You have
    recognized the great value in having federal, state, and local
    government agencies cooperating with a network of universities to
    produce new knowledge about water resources as well as train a new
    generation of talented and educated water professionals.
        I want to acknowledge the leading role you and your colleagues have
    played to ensure that the U.S. Geological Survey continues to provide
    the science needed to manage the nation's natural resources. The water
    institute directors who are represented by NIWR recognize that the
    Survey is the nation's preeminent natural resources science
    organization and that it is faced with growing scientific demands to
    support responsible stewardship of our natural resources.
        The Water Resources Research Institutes program was first
    authorized by the Water Resources Research Act of 1964. In establishing
    and supporting this federal-state-academic partnership, Congress
    recognized the great success of the state water resources research
    institutes in providing sound science and well educated professionals
    to the nation's water management programs, and doing so in a highly
    efficient manner.
                                    request
        The National Institutes for Water Resources respectfully request
    the addition of $8.775 million to the U.S. Geological Survey's fiscal
    year 2006 budget for the state Water Resources Research Institutes
    program. This recommendation is based on the following components:
      --$7 million in grants for the 54 institutes as authorized by Section
            104(b) of the Water Resources Research Act;
      --$1.5 million to support the national competitive grants program
            authorized by Section 104(g) of the Act; and
      --$275,000 for program administration at USGS.
        These amounts would provide each institute $125,000 under Section
    104(b), to support state-based competitions for research and graduate
    education at the institutes, located at land-grant universities in each
    state, three territories and in Washington, D.C. For fiscal year 2005,
    this grant was $92,412. It would also provide for an increase from
    about $1 million to $1.5 million for the national competitive grants
    program under Section 104(g). Competition for the 104(g) awards is
    extremely vigorous: in 2004, for example, 45 proposals were submitted
    to the 104(g) program, requesting a total of $6.8 million; only 8 were
    funded.
                                 justification
        Since their creation by Congress in 1964, the state water resources
    research institutes have established a remarkable infrastructure of
    physical and human capital for studying water resource problems. The
    institutes link scientists and scholars from a wide array of
    disciplines, institutions and agencies to focus on the diverse
    characteristics and effects of water and related resources. The network
    composed of these institutes serves an invaluable function in sharing
    knowledge across state lines and addressing problems created by the
    insistence of rivers, aquifers, floods and droughts on ignoring the
    boundaries of our states.
        Unfortunately, few of these problems are anywhere near completely
    and finally ``solved'' and new issues continue to arise. Several areas
    are rapidly approaching or have passed the sustainable limits of
    groundwater withdrawals. Control of non-point source pollutants is a
    vast undertaking, far from complete despite several years of earnest
    effort. Contention over river flows has spread from the dry West to
    some of the relatively wet eastern states. Floods, forest fires,
    homeland security and newly discovered chemical contaminants all remain
    challenging issues. Water will be an increasingly scarce resource of
    the 21st century and is thought by many to be a likely cause of
    regional conflicts and war.
        The importance of these problems varies from region to region. In
    my own home state of Hawaii, for example, rapid population growth and a
    fading sugar-plantation legacy have generated immense changes in water
    use. These changes have forced a thorough re-examination of the
    management of aquifers from which most of our water is drawn and have
    sparked new interest in wastewater reuse, desalination and
    conservation. In other areas of country, pressures on water supplies of
    the Rio Grand Basin, acid rain in New England, water storage in
    Nebraska sand dunes, flooding and drought in several states, and
    regional water planning in the New York City watershed exemplify the
    diversity of problems approached by the institutes. This list
    illustrates the need for a network of research centers to look after
    problems in their own backyards as well as to collaborate with one
    another on problems of regional and national scope.
        Here are some examples of the institutes' work in the past year:
      --The California Institute developed methods of estimating historical
            populations of salmon, and thus to judge the success of habitat
            restoration efforts.
      --The New Mexico Institute provided technical assistance to the U.S.
            Bureau of Reclamation and Sandia National laboratories in a
            large-scale desalination research facility.
      --The Virginia Institute coordinates a multi-institute,
            interdisciplinary academic advisory committee for the Virginia
            Department of Environmental Quality.
      --The New York Institute developed the ``multiple barrier'' approach
            to manage non-point source pollutants in the New York City
            Watershed.
      --The Montana Institute, working with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
            Service, has formulated strategies to control outbreaks of
            bacterial coldwater disease in fish hatcheries.
      --The Wisconsin Institute produced a computer program to design and
            evaluate stormwater bioretention facilities intended to enhance
            urban groundwater recharge.
      --The Michigan Institute, with the National Park Service, has
            developed a web site to make monitoring data and other
            ecological information available to Park Service managers.
        These examples attest to the practicality and applicability of
    research performed by the institutes. To ensure the usefulness of
    supported research, each institute has a technical advisory committee,
    made up of representatives from university faculty, local, state and
    federal agencies and the private sector. These panels identify the most
    pressing water problems facing their states, establish priorities and
    help with local reviews of proposals.
        The National Institutes for Water Resources, in collaboration with
    the USGS, has developed a highly effective and efficient online system
    for collecting data, reporting results, and reviewing competitive
    research proposals. The system accepts early drafts of proposals and
    allows local administrators to choose which to support. It then
    identifies experts from across the country to provide peer reviews,
    which they report online. This system is now serving as a model for
    management of other sponsored research by federal agencies. Planning is
    under way to extend the system's scope in several dimensions.
        Each year the Institute Program produces about 1,000 technical
    publications dealing with water resources. Roughly one-fourth of these
    are in refereed scientific journals. In fiscal year 2004, the
    Institutes conducted more than 160 conferences, seminars and workshops
    with more than 18,000 participants. Thirty-one institutes publish
    newsletters detailing research projects and reporting on water events,
    with total circulation of about 60,000. Nearly every institute
    maintains a website to further enhance dissemination of research
    results.
        Beyond research and service, the Institutes also make an important
    contribution to education and training. In fiscal year 2004, 1,449
    students (511 undergraduates, 596 master's, 297 Ph.D.s and 45 post-
    docs) were supported by Institute projects. These projects allowed
    invaluable hands-on application of classroom instruction for students
    from agriculture, engineering, economics, geology, geography and many
    other areas. Often, students have developed theses or dissertations and
    even found post-graduation employment as a direct result of their
    Institute-supported work. Encouragement of education in water-related
    areas is increasingly important as the baby-boom cohort--as important
    to staffing in water resources areas as in other sectors of the
    economy--ages and retires in the next decade.
        As a whole, the federal appropriation has fostered a network of
    truly national scope from a collection of individual researchers in
    universities and water professionals in government and the private
    sector. The Institutes provide the driving force for collaboration
    between disciplines and between university faculty, government and
    private sector personnel. Without federal support, these extensive
    network benefits would wither away.
        This Subcommittee had the foresight to initiate an examination of
    water resources research funded in this country. In June 2004, the
    National Research Council released a report surveying federal
    government investment in water research (Confronting the Nation's Water
    Problems: The Role of Research, National Research Council, 2004). This
    report identified a number of problems, including a lack of research
    coordination between federal agencies, leading to some duplication and
    some gaps. The mission-driven federal agencies, for example, have
    tended to overlook research in institutional, economic and legal areas,
    as compared to the physical and engineering sciences. The report notes
    that ``the Water Resources Research Institute system . . . provides an
    existing, well-organized mechanism for articulating state-based
    research needs and for bringing together water managers, stakeholders
    across a wide cross section of the public, and researchers and academic
    institutions throughout each state.'' The NRC suggests expanded roles
    for the Institutes in collecting information on research priorities
    from local and state agencies, for consideration by federal policy
    makers, and in disseminating results of federal research. These
    activities arise directly from existing functions of the Institutes. In
    response, the Institutes are preparing a strategic plan expanding on
    these suggestions, including a pilot study of research priorities.
        Last year the USGS Director appointed a panel to undertake the
    five-year evaluation of the Institutes Program in accordance with the
    Section 104(e) of Water Resources Research Act, Among its conclusions,
    the panel found that--
      --the Institute Program, with its federal-state matching requirement,
            is an important and significant part of the nation's water
            resources research infrastructure.
      --the program garners significant funding leverage for the modest
            federal appropriation that supports it.
      --the program also does well in attracting young scientists to the
            water resources fields.
      --the program also embodies an effective information clearing house
            and fosters significant opportunities for multidisciplinary
            research on all aspects pf water resources research and water
            management.
        Federal funds invested in the Institutes Program have a remarkably
    high payoff. Each dollar of the 104(b) grant ($92,412 per institute in
    fiscal year 2005) requires $2 matching funds from other sources. The
    grants directly supported 227 projects nationwide, and led the way to
    an additional 931 projects funded from other sources. Altogether, the
    Institutes generated an additional $16.30 in other funding for each
    dollar provided by the federal appropriation. Of this, $8.40 came from
    other federal sources and $7.90 from local and state governments,
    universities, private firms, foundations and other non-federal sources.
    It is crucial to realize that much of this extra $16 could not have
    been generated without the leverage provided by the Congressional
    appropriation. In the process, the grants serve as a catalyst for
    universities to invest in and maintain capacities to galvanize faculty,
    laboratories and equipment and to stimulate student interest in water
    resource issues.
        The 1960s appropriations provided $100,000 per year to each
    institute--about $600,000 in today's dollars. By fiscal year 2005, this
    had declined to $92,412 per institute. Research needs for this money
    have not, unfortunately, diminished apace.
        The U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Research Institutes
    program generates a high return to the people of the United States by
    applying sound scientific methods in support of sound water policy and
    management. The National Institutes for Water Resources urges this
    Subcommittee to provide $8.775 million for fiscal year 2006.
        Finally, the National Institutes for Water Resources is a member of
    the USGS Coalition. NIWR strongly concurs in the Coalition's
    recommendation that Congress increase the budget of the U.S. Geological
    Survey to $1 billion in fiscal year 2006, an increase of 7.1 percent
    above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. The increase, which is
    necessary for the Survey to continue providing critical information to
    decision makers at all levels of government, would enable the USGS to
    restore the science cuts proposed in the budget request, provide full
    funding for ``uncontrollable'' costs, and undertake a few exciting new
    science initiatives that would begin to reverse the cumulative effects
    of the long-term funding short fall.
        Thank you very much for the opportunity to present these views.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Public Service Company of New Mexico
        I am requesting your support and assistance in insuring continued
    funding for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program
    and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program. These
    ongoing cooperative programs have the dual objectives of recovering
    four species of endangered fish while water use continues and water
    development proceeds in compliance with the Endangered Species Act of
    1973, state law, and interstate compacts. Partners in the two programs
    are the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, Indian
    tribes, federal agencies and water, power, and environmental interests.
    I respectfully request support and action by the Subcommittee that will
    provide the following:
        1. An increase of $691,000 in the fiscal year 2006 Recovery Element
    budget (Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services
    Activity, Endangered Species Subactivity; Recovery Element) allocated
    to ``Colorado River fish recovery project'' to allow U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service (FWS) Region 6 to meet its funding commitment to the
    Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. This is the
    level of funding appropriated in fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005 for
    this program. These funds are needed for FWS direct participation in
    managing and implementing the Upper Colorado Program's actions,
    monitoring achievement of recovery goals, managing data associated with
    fish population abundance and sampling, evaluating stocking, and
    monitoring fish and habitat response to recovery actions.
        2. The appropriation of $437,000 in operation and maintenance funds
    (Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries Activity; Hatchery
    Operations & Maintenance Subactivity, Hatchery Operations Project) to
    support the ongoing operation of the FWS' Ouray National Fish Hatchery
    in Utah during fiscal year 2006.
        3. An increase of $211,000 in the ``Resource Management
    Appropriation; Ecological Services Activity; Endangered Species
    Subactivity; Recovery Element'' budget allocated to the ``San Juan
    River Recovery Implementation Program''. These funds are needed to
    support the FWS Recovery Program Coordinator and staff who are
    responsible for program management and support of all Recovery Program
    activities.
        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. Raising and stocking of the endangered fish
    produced at program hatchery facilities, restoring flood plain habitat
    and fish passage, regulating and supplying instream habitat flows,
    installing diversion canal screens and controlling nonnative fish
    populations are key components of the programs' ongoing capital
    construction projects. 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 these projects;
    and provides for an additional $17 million to be contributed from
    revenues derived from the sale of Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP)
    hydroelectric power. This substantial non-federal cost-sharing funding
    demonstrates the strong commitment and effective partnerships embodied
    in both of these successful programs. The requested federal
    appropriations are critically important to these efforts moving
    forward.
        The support of your Subcommittee in past years is greatly
    appreciated--and has been a major factor in the success of these multi-
    state, multi-agency programs as they have progressed forward towards
    delisting the endangered fish species in the Upper Colorado and San
    Juan River Basins while necessary water use and development activities
    are occurring. I request the Subcommittee's assistance to ensure that
    the FWS is provided with adequate funding for these vitally important
    programs.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the American Society of Civil Engineers
                      the environmental protection agency
        The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) \1\ requests an
    annual appropriation of $1.5 billion from the federal general fund for
    the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) program and $1 billion
    for the Safe Drinking Water SRF. The nation's wastewater treatment
    infrastructure and drinking water systems received a grade of D--from
    ASCE on our 2005 Report Card for America's Infrastructure released on
    March 9, 2005.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ ASCE was founded in 1852 and is the country's oldest national
    civil engineering organization. It represents 137,000 civil engineers
    in private practice, government, industry and academia who are
    dedicated to the advancement of the science and profession of civil
    engineering. ASCE is a non-profit educational and professional society
    organized under Part 1.501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Federal Government has directly invested more than $72 billion
    in the construction of publicly owned sewage treatment works (POTWs)
    and their related facilities since passage of the Clean Water Act in
    1972. Nevertheless, the physical condition of many of the nation's
    16,000 wastewater treatment systems is poor due to a lack of investment
    in plant, equipment, and other capital improvements over the years.
        Numerous wastewater systems have reached the end of their useful
    design life. Older systems are plagued by chronic overflows during
    major rain storms and heavy snowmelt and, intentionally or not, are
    bringing about the discharge of raw sewage into U.S. surface waters.
    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated in August 2004
    that the volume of combined sewer overflows (CSOs) discharged
    nationwide is 850 billion gallons a year. Sanitary sewer overflows
    (SSOs), caused by blocked or broken pipes, trigger the release of as
    much as 10 billion gallons of raw sewage yearly, according to the EPA.
        Federal funding under the Clean Water Act State Revolving Loan Fund
    (SRF) program has remained flat for the last decade. With one
    exception, Congress appropriated between $1.2 billion and $1.35 billion
    from 1995 to 2004.\2\ But in fiscal year 2005 Congress cut wastewater
    SRF funding for the first time in 8 years, reducing the total
    investment to $1.1 billion. The Bush administration has proposed
    further cuts for fiscal year 2006, with a budget submittal calling for
    an appropriation of only $730 million, a reduction of 33 percent from
    the fiscal year 2005 enacted level.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ The appropriation for state SRF programs was reduced to $625
    million in fiscal year 1997.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Federal assistance has not kept pace with the needs. Yet virtually
    every authority agrees that funding needs remain very high: the United
    States must invest an additional $181 billion for all types of sewage
    treatment projects eligible for funding under the Act, according to the
    most recent Needs Survey estimate by the EPA and the states, completed
    in August 2003.
        In September 2002, EPA released a detailed Gap Analysis, which
    assessed the difference between current spending for wastewater
    infrastructure and total funding needs. The EPA Gap Analysis estimated
    that, over the next two decades, the United States needs to spend
    nearly $390 billion to replace existing wastewater infrastructure
    systems and to build new ones. (The total includes money for some
    projects not currently eligible for federal funds, such as system
    replacement, which are not reflected in the EPA-state Needs Survey).
        According to the Gap Analysis, if there is no increase in
    investment, there will be about a $6 billion gap between current annual
    capital expenditures for wastewater treatment ($13 billion annually)
    and projected spending needs. The study also estimated that, if
    wastewater spending increases by only 3 percent a year, the gap would
    shrink by nearly 90 percent (to about $1 billion annually).
        The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its own gap analysis
    in 2002 in which it determined that the gap for wastewater ranges,
    depending on various financial and accounting variables, from $23
    billion to $37 billion annually.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ None of the estimates cited includes the costs of operation and
    maintenance (O&M), costs that are borne entirely by the local utilities
    and are not eligible for federal funding. The 2002 Gap Analysis, for
    example, put the total O&M costs at $161 billion for the 20-year study
    period.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --We support annual appropriations of $1.5 billion from the federal
            general fund for the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund
            (SRF) program.
      --In addition, we support the establishment of a federal capital
            budget to create a mechanism to help reduce the constant
            conflict between short-term and long-term needs. The current
            federal budget process does not differentiate between
            expenditures for current consumption and long-term investment.
            This causes major inefficiencies in the planning, design and
            construction process for long-term investments. A capital
            budget system would help increase public awareness of the
            problems and needs facing this country's physical
            infrastructure and help Congress focus on programs devoted to
            long-term growth and productivity.
        In addition, the nation's 54,000 drinking water systems face
    staggering public investment needs over the next 20 years. Although
    America spends billions on infrastructure each year, drinking water
    faces an annual shortfall of at least $11 billion to replace aging
    facilities that are near the end of their useful life and to comply
    with existing and future federal water regulations. The shortfall does
    not account for any growth in the demand for drinking water over the
    next 20 years.
        In 2001, the EPA released a national survey of drinking water
    infrastructure needs. The survey results concluded that approximately
    $151 billion would be needed over 20 years to repair, replace, and
    upgrade the nation's 55,000 community drinking water systems to protect
    public health.
        A year later, the agency published The Clean Water and Drinking
    Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis, which identified potential funding
    gaps between projected needs and spending from 2000 through 2019. This
    analysis estimated a potential 20-year funding gap for drinking water
    capital, and operations and maintenance, ranging from $45 billion to
    $263 billion, depending on spending levels. Capital needs alone were
    pegged at $161 billion, a $10 billion increase from the 2001
    estimate.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are paid for by the local
    water utilities, not the federal government.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The CBO concluded in 2003 that ``current funding from all levels of
    government and current revenues generated from ratepayers will not be
    sufficient to meet the nation's future demand for water
    infrastructure.'' The CBO estimated the nation's needs for drinking
    water investments at between $10 billion and $20 billion over the next
    20 years.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ The CBO approximation does not include the $178 billion to $331
    billion in anticipated pipe replacement costs over the same 20-year
    period.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Federal assistance has not kept pace with demand. Since fiscal year
    1997, Congress has appropriated only between $700 million and $850
    million annually for the Safe Drinking Water Act State Revolving Loan
    Fund (SRF) program, enacted in 1987. The enacted funding level for
    fiscal year 2005 was $850 million, less than 10 percent of the total
    national requirements. The Bush Administration has proposed an
    appropriation of $850 million for fiscal year 2006.
      --ASCE supports a minimum annual appropriation of $1 billion from the
            federal general fund for the Safe Drinking Water State
            Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) program.
      --ASCE supports the establishment of a federal capital budget to
            create a mechanism to help reduce the constant conflict between
            short-term and long-term needs. The current federal budget
            process does not differentiate between expenditures for current
            consumption and long-term investment. This causes major
            inefficiencies in the planning, design and construction process
            for long-term investments.
                      the united states geological survey
        ASCE requests that Congress increase the fiscal year 2006 budget of
    the U.S. Geological Survey to $1 billion, a slight increase from the
    $933 million proposed by the president.
        The USGS plays a critical role in protecting the public from
    natural hazards such as floods and earthquakes, in assessing water
    quality, in providing emergency responders with geospatial data to
    improve homeland security, in analyzing the strategic and economic
    implications of mineral supply and demand, and in providing the science
    needed to manage our natural resources and combat invasive species that
    can threaten agriculture and public health. The USGS is working in
    every state and has nearly 400 offices across the country. To aid in
    its interdisciplinary investigations, the USGS works with more than
    2,000 federal, state, local, tribal and private organizations.
        During the past 10 years, total federal spending for non-defense
    research and development has risen by 64 percent from $45 billion to
    $74 billion in constant dollars. By contrast, funding for the USGS has
    been nearly flat. Even this flat funding for the USGS reflects
    congressional restoration of proposed budget cuts.
        The USGS plays a lead role in reducing the impacts of natural
    hazards. It operates seismic networks and conducts seismic hazard
    analyses that are used to formulate earthquake probabilities and to
    establish building codes across the nation. The USGS monitors volcanoes
    and provides warnings about impending eruptions. It operates a stream
    gage system that enables the National Weather Service to issue flood
    warnings.
        The USGS also plays a vital role in bioinformatics and managing
    natural resources that are essential to our economy, security, and
    environment. The USGS provides knowledge and data that support water,
    energy and mineral resource management as well as wildlife and
    ecosystem management. The USGS provides science needed to combat
    invasive species and wildlife diseases that can cause billions of
    dollars in agricultural losses and threaten public health.
        ASCE recommends that Congress increase the budget of the U.S.
    Geological Survey to $1 billion in fiscal year 2006, an increase of 7.1
    percent above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. The increase would
    enable the USGS to restore the science cuts proposed in the budget
    request, accelerate the timetable for deployment of critical projects
    (e.g., Advanced National Seismic System and the National Map), and
    launch new science initiatives that would begin to reverse the
    cumulative effects of the long-term funding shortfall.
        The fiscal year 2006 budget request would cut funding for the USGS
    by $1.9 million or 0.2 percent to $933.5 million. The budget request
    would offset $36.7 million of cuts in existing program activities with
    $33.4 million in new and expanded program funding.
        In October 2004, the president signed Public Law 108-360, which
    reauthorized the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP)
    for 5 years. As the representatives of the profession most responsible
    for mitigating the effects of earthquakes, ASCE knows the benefits this
    program holds for the nation. For the past 25 years NEHRP has provided
    the resources and leadership that have led to significant advances in
    understanding the risk earthquakes pose and the best ways to counter
    them. The reauthorization represents an opportunity to make greater
    improvements in the nation's efforts to mitigate the effects of
    earthquakes. ASCE acknowledges the President's request of $51.3 million
    for NEHRP functions at USGS, an increase of $4.4 million. To realize
    the potential, however, in lives saved and property damage minimized,
    more in needed.
        ASCE requests that funding at the authorized level of $84.4 million
    be appropriated for the NEHRP functions at the USGS.
                                     ______

                    Prepared Statement of the USGS Coalition
                                    summary
        The USGS Coalition urges Congress to increase the budget of the
    U.S. Geological Survey to $1 billion in fiscal year 2006.
        The USGS plays a crucial role in protecting the public from natural
    hazards such as floods and earthquakes, assessing water quality,
    providing emergency responders with geospatial data to improve homeland
    security, analyzing the strategic and economic implications of mineral
    supply and demand, and providing the science needed to manage our
    natural resources and combat invasive species that can threaten
    agriculture and public health. The USGS is working in every state and
    has nearly 400 offices across the country. To aid in its
    interdisciplinary investigations, the USGS works with over 2,000
    federal, state, local, tribal, and private organizations.
        The USGS Coalition is an alliance of nearly 70 organizations united
    by a commitment to the continued vitality of the unique combination of
    biological, geographical, geological, and hydrological programs of the
    United States Geological Survey. The USGS 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.
                               funding shortfall
        During the past 10 years, total federal spending for non-defense
    research and development has risen by 64 percent from $45 billion to
    $74 billion in constant dollars. By contrast, funding for the USGS has
    been nearly flat, as shown in the accompanying chart (Figure 1). Even
    this flat funding for the USGS reflects congressional restoration of
    proposed budget cuts.

        The need for USGS science in support of decisionmaking has never
    been greater. During the past year, natural hazards have adversely
    affected many communities across the country, including landslides in
    California, hurricanes in Florida, as well as droughts, floods, and
    forest fires in many parts of the country. In addition, the recent
    activity at Mount St. Helens volcano deserves close monitoring for any
    potential danger its continued eruption may pose to communities, air
    quality and air traffic. After the devastating earthquake and tsunami
    in the Indian Ocean, people around the globe have a greater
    appreciation of the need to improve environmental monitoring,
    forecasting, and warning systems that can prevent natural hazards from
    becoming natural disasters.
        The USGS plays a lead role in reducing the impacts of natural
    hazards. It operates seismic networks and conducts seismic hazard
    analyses that are used to formulate earthquake probabilities and to
    establish building codes across the nation. The USGS monitors volcanoes
    and provides warnings about impending eruptions. It operates a stream
    gage system that enables the National Weather Service to issue flood
    warnings.
        Equally as important as natural hazards, the USGS plays a vital
    role in bioinformatics and managing natural resources that are
    essential to our economy, security, and environment. The USGS provides
    knowledge and data that support water, energy and mineral resource
    management as well as wildlife and ecosystem management. The USGS
    provides science needed to combat invasive species (e.g., snakehead
    fish, zebra mussels and tamarisk) and wildlife diseases (e.g., Chronic
    Wasting Disease) that can cause billions of dollars in agricultural
    losses and threaten public health.
        Greater investment in the USGS is required to meet the tremendous
    needs of the future. That investment should be used to strengthen USGS
    partnerships, improve monitoring networks, produce high-quality digital
    geospatial data and deliver the best possible science to address
    societal problems and inform decisionmakers.
        The USGS Coalition is grateful to Congress for its leadership in
    restoring past budget cuts and strengthening the U.S. Geological
    Survey. The House Appropriations Committee has expressed the importance
    of funding USGS science programs in the base budget. Likewise, the
    Senate Appropriations Committee report accompanying last year's
    spending bill says, ``The strength of the Survey's existing efforts in
    many program areas is deserving of additional support. The Committee
    urges that future budget requests place a stronger emphasis on the
    Survey's core programs, which have proven value and strong public
    support.''
                              usgs budget request
        The USGS Coalition urges Congress to increase the budget of the
    U.S. Geological Survey to $1 billion in fiscal year 2006, an increase
    of 7.1 percent above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level, which is
    necessary for the agency to continue providing critical information to
    the public and to decisionmakers at all levels of government. The
    increase recommended by the USGS Coalition would enable the USGS to
    restore the science cuts proposed in the budget request, accelerate the
    timetable for deployment of critical projects (e.g., Advanced National
    Seismic System and the National Map), and launch new science
    initiatives that would begin to reverse the cumulative effects of the
    long-term funding short fall discussed above (Figure 1).
        The fiscal year 2006 budget request would cut funding for the USGS
    by $1.9 million or 0.2 percent to $933.5 million. The budget request
    would offset $36.7 million of cuts in existing program activities with
    $33.4 million in new and expanded program funding. Two large program
    cuts are of special concern to the USGS Coalition. The budget request
    would cut $28.7 million from the Mineral Resources program, a 53
    percent decrease in funding that would decimate the program. The USGS
    budget request would also eliminate the entire $6.4 million budget for
    the Water Resources Research Institutes, which are located in all 50
    states.
        The USGS Mineral Resources program is an essential source of
    objective guidance and unbiased research on our mineral resources. This
    guidance and research is important to reduce the environmental impacts
    of mining and to maintain the growing value of processed materials from
    mineral resources that accounted for $418 billion in the U.S. economy
    in 2004, an increase of 13 percent over 2003. The proposed cuts in the
    Minerals program would also terminate multidisciplinary research that
    has important implications for public health and environmental
    protection, such as studies on mercury, arsenic and other inorganic
    toxins.
        The Water Resources Research Institutes have been successful in
    developing cooperative programs that leverage federal investments with
    funds from other sources. Last year, the House Appropriations
    Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies said, ``The
    Administration has placed a high priority on cooperative programs that
    leverage funds from State and local governments as well as private
    entities. The Committee believes that Bureaus that are successful in
    implementing these policies should be rewarded and not penalized.''
        The proposed budget cuts would adversely affect the ability of the
    USGS to achieve its mission. We encourage Congress to restore these
    cuts, but this funding should not come at the expense of other high
    priority programs elsewhere in the USGS budget.
        The USGS budget request would add $33.4 million in new and expanded
    program funding, including $5.4 million for facilities and operations
    to provide more robust detection and notification of earthquakes that
    could generate a dangerous tsunami. The USGS effort will be conducted
    in conjunction with NOAA's effort to enhance and expand the tsunami
    warning system to detect any tsunami that might strike anywhere along
    the U.S. coastal region. The budget request would also provide an
    increase of $19.5 million for land remote sensing activities that
    support a broad array of economic, agricultural and environmental
    issues. This funding would allow the USGS to continue operation of the
    damaged Landsat 7 satellite and work with NASA and NOAA to begin
    building a ground-based system for a Landsat follow-on mission. The
    USGS budget request would provide small increases to improve volcanic
    monitoring, expand water availability pilot studies to assess ground-
    water depletion in the western United States, strengthen ecosystem
    studies in Puget Sound, and address a wide range of other issues. These
    initiatives deserve the support of Congress.
        The USGS budget request contains $17.2 million to provide full
    funding for increases in ``fixed costs,'' such as salaries and rent. In
    past years, increases in fixed costs were partially ``absorbed'' by
    individual programs. Cumulatively, this practice has had a
    disproportionate impact on core USGS programs in biology, geology,
    hydrology, and mapping, which cannot absorb cuts without affecting
    scientific research and monitoring activities. Without full funding of
    fixed cost increases, the USGS may be forced to curtail ongoing
    activities, hindering or preventing the delivery of data needed by
    natural resource managers and emergency planners. This would increase
    our vulnerability to natural disasters and increase the costs of
    recovery.
        In addition to restoring the proposed program cuts, we encourage
    Congress to consider additional increases that would enable the USGS to
    meet the tremendous need for science in support of public policy
    decisionmaking. More investment is needed to strengthen USGS
    partnerships, improve monitoring networks, produce high-quality digital
    geospatial data and deliver the best possible science to address
    societally important problems. The USGS has a national mission that
    encompasses the homes of all citizens through natural hazards
    monitoring, drinking water studies, biological and geological resource
    assessments, and other activities.
        Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of our request.
                                     ______

                               CULTURAL AGENCIES

                  Prepared Statement of Americans for the Arts
        Americans for the Arts is pleased to submit written testimony
    requesting that fiscal year 2006 funding for the National Endowment for
    the Arts (NEA) be restored to $170 million, and that funds not be
    diverted from its Challenge America program. The requested funding
    would:
      --restore the NEA's ability to perform its core mission of supporting
            the creation, preservation and presentation of the arts in
            America;
      --strengthen the Challenge America program, which uses the arts to
            enhance America's communities through improved access to the
            arts for all Americans;
      --expand special programs and initiatives; and
      --cover increased administrative and grantmaking costs.
        We would like to focus on four main areas: the role of local arts
    agencies; government funding for the arts at the federal, state and
    local levels; the Challenge America program; and a new updated report,
    Creative Industries, which documents the reach of the arts industry
    across the entire nation.
        Local arts agencies are Americans for the Arts' key constituency,
    and advancing full and affordable access to the arts remains at the
    heart of our mission. Local arts agencies meet community needs by using
    the arts to address social, educational, and economic development
    issues as well as to promote individual creativity and appreciation.
    They make grants, provide services to artists and arts organizations,
    and present arts programming to the public. Typically, local arts
    agencies lead community cultural planning--a community-inclusive
    process of assessing local cultural needs and mapping a plan of
    implementation. NEA leadership has played a pivotal role in creating
    and sustaining local arts agencies, which have grown in number from 500
    in 1965, when the NEA was established, to 4,000 today. Three-quarters
    of all existing local arts agencies are private non-profit
    organizations, while the remainder are public agencies.
        As grantees of the NEA, local arts agencies are stewards of federal
    funds, which are instrumental in leveraging local government funds and
    private resources. They are vital to thousands of local arts projects
    that nurture the artistic excellence of local artists while creating
    jobs and fostering critical local, state and federal tax revenue.
    Federal funds are more important than ever: although local arts agency
    budgets saw steady growth for nearly a decade, changing economic
    conditions recently sparked declines in funding for these agencies.
    Unfortunately, however, the NEA has not recovered from the cuts of mid-
    1990's, when it lost 40 percent of its budget. The full picture of
    federal, state and local funding is illustrated in the following chart:

                   local arts agencies and challenge america
        NEA is making a determined effort to bring the arts to all
    Americans through the Challenge America program. The program's broad-
    based goals are to connect families and communities more closely to the
    arts, to provide access to the arts in underserved areas, and to reach
    communities not previously served by the NEA.
        Since its initial funding, Challenge America has reached hundreds
    of rural communities and inner-city neighborhoods with limited arts
    resources. Using these grants, LAA's have partnered with other
    organizations to tackle projects from developing economic cultural
    tourism plans and restoring historic structures to addressing
    educational needs. Thus, these grants help build local, sustainable
    arts infrastructure. In large part through Challenge America, NEA
    directly funded projects in 99 percent of all Congressional districts
    in fiscal year 2004, up from 75 percent previously.
        Examples of recent Challenge America grants include:
    Arts and Culture Commission of Contra Costa County, Martinez, CA
        To support developing and maintaining various communications tools
    that promote the arts and to enhance outreach to underserved
    communities in the county.
    City of Delta, Delta, CO
        To support the Council Tree Pow Wow & Cultural Festival, presenting
    American Indian dancing, singing, drumming, and visual arts by local
    artisans. This is a joint project of the three Ute tribes, who had not
    worked together on any project since leaving their historic Delta
    homeland over 100 years ago.
    Billings Cultural Partners, Billings, MT
        To support the creation and implementation of Westfest, positioning
    Billings as a cultural destination that will couple cultural events and
    attractions with services. Nineteen organizations are participating in
    this collaborative effort, including Yellowstone County, the Downtown
    Billings Association, and the city's arts and cultural institutions.
    Salt Lake Arts Council Foundation, Salt Lake City, UT
        To support Living Traditions: A Celebration of Salt Lake's Folk and
    Ethnic Arts. The three-day festival is expected to have an audience of
    up to 40,000.
        Unfortunately, the President's budget request for NEA is for level
    funding. Furthermore, it would cut Challenge America by about $6
    million, while expanding the new American Masterpieces initiative. We
    appeal to the Subcommittee to preserve existing programs of proven
    effectiveness before expanding new initiatives.
       creative industries and jobs are in every state and congressional
                                    district
        Finally, we wish to bring to the Subcommittee's attention a new
    report conducted by Americans for the Arts, ``Creative Industries'',
    which provides a new, research-based approach to understanding the
    scope of the arts, and demonstrates the need to cultivate our nation's
    innovative workforce.
        The creative industries are composed of businesses that are
    involved with the creation and distribution of the arts, ranging from
    nonprofit museums, symphonies, and theaters to for-profit film,
    architecture, and advertising companies. When the non-profit and for-
    profit sectors are studied together, a clear picture emerges of the
    contributions of the creative industries to local economies. Indeed,
    they form a bridge to all corners of the new ``information economy'',
    the fastest growing sector of the U.S. economy.
        Based on data provided by Dun & Bradstreet, the report shows that
    as of 2005, there are 578,487 arts businesses in the United States,
    employing 2,965,893 people. These figures represent 4.4 percent of all
    businesses and 2.2 percent of U.S. employment.
        Using sophisticated mapping technology, the report reveals the
    extraordinary presence of the creative industries, showing that they
    are a significant portion of every congressional district's economic
    output.
        By way of illustration, in the states just of Members of this
    Subcommittee alone, there are 155,778 businesses and 768,157 jobs in
    the Creative Industries. Here are the details:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Employees    Businesses
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Alaska........................................        5,368        1,368
    California....................................      493,650       92,341
    Colorado......................................       55,077       13,051
    Idaho.........................................       10,583        2,867
    Maryland......................................       46,536       10,742
    Mississippi...................................       11,708        2,778
    Montana.......................................        8,752        2,170
    Nevada........................................       20,594        4,609
    New Hampshire.................................       10,599        3,166
    New Mexico....................................       15,175        4,129
    North Dakota..................................        5,430        1,085
    Utah..........................................       23,290        5,045
    Vermont.......................................        8,679        1,849
    West Virginia.................................        8,432        1,682
    Wisconsin.....................................       44,284        8,896
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Public funding for the arts and for arts education helps to create
    and sustain an environment in which these businesses flourish.
                                   conclusion
        Local arts agencies are key players in improving community life,
    from offering in-school and after-school educational programs for
    children to working with local law enforcement to reduce crime.
    Similarly, local arts agencies are strengthening our communities'
    economies every day by increasing tourism, urban renewal, and
    attracting new businesses, all while contributing vital dollars in
    local, state and federal tax revenue. We urge this subcommittee to make
    a commitment to supporting education and community building projects
    through local arts agencies by restoring funding for the National
    Endowment for the Arts to $170 million, and by ensuring that funding is
    not diverted from Challenge America.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the American Symphony Orchestra League
        On behalf of America's orchestras, the American Symphony Orchestra
    League urges the subcommittee to approve fiscal year 2006 funding for
    the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) at a level of $170 million.
    The NEA is still recovering from deep cuts to its budget in the mid-
    nineties. The current level of funding for the NEA, $121.3 million, is
    well below its peak funding of $176 million in 1992. An increased
    appropriation would expand the NEA's ability to serve the American
    public through: grants supporting and promoting the creation,
    preservation, and presentation of the arts in America; support for the
    Challenge America initiative to improve access to the arts for all
    Americans; and funding of the national initiative, American
    Masterpieces: Three Centuries of Artistic Genius.
        The American Symphony Orchestra League is the national service
    organization for more than 900 symphony, chamber, youth, and collegiate
    orchestras, with budgets ranging from less than $25,000 to more than
    $25 million. Together with the NEA, we share a common goal of
    strengthening orchestras as organizations and promoting the value of
    the music they perform.
        The resolve of American orchestras to reach all segments of their
    communities is strong. Composer residencies at orchestras are on the
    rise. The number of education staffers at American orchestras has grown
    at least tenfold in the last 25 years. Orchestras are working to
    increase the representation of their diverse communities both on stage
    and in the audience.
        All of these efforts come at a cost that cannot be covered by
    ticket sales alone. The grants awarded to orchestras by the NEA, and
    support provided to orchestras through NEA funds administered by state
    arts agencies, provide critical support for projects that increase
    access to music in communities nationwide. NEA funding both directly
    supports local projects and also spurs critical giving from other
    sources like private foundations, corporations, and individual
    contributors. Given the current economic strain on all funding sources,
    the NEA's commitment is especially meaningful.
        A few quick facts about the state of American orchestras:
      --Supported by a network of musicians, volunteers, administrators,
            and community leaders, America's adult, youth, and college
            orchestras total more than 1,800 and exist in every state and
            territory, in cities and rural areas alike. They engage more
            than 76,000 instrumentalists, employ (with and without pay)
            more than 11,000 administrative staff, and attract more than
            250,000 volunteers and trustees.
      --American orchestras have never been in greater demand. In the
            course of a season, orchestras perform nearly 30,000 concerts
            to total audiences nearing 30 million. Current attendance at
            concerts is higher than a decade ago.
      --Orchestras are amazingly resilient, though their economic structure
            is delicately balanced. They are strongly supported by their
            communities and musicians. During the last recessionary period,
            eight orchestras ceased operations. Today, in each of those
            eight communities, a new or restructured orchestra of
            comparable scale has emerged.
    nea grants support the creation, presentation, and preservation of the
                                      arts
        The NEA is a critical component in the network of public, private,
    corporate, and philanthropic support that makes the work of America's
    orchestras possible. Orchestras and the communities they serve benefit
    from NEA support through direct grants to organizations, support for
    national initiatives, and distribution of NEA funds through state arts
    agencies. In the most recently completed grant year, fiscal year 2004,
    the NEA's Grants to Organizations included 97 grants to orchestras and
    the communities they serve, supporting arts education for children and
    adults, expanding public access to performances, preserving great
    classical works, and fostering the creative endeavors of contemporary
    classical musicians, composers, and conductors.
      --An NEA Leadership Initiative award to Meet The Composer supports
            the Music Alive residency program, which connects composers
            with a wide range of orchestras and local communities, and
            draws on the creative strengths of composers as artistic
            collaborators, teachers, and new-music advocates. Composers
            guide their host orchestras' presentation of new music and
            assist in the performance of their own works, and the community
            in education and outreach activities. NEA support provides
            direct resources for the Music Alive program, serves as a
            catalyst for further funding, and elevates the visibility of
            the program as a potential national model.
      --A grant to the Canton Symphony Orchestra supports their Community
            Heritage Celebration, in honor of Canton's Bicentennial. A new
            work by composer Eric Gould, based on the history and diversity
            of the city's neighborhoods, will be created with the
            involvement of school students and other community members and
            presented to the public free of charge. The performance,
            scheduled for April 30, features students from Canton City
            Middle Schools.
      --NEA funding for the Fairbanks Symphony supported a tour of 35-40
            core members of the orchestra. The tour brought orchestral
            music to underserved areas of Alaska, including Salcha,
            Glennallen, Valdez, Ft. Greeley Army Base and Eielson Air Force
            Base. The orchestra collaborated with local arts organizations,
            military base command, and area schools to present workshops
            and performances at elementary schools and in community
            concerts.
        For each project funded by the NEA, there are many other worthy
    initiatives that go unrecognized by federal support due to lack of
    adequate funding. We ask you to expand the NEA's ability to perform its
    core mission through an increase to support and promote the creation,
    preservation, and presentation of the arts in America.
                  challenge america: reaching every community
        For any individual, participating in the arts can be a
    transformative event--provoking powerful emotions, illuminating a new
    perspective on the ordinary, and elevating the senses. Likewise, the
    arts can transform communities--instilling civic pride, improving
    education, and spurring economic growth. To be truly national in its
    scope, the NEA recognizes that every American should have access to the
    transformative power of an arts-rich community. In fiscal year 2004,
    the NEA made 54 awards to orchestras in areas previously underserved by
    the NEA, through the initiative Challenge America: Reaching Every
    Community.
      --The Wheeling Symphony Orchestra received an NEA grant to provide an
            artist-in-residence program for at-risk youth called ``Voices
            and Music.'' The program is led by artist Scott Reed, a
            professional musician and educator, reaching children in grades
            K-8 from Wheeling's economically-challenged urban core.
            ``Voices and Music'' aims to build self-confidence through
            participation in the arts. A school administrator described the
            impact of the program on an extremely introverted young
            student, ``After a semester with his own recorder, he was
            offering performances to anyone who would listen.'' The
            orchestra is committed to providing the program year after
            year, offering local children the opportunity to grow in their
            skills and ensuring deep partnerships within the community.
      --NEA funding for the Chattanooga Symphony and Opera supported a
            project inviting high school students to create a musical and
            visual response to Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition. The
            project met the goal of reaching new audiences by both
            involving the student-artists and attracting an audience of
            their curious peers, eager to see the resulting multi-media
            performance.
      --In fiscal year 2004, the Williamsport Symphony Orchestra received
            its first NEA grant, funding a concert performance in a
            neighboring community. In addition to the anticipated
            engagement with new audiences, the grant has substantially
            elevated public recognition of the orchestra. The NEA grant was
            announced as the orchestra worked to complete its endowment
            campaign. The orchestra credits its ultimate fundraising
            success to the power of the NEA grant to leverage additional
            financial contributions from private individuals who hold the
            orchestra in new esteem.
        All three of the grants to orchestras described above exhibit the
    hallmarks of the Challenge America program: reaching new audiences,
    attracting additional financial support, and creating meaningful
    partnerships with local community organizations.
           american masterpieces: three centuries of artistic genius
        The NEA plans to further strengthen public access to excellence in
    the arts through a program titled American Masterpieces: Three
    Centuries of Artistic Genius. This multi-year program will direct new
    resources in three areas:
      --Touring programs by major and mid-sized arts organizations,
            presenting acknowledged masterpieces to new audiences.
      --Local presentations of American art forms, including works of
            American music.
      --Arts education efforts that will combine in-school programs with
            the touring and local presentation of artistic masterpieces.
        Currently in its first year, the American Masterpieces project
    supports tours of visual arts exhibitions to underserved communities.
    In fiscal year 2006, American Masterpieces plans to expand touring
    programs to include dance, chorus, and musical theater, and will focus
    on providing substantial educational opportunities for students and
    teachers. Orchestras are poised to participate in the American
    Masterpieces project, and look forward to this opportunity to increase
    public access and appreciation for America's treasured composers and
    newest artistic voices. While the NEA is committed to expanding public
    access to the arts, it is steadfast in its support for a quality
    artistic product. Just as standards of artistic excellence are the
    primary criterion for NEA grant decisions, artistic excellence
    continues to guide the day-to-day operations and missions of American
    orchestras.
        The Endowment's unique ability to provide a national forum to
    promote excellence, both through high standards for artistic products
    and the highest expectation of accessibility, remains one of the
    strongest arguments for a federal role in support of the arts. We ask
    you to support creativity and access to the arts by approving an
    increase in funding for the National Endowment for the Arts.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the National Coalition for History
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of the
    seventy-plus members of the National Coalition for History--a
    confederation of history and archival organizations that care deeply
    about the programs and activities of the National Endowment for the
    Humanities (NEH)--we are pleased to submit the following brief
    testimony for the record regarding the proposed fiscal year 2006 budget
    for the NEH.
        While we understand that these are fiscally challenging times, we
    respectfully urge the committee to support a funding level of $153.1
    million for the National Endowment for the Humanities in fiscal year
    2006. This represents only a modest increase of $15 million above the
    fiscal year 2005 level appropriated by Congress and the President's
    fiscal year 2006 request. We believe that this funding at this level
    will strengthen core programs that have experienced cuts in past years.
    Such a funding level also will further the reach of the NEH's important
    history-based initiative that is of particular importance to the
    history and archive communities--``We the People.''
        It is our belief that the flat-funding level recommendations of
    $138.1 million for the NEH as proposed by the President will not allow
    the agency to maintain the current reach of its programs. Because of
    factors such as inflation and mandated administrative costs, ``level
    funding,'' in reality, translates into a cut for the agency. Though we
    recognize that Congress faces unusually difficult fiscal choices this
    year, the programs and activities of the NEH are of such importance to
    our nation--especially to our young people--that we urge you to support
    a modest funding increase of $15 million.
        History is at the core of many of the NEH's important programs.
    Recently, NEH Chairman Bruce Cole emphasized this when he spoke of the
    need for a national investment in teaching and learning in the
    humanities. He stated, ``Knowledge of our history is not a luxury, it's
    a necessity; Democracy is not self-sustaining; it needs to be learned
    and passed down from generation to generation.'' This is the heart of
    the mission of the NEH, and it is as important today as ever. As the
    American nation struggles abroad in an effort to bring a greater
    appreciation to the principles of democracy, programs like the ``We the
    People'' initiative do much to education our nation's youth of the
    importance of and understanding of American history, culture, and
    civics. The program deserves to be supported and expanded.
        While we remain strongly supportive of the ``We the People''
    program that was launched by President Bush several years back in an
    effort to counter the growing trend of ignorance of American history by
    our populace, we note that the White House target of spending $100
    million for this important program over a three year period has not
    been realized. Nevertheless, some 300 projects have received funding
    through the program, and largely, they have been effective.
        But there are also other equally important history, research, and
    archive-related programs that also deserve funding and support. This
    year, since the Administration has recommended zero funding for the
    National Historical Publications and Records Commission (the grant-
    making arm of the National Archives and Records Administration that
    supports the preservation and publication of our documentary heritage)
    increasing NEH support for scholarly edition projects that are
    currently being funded out of the Research division are all that more
    important.
        Mr. Chairman, there also is a critical need to restore and broaden
    the reach of the NEH core programs so that not just American history
    receives emphasis but world and comparative history as well. That goal
    can partially be met by restoring funding to NEH core programs
    including scholarly research, preservation access, education, challenge
    grants, public programs and for the all important activities that
    emerge out of the federal-state partnership where as our colleagues
    affiliated with the 56 state humanities councils been doing such good
    work with very limited funding from the NEH.
        We appreciate the past support of this committee and its members
    have provided on behalf of our nation's historical, cultural and
    intellectual heritage that are realized through the programmatic
    activities of the National Endowment for the Humanities.
        Thank You.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the National Humanities Alliance
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of the
    National Humanities Alliance and its members, we are pleased to submit
    written testimony for the record in support of the National Endowment
    for the Humanities (NEH). The National Humanities Alliance respectfully
    urges Congress to support funding of $153.1 million for fiscal year
    2006 for the National Endowment for the Humanities, an increase of $15
    million above the fiscal year 2005 level and the President's request.
    This funding will strengthen the NEH core programs and further the
    reach of the NEH's highly successful We the People initiative.
        The National Humanities Alliance is a coalition of more than 80
    national, state, and local nonprofit organizations, including scholarly
    and professional associations; higher education associations;
    organizations of museums, libraries, historical societies, and state
    humanities councils; university-based and independent humanities
    research centers. The Alliance was founded in 1981 to advance the cause
    of the humanities by promoting the common interests of its members with
    regard to national policy and legislation affecting scholarly research
    and public understanding of the humanities.
                               funding background
        While we are pleased that the President's budget request continues
    funding for the NEH We the People program, we are disappointed that the
    administration has recommended flat funding for this initiative and for
    the NEH core programs at the fiscal year 2005 level of $138.1 million.
    Level funding will not allow the agency to maintain the current reach
    of its programs.
        We recognize that Congress faces unusually difficult choices this
    year, and are asking the committee to recommend a modest funding
    increase for the agency of $15 million. While this sum does not nearly
    meet the many needs for which the agency was created, it would make an
    impact, and help ensure the long-term effectiveness of this agency that
    is critical to the civic life of our democracy. We are especially
    concerned about the long-term impact of inflation and other pressures
    on the agency's ability to carry out the mandate for which it was
    established. The funding table below illustrates the decline, both in
    nominal and constant dollars, in the agency's spending levels.

                                       NEH APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEARS 1970-2005
                                                [In millions of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Fiscal year
                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               1970    1975    1980    1985    1990    1995    2000    2004    2005
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Nominal Value...........................     8.9    79.1   150.1   139.5   156.9   172.0   115.3   135.3   138.1
    Constant Value (2004)...................    43.1   277.9   344.1   244.9   226.8   213.2   126.4   135.3   134.5
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note.--``Nominal'' values are the amounts appropriated by Congress. ``Constant'' values (expressed in 2004
      dollars) are adjusted for inflation according to the annual CPI-U data. The estimated inflation rate for 2005
      is assumed to be the same as in 2004.

        The National Endowment for the Humanities was established forty
    years ago as an independent grant-making agency of the federal
    government to support research, education, and public programs in the
    humanities. As the founding legislation of the NEH says, ``Democracy
    Demands Wisdom.'' In a recent public address, NEH Chairman Bruce Cole
    echoed these statements when he spoke eloquently of the need for a
    national investment in teaching and learning in the humanities.
    ``Knowledge of our history is not a luxury, it's a necessity . . .
    Democracy is not self-sustaining; it needs to be learned and passed
    down from generation to generation. We have to know our great founding
    principals, how our institutions came into being, how they work, what
    our rights and responsibilities are.'' \1\ An appreciation of the
    relationship of the humanities to democracy was a key factor in the
    establishment of the NEH forty years ago and remains so today. In 2005,
    NEH is operating at less than half of its demonstrated capacity of even
    30 years ago; yet at no time has the work of NEH been more critical to
    the survival of our democracy, the global competitiveness of our
    workforce, and our national security.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Bruce Cole, National Press Club, November 16, 2004.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        There is great need and demand for the leadership and support
    provided by the NEH. In fiscal year 2004, the NEH reviewed 4,921 grant
    proposals (requesting a total of $363.0 million in federal funds). The
    NEH Council recommended the approval of 1,090 applications. Due to
    funding constraints, only 22 percent of the requests were funded in the
    past fiscal year.
                                 we the people
        Increased funding for the NEH will go a long way to extend the
    reach of the NEH We the People initiative to advance understanding of
    American history, culture, and civics. The program was launched by
    President Bush in response to numerous polls and surveys over the past
    decade, which indicate that many Americans lack even a basic knowledge
    about their nation's history. In a White House Rose Garden Ceremony in
    September 2002, President Bush described the need for the expanded NEH
    program: ``Our Founders believed that the study of history and
    citizenship should be at the core of every American's education. Yet
    today, our children have large and disturbing gaps in their knowledge
    of history . . . Ignorance of American history and civics weakens our
    sense of citizenship.''
        The White House initially pledged $100 million for We the People
    over three years, and we are pleased that it has now waived the three-
    year limit to allow it to be continuing program. While only now
    entering its third year of funding, the initiative has already been
    highly successful. To date, more than 300 projects have received
    funding through the program, working through each of the core program
    divisions of the NEH. The initiative consists of projects sponsored
    directly by NEH, and grants made through the agency's other program
    divisions. A critical aspect of the We the People initiative is that
    because it works through the NEH core programs, it can broaden the
    reach of these divisions by freeing funds for other highly-rated
    projects. More detail on the NEH core programs, and examples of We the
    People projects supported through them, is provided below.
        We the People has drawn scholars, teachers, filmmakers, museum
    professionals, librarians, and others engaged in humanities work to
    develop projects on the most significant events and themes in American
    history and culture. It has provided significant new resources to each
    of the state humanities councils, and is truly reaching communities
    nationwide.
                               neh core programs
        While the We the People special initiative is presently the most
    visible NEH initiative, the core programs of the Endowment, which have
    developed over the last four decades, are the backbone of federal
    involvement in the humanities. Unfortunately, in recent years, funding
    for the NEH core programs has declined in moderate but real terms.
    Additional funds are needed to sustain the long-term grant-making
    ability of the agency in the following areas:
        Research.--Scholarly research is the engine that provides content
    and structure for all other humanities activities. Research grants
    facilitate basic research and original scholarship in all fields of the
    humanities, including languages, linguistics, literature, history, law,
    philosophy, archaeology, comparative religion, ethics, and art history.
    Fellowships and grants awarded by the research division are among the
    most coveted by American scholars. Projects supported by NEH
    fellowships and summer stipends for college and university teachers,
    and independent scholars have, over the years, produced more than 6,000
    books including eleven Pulitzer Prize winners. Collaborative Research
    grants support original scholarship conducted by teams of researchers.
    Scholarly Editions grants support the preparation of texts and
    documents that are currently inaccessible or available in inadequate
    editions. Projects involve significant literary, philosophical, and
    historical materials and translations.
        Education.--Education is, of course, at the center of the NEH
    mission. Education grants strengthen teaching and learning in schools,
    colleges, and universities through teacher training institutes and
    seminars, through curriculum development, and through online tools for
    teachers, parents, and students. A We the People initiative managed
    through this division is the new NEH teacher training/professional
    development program called ``Landmarks of American History,'' which
    offers a series of workshops for K-12 and community college teachers at
    important historical sites across the United States. Upcoming workshop
    sites for 2005 include the Kituah Cherokee Landmark near Cherokee,
    North Carolina; Mount Vernon in Arlington, Virginia; the Alamo, in San
    Antonio, TX; and Civil Rights Landmarks in Birmingham, Montgomery,
    Selma, and Tuskegee, AL.
        Preservation.--Through the Preservation and Access Division NEH
    makes grants to preserve unique historical, cultural and intellectual
    materials; for collection development and catalogs; and for
    encyclopedias and other projects. An exciting new project made possible
    through We the People is the National Digital Newspaper Program (NDNP),
    a multi-year partnership between the NEH and the Library of Congress to
    convert microfilm of historically significant U.S. newspapers published
    between 1836 and 1922 into fully searchable digital files. More than 30
    million pages of newspapers will be made accessible online to students,
    teachers, parents, scholars, historians. The Preservation division is
    also making significant contributions to understanding and preservation
    of world cultures. In 2003, the NEH announced a special initiative,
    ``Recovering Iraq's Past,'' to support projects that preserve and
    document cultural resources in Iraq's archives, libraries and museums.
    Awards in 2004 included a digital library of cuneiform tables
    documenting Mesopotamian civilization from 3300 B.C. to 100 A.D.
        Public Programs.--It is through NEH-funded public humanities
    programming that the endowment works most directly with the American
    public. From traveling exhibits in local museums and libraries to film,
    television and radio productions, NEH public programs reach literally
    millions of citizens in communities throughout the U.S. Recent projects
    include the Emmy-award winning documentary Benjamin Franklin; The
    Legacy of Genghis Khan: Courtly Art and Culture in Western Asia, a
    traveling museum exhibit which recently won the Alfred Barr Award for
    Museum Scholarship from the College Art Association; and a series of
    bilingual reading and discussion programs called Family Portraits,
    which drew readers to over 150 libraries in eight western states, as
    well as New York and Florida. ``America's Historic Places'' is a We the
    People initiative that encourages the use of historic sites to address
    themes and issues central to our nation's history.
        Federal State Partnership.--The network of 56 state humanities
    councils has proven to be very effective in delivering humanities
    programming to small towns and rural areas that might not otherwise
    have access to such programs. Funding for We the People will continue
    to provide significant new resources to state humanities councils, in
    recognition of the unique role councils play in carrying out these
    programs at the local level. Through this initiative, councils have
    developed unique teacher workshops, lectures, reading and discussion
    programs, exhibitions and public meetings that help local citizens
    appreciate the events, people and institutions that define the history
    of their communities and nation. For example, in anticipation of the
    400th anniversary of Virginia in 2007, the Virginia Foundation for the
    Humanities has just awarded a consultation and planning grant to the
    Virginia Council on Indians to help establish a Virginia Indian
    Heritage Trail and to create a database on publicly-accessible
    collections and sites where Virginia Indian history and culture are
    interpreted.
        Challenge Grants.--Challenge Grants strengthen the institutional
    base of the humanities by stimulating and matching nonfederal
    contributions to humanities projects, including such hard-to-fund areas
    as endowment, renovations, and collections development. First-time
    recipients of a challenge grant must match every federal dollar with
    three nonfederal dollars, and recipients of subsequent awards must
    raise four nonfederal dollars for every dollar.
        Most programs of the humanities endowment award matching grants,
    which entail on offer of NEH funding that is conditioned on an
    equivalent amount of fund-raising by the recipient. Since the
    establishment of NEH in 1965 through fiscal year 2004, Endowment
    matching funds have stimulated $384 million in third-party donations,
    and NEH Challenge Grants have leveraged another $1.46 billion in
    institutional support. A small investment in the American people
    through NEH goes a long way.
        Thank you for your consideration of our request. We appreciate the
    support of this committee for our nation's cultural and intellectual
    resources through the National Endowment for the Humanities.
                                     ______

                           DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

        Prepared Statement of the American Forest and Paper Association
        The American Forest and Paper Association \1\ (AF&PA) supports
    sustainable forest management on all forest lands. Policies governing
    our federal forestlands must consist of active management, progress on
    long-term forest health, and local level decision-making. The following
    recommendations concern fiscal year 2006 appropriations for the U.S.
    Forest Service. Restoring the health of our national forests through
    active management is AF&PA's number one priority for the Forest Service
    fiscal year 2006 budget.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ AF&PA is the national trade association of the forest, paper
    and wood products industry. AF&PA represents more than 200 companies
    and related associations that engage in or represent the manufacture of
    pulp, paper, paperboard and wood products. The forest products industry
    accounts for approximately 7 percent of total U.S. manufacturing
    output, employs 1.3 million people, and ranks among the top ten
    manufacturing employers in 42 states.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     active management of national forests
        Millions of acres of federal forests across the country are
    threatened with catastrophic wildfire and insect and disease
    infestation, posing serious risks to adjacent private forestlands,
    communities, and wildlife habitat. The President's Healthy Forests
    Initiative (HFI) and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) of 2003
    were tremendous steps forward in addressing this crisis, providing
    tools to our federal land management agencies to get more accomplished
    on the ground.
        The fiscal year 2006 budget needs to provide resources to our
    national forests to restore forest health through active management.
    Forest Service data indicate that annual growth of trees on the
    national forests currently exceeds annual harvest by five-fold, meaning
    that overstocked forests are becoming even more overstocked and even
    more at risk from fires and insect epidemics. The National Forest
    System budget as a proportion of the total Forest Service budget has
    shrunk significantly over the last 15 years, limiting the resources
    that can be devoted to addressing this crisis.
        AF&PA supports an increase of $30 million above the President's
    request for the National Forest System program, targeted to the Forest
    Products line item and other budget line items that support forest
    health and produce fiber.
        Forest Products.--AF&PA recommends increasing the total volume sold
    to 3.0 billion board feet, which can be achieved through additional
    funding and a reduction in unit costs. Timber sales and stewardship
    projects are important tools to achieve forest health and hazardous
    fuels reduction objectives, and to retain forest industry
    infrastructure. AF&PA believes that a reduction in unit costs through
    the greater use of Healthy Forests Initiative efficiencies is not only
    possible, but a critical step in actively managing more acres and
    providing additional timber sale volume.
        The need to maintain industry infrastructure (e.g., mills) is a
    critical component to achieving national forest objectives, with the
    loss of infrastructure already resulting in direct impact on forest
    health in many areas. A reliable and consistent supply of national
    forest timber is critical to the stability of this infrastructure.
        AF&PA supports the Forest Service's plan to change the
    accomplishment metric for the timber sale program from volume offered
    to volume sold. The Forest Service has indicated that regions will be
    operating under that metric in fiscal year 2006. This change will help
    to ensure a useful measure of outputs under the timber sale program and
    to emphasize accountability within the program.
        Hazardous Fuels Reduction.--Treating hazardous fuels within the
    wildland-urban interface and across the landscape is essential to
    preventing catastrophic wildfires and insect and disease outbreaks and
    protecting resource values and species habitat. There are significant
    treatment needs in all areas of the country and in all three condition
    classes. We urge emphasis of these activities in areas with existing
    forest industry infrastructure in order to reduce costs. In addition,
    we encourage greater emphasis on mechanical thinning to reduce
    hazardous fuels, which provides ecological benefits and the opportunity
    to capture the economic value of fiber removed.
        AF&PA supports the President's proposal to move the funding for the
    Hazardous Fuels program to the National Forest System. The movement of
    this budget to NFS would allow better integration of these activities
    with other vegetation management activities happening on the ground. We
    encourage continued collaboration between the Forest Service and the
    State Foresters in accomplishing this work.
        Vegetation and Watershed Management.--This program directly
    improves forest health by restoring watersheds, reducing soil erosion,
    and producing clean air and water through such activities as
    reforestation and timber stand improvement treatments. There is a
    critical need to address the significant reforestation backlog, which
    has increased sharply as a result of wildfires.
        Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management.--Managing species'
    habitat contributes to healthy and diverse populations and ecosystems.
    The drawdown in the Knutson-Vandenberg (KV) fund to pay for wildfire
    suppression costs has a major impact on this program. Failure to
    completely repay the KV Fund diminishes implementation of much-needed
    wildlife habitat, reforestation, timber stand improvement, and other
    conservation projects. In some regions, this adversely impacts non-
    essential KV projects, such as fish and wildlife programs that are
    already underfunded.
                       research to support forest health
        Targeted research is needed to support forest health, both through
    a greater understanding of the status of our nation's forests and
    through the development of processes that enable economic utilization
    of fiber removed. Research helps find innovative ways to promote and
    enhance forest sustainability and provides scientifically sound data
    that benefits both public and private forests. Forest Service research
    investments in enhancing forest productivity, addressing the threats of
    insect and disease, quantifying carbon sequestration, and understanding
    forest management decisions on wildlife, water quality, biodiversity,
    landscapes and habitats, all contribute to efforts to achieve and
    maintain healthy forests.
        Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA).--AF&PA supports the
    President's fiscal year 2006 budget request of $73.4 million, which
    represents full funding for the program. The FIA program is the most
    comprehensive data collection and analysis program to assess the
    sustainability and health of the nation's forest resources. We believe
    that, with full funding, the Forest Service has an obligation to
    achieve its stated goals to cover 100 percent of U.S. forest lands,
    fully implement the annual inventory, expedite data availability and
    analysis, improve working relationships with the states, and modernize
    FIA management systems.
        Forest Products Utilization and Process.--AF&PA recommends a
    funding level of $19.6 million for this program. The Forest Products
    Lab and experiment stations conduct important research on the efficient
    and effective use of wood fiber, directly addressing the forest health
    problem through exploration of small diameter wood use and bioenergy
    production. Unfortunately, funding for this research has not kept pace
    with research needs. Support is needed for the core functions of the
    research stations 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.
                                   conclusion
        AF&PA appreciates the chance to provide the Subcommittee with
    testimony regarding fiscal year 2006 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 our nation's public and private lands.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Appalachian Mountain Club
        Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: On behalf of
    our 90,000 members throughout the northeastern United States, the
    Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC) appreciates the opportunity to present
    this testimony in strong support of the highest possible funding levels
    for conservation programs in the fiscal year 2006 Interior,
    Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, and specifically
    support ten Forest Legacy Program projects at $29.9 million, and three
    Land & Water Conservation Fund projects at $7.55 million, and four
    Highlands Conservation Act projects totaling $9.75 million. Within the
    Forest Legacy Program request, the AMC especially appreciates the
    opportunity to testify in support of a $5 million appropriation to the
    State of Maine from the Forest Legacy Program for the Katahdin Iron
    Works (KIW) project. As you know, this funding has been proposed in the
    President's fiscal year 2006 budget, and the KIW project is ranked 4th
    on the President's Forest Legacy project list.
        The AMC is the nation's oldest recreation and conservation
    organization. Founded in 1876, our mission is to promote the
    protection, enjoyment, and wise use of the mountains, rivers and trails
    of the Appalachian region. With 12 chapters and 90,000 members from
    Maine to Washington, DC, AMC is proud of our long tradition of
    stewardship and engagement in the outdoors.
        The funding proposed for the KIW project will allow the state of
    Maine to purchase a conservation easement over 37,000 acres of
    critically located land about nine miles east of Greenville. The
    property is bisected by the Appalachian Trail and includes land around
    Gulf Hagas, the Barren/Chairback Mountain Range, a significant stretch
    of the Class A West Branch of the Pleasant River, and many other
    important ecological and recreational features. AMC, with assistance
    from the Trust for Public Land, purchased this property in December
    2003 from International Paper. If sold on the open market, the KIW
    property would have been a prime target for recreational home
    development, or private ``kingdom lots'', that would permanently alter
    a critical landscape in Maine.
        The AMC is extremely pleased to have the opportunity to work
    closely with local communities in the region, such as Greenville and
    Brownville, as they plan for continued community vitality and economic
    diversity. This project has garnered significant local support because
    it not only protects the spectacular landscape that makes the area so
    special, but it also creates new recreational opportunities for the
    public and secures the future of this property as a working forest.
        In particular, we are excited that this project will:
      --Create a model certified working forest;
      --Protect key landscape features such as ridgelines, great ponds, and
            the headwaters of the Class A West Branch of the Pleasant
            River;
      --Significantly enhance and manage recreational opportunities on land
            and water;
      --Further develop the economic foundations of the neighboring
            communities;
      --Assure public access;
      --Create meaningful environmental education opportunities; and
      --Help to stabilize the land base in a region experiencing a volatile
            real estate market.
        These goals--providing for conservation, sustainable forestry, and
    recreation in our North Woods that engages both residents and visitors
    alike--strike a balance between ecological protection and contribution
    to the local and regional economy from the land.
        The Land for Maine's Future Board has already approved a grant of
    $1 million to go towards this project and expects to allocate
    additional funds when a new statewide bond is approved. In addition,
    AMC is undertaking substantial fundraising efforts--with a goal of $25
    million--to support both the easement acquisition as well as ensure
    long-term stewardship and recreational development on the property.
        We appreciate your continued support for common sense, community-
    based Forest Legacy Program projects, and believe the KIW project is a
    model for programmatic success. We hope that you will provide $5
    million to ensure the success of this effort in the fiscal year 2006
    Interior appropriations bill.
        On funding for other projects across the region, and on overall
    funding levels for critical land protection programs such as Forest
    Legacy and the Land & Water Conservation Fund, the AMC echoes the
    testimony of Mr. Jad Daley of the Eastern Forest Partnership which
    underscores the importance of the Forest Legacy Program and the Land &
    Water Conservation Fund to the eastern region as a whole.
        In fiscal year 2006, the AMC supports funding requests for the
    following Forest Legacy projects in our region:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    State                       Project                           Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
       ME Katahdin Ironworks                                    $5,000,000
       ME Machias River Project--Phase II                        3,000,000
       NH Rossview Farm                                          2,000,000
       NH Willard Pond/Robb Reservoir                            2,500,000
       VT Orange County Headwaters                               1,500,000
       VT Green Mountain Wildlife Corridor                       1,000,000
       NY IP Lands (Adirondack Working Forest Easement)          5,000,000
       MA Quabbin Corridor Connection                            3,700,000
       CT Skiff Mountain                                         2,300,000
       NJ Sparta Mountain South                                  3,900,000
                                                           -----------------
                Total fiscal year 2006 AMC Forest Legacy        29,900,000
                 Requests
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Land & Water Conservation Fund will provide critical protection
    to the Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge in New Hampshire, the
    Green Mountain National Forest in Vermont, and to the Silvio O. Conte
    National Wildlife Refuge for projects throughout the Conte's four-state
    region of New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. The
    Silvio O. Conte Refuge ranks fourth in the Land Acquisition Priority
    System (LAPS) in part because the USFS projects the Connecticut River
    watershed to be among the top 20 growth areas in the nation in coming
    decades. A multi-state approach to conserving the most critical parts
    of the watershed, with local support, is vital to ensuring the many
    values that the Connecticut River and its watershed support in the New
    England states.
        In fiscal year 2006, the AMC supports the following LWCF projects
    in our region:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    State                       Project                           Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
       NH Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge                   $750,000
       VT Green Mountain National Forest                         3,500,000
      NH, Silvio O. Conte National Wildlife Refuge               3,300,000
      VT,
      MA,
       CT
                                                           -----------------
                Total LWCF Projects Supported by AMC             7,550,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        While the Forest Legacy Program and the Land & Water Conservation
    Fund have well established track records, the AMC hopes that the
    Subcommittee will begin to fund the Highlands Conservation Act in order
    to realize the intent of Congress to support critical land protection
    efforts in the Highlands Region of the mid-Atlantic. Current projects
    in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York share strong local support,
    commitments for matching funding from State and private sources, and
    will protect important water supplies for public water sources in the
    three states. The Arrow Park project in New York will protect the last
    significant property buffering Sterling Forest State Park from
    residential and commercial development in the Town of Monroe.
        In fiscal year 2006, the Appalachian Mountain Club supports funding
    requests for the following Highlands Conservation Act projects:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    State                       Project                           Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
       NY Arrow Park                                            $3,070,000
       NJ Wyanokie Highlands                                     3,850,000
       PA Birdsboro Waters                                       1,250,000
       PA Oley Hills$1,400,000
                                                           -----------------
                Total AMC Highlands Conservation Act             9,570,000
                 Requests
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In addition to the critical land conservation projects from the KIW
    project in Maine to the Sparta Mountain South project in New Jersey,
    the AMC respectfully urges the Subcommittee to ensure the viability of
    programs that support outdoor recreation in the America.
        One of the most important programs supporting human-powered
    recreation is the National Park Service's Rivers, Trails, and
    Conservation Assistance program. This program provides vital support to
    the nation's recreational trails and waterways and planning assistance
    for communities. The AMC echoes the testimony of the Rivers and Trails
    Coalition, of which we are a member, supporting funding at the level of
    $9.7 million for the NPS' RTCA program.
        Another critical program that provides beneficial services to
    millions of hikers and outdoor recreators across the nation is the
    Capital Improvement and Maintenance for Trails line in the U.S. Forest
    Service's budget. $80 million is needed to ensure that the USFS has the
    ability to perform needed maintenance on trails throughout our National
    Forest System in places like the White Mountain National Forest, the
    Monongahela National Forest, and the many other places our members
    enjoy quiet recreation.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Appalachian Trail Conference Land Trust
        Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: The
    Appalachian Trail Conference Land Trust (``ATC'') is thankful for the
    opportunity to present this testimony in support of a $2.3 million
    appropriation to the State of Connecticut from the Forest Legacy
    Program for the Skiff Mountain project.
        The mission of the ATCLT is to seek and protect the Trail
    Experience by preserving features in the surrounding environment that
    are important to the Trail and the Trail Experience. The Trail
    Experience is defined by the sum of opportunities that are available
    for hikers on the Appalachian Trail, unfettered and unimpeded by
    competing sights or sounds, and in as direct and intimate a manner as
    possible. Integral to this experience are the opportunities for
    observation, contemplation, enjoyment and exploration of the natural
    world; a sense of remoteness and detachment from civilization;
    opportunity to experience solitude, freedom, personal accomplishment,
    self-reliance and self-discovery; a sense of being on a height of land;
    a feeling of being part of and subordinate to the natural environment;
    and opportunity for travel on foot, including opportunities for long
    distance hiking. The strategy for accomplishing the mission is as
    follows:
        Conservation of land.--Identify and map the area of interest
    encompassing the features important to the Trail Experience; identify
    logical areas and rank them in order of priority; identify property
    ownership within high priority areas and rank them in order of priority
    within the area; initiate landowner contact starting with the highest
    priority areas and tracts; and plan and execute conservation deals
    where owners are willing to work with us.
        Building the support network.--Identify and get to know the
    conservation partners in the region; identify the potential funding
    sources in the region; identify and communicate with community leaders
    and land-use planners; participate in coalitions advancing our goals;
    and identify and work with conservation buyers.
        The Housatonic River watershed and Connecticut Highlands have been
    identified as two of the high priority areas for the Connecticut
    Section of the Appalachian Trail Conference Land Trust.
        ATCLT serves the towns of Sherman, Kent, Sharon, Cornwall, Falls
    Village and Salisbury. Lands owned by ATCLT are open to the public for
    passive recreation. Skiff Mountain is adjacent to the Appalachian Trail
    and forms the scenic backdrop for the most picturesque and accessible
    part of the trail in Connecticut as it skirts along the Housatonic
    River for almost seven miles.
        The Land Trust is a program of the non-profit Appalachian Trail
    Conference (ATC). ATC hosts this land trust which is stepping up to
    protect additional land from willing sellers to augment the existing
    Trail corridor now that the National Park Service is winding down its
    acquisition program. The Land Trust holds approximately 304 acres which
    are passively managed for open space protection purposes.
        By way of background, the Park Service works cooperatively with the
    ATC on most day to day management activities through a ``delegation
    agreement'' that officially transfers management responsibility to the
    ATC. ATC, in turn, has delegated these responsibilities to 30 Trail-
    maintaining clubs, with each one maintaining a designated section of
    Trail. The maintenance and management of the 55 miles of Trail and
    corridor lands in Connecticut are the responsibility of the Appalachian
    Mountain Club's (AMC) Connecticut Chapter, as implemented by its
    Volunteer Trails Committee. The ATC Land Trust's activities in
    Connecticut are carried out by the undersigned as the volunteer
    Connecticut Coordinator and member of the Connecticut AMC's Trails
    Committee.
        The Appalachian Trail was designated a national millennium trail in
    2000 and honored by the American Institute of Certified Planners and
    others as a ``national planning landmark.''
        Both the Federal Government and the State of Connecticut have
    clearly delineated policies supporting the protection of the
    Appalachian National Scenic Trail Corridor. These policies would be
    furthered by this conveyance. Congress pass the National Trails System
    Act in 1968, Public Law 9-543 (82 Stat. 919), as amended by Public Law
    95-248 (92 Stat. 159), designating the Appalachian National Scenic
    Trail as part of a national system of trails in order to provide for
    the ever-increasing outdoor recreational needs of an expanding
    population and in order to promote public access to, and appreciation
    for the outdoor areas of the nation, and to provide for the
    conservation and enjoyment of the nationally significant scenic,
    historical, natural and cultural qualities of the Trails in the System,
    including the Appalachian Trail.
        In 1971, by Public Act 638 (C.G.S. Section 23-66), the Connecticut
    General Assembly declared it to be ``the policy of the State of
    Connecticut that the Connecticut portion of the Appalachian National
    Scenic Trail be preserved in its natural character as proposed by
    Public Law 90-543, October 2, 1968.''
        Tens of thousands of hikers use the Appalachian Trail in
    Connecticut each year. The state has identified the Connecticut portion
    of the Highlands as a critical focus area under its Forest Legacy
    Program. Right now there are eight separate parcels of land in this
    focus area that are available for protection in fiscal year 2006. These
    parcels total approximately 937 acres of Skiff Mountain Forest in
    northwestern Connecticut. They form a network of forested properties in
    Litchfield County straddling the Kent-Sharon town line, an area under
    tremendous large-lot development pressures. Located among 6,000 acres
    of existing conservation lands, and immediately adjacent to the
    federally protected and world-renowned Appalachian National Scenic
    Trail, the Skiff Mountain property has been identified by the state as
    its top priority for Forest Legacy funding this year.
        In fiscal year 2006, $2.3 million is needed from the Forest Legacy
    program to help preserve nearly 937 acres of Skiff Mountain, and keep
    intact this conservation corridor of the Housatonic River Watershed and
    four-state Highlands region. These funds will be matched by local
    funding and land value donation. We hope that you will provide $2.3
    million to ensure the success of this effort in the fiscal year 2006
    Interior appropriations bill.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present this request.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness
        Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the
    Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness (Friends) in support of a $2
    million allocation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) for
    the acquisition of Long Island on Burntside Lake in Superior National
    Forest. It is my understanding that this is a priority acquisition for
    the Forest Service locally and regionally.
        The Friends' mission is to ``protect, preserve and restore the
    wilderness character of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness
    (BWCAW) and the Quetico-Superior Ecosystem.''
        To this end, I am writing to urge you to help protect Long Island,
    the largest undeveloped island on Burntside Lake, which has two key
    entry points into the BWCAW, five campsites, and six public canoe
    launching points.
        Burntside Lake supports lake trout and is one of the few lakes in
    Minnesota that supports a natural cold water fishery. The lake is
    renowned for its big lake trout and walleye and also supports one of
    the largest populations of loons in the state. Burntside is also the
    start of an 11-mile canoe route called Burntside-Dead River-Twin Lakes-
    Everett, which is outside the BWCAW yet within the National Forest
    boundaries.
        Long Island boasts one mile of undeveloped lakeshore, including a
    beautiful sand beach. Because there are a limited number of public
    beaches within the forest boundaries, Long Island's beach provides a
    unique recreational opportunity. The island is home to nesting osprey,
    blue heron and nesting loons, and is potential habitat for rare and
    sensitive species. The 64-acre Burntside Islands Scientific and Natural
    Area (SNA), which features two virtually undisturbed islands, is
    located immediately southwest of Long Island. These two forested
    bedrock islands are home to Great Lakes old-growth pine forests that
    are extremely rare outside of the BWCAW.
        Public acquisition of the Long Island property will ensure that our
    beloved north wood's sounds and images, such as ``the mournful cry of
    the common loon, the mysterious drumming of a male ruffed grouse, the
    soft carpet of feathermosses beneath a jack pine, and the ancient red
    and white pines that keep their lonely vigil over the very waterways
    that were home to countless generations of Native Americans, . . .''
    will be protected in perpetuity.
        An appropriation of $2 million from the Land and Water Conservation
    Fund in fiscal year 2006 will secure the acquisition of Long Island by
    the Superior National Forest, protect its critical natural resources
    for the public, and maintain the integrity of the great north woods. I
    thank you for your support.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Eastern Forest Partnership
        On behalf of the Eastern Forest Partnership and our member groups
    representing in total more than 170 citizens' groups from Mississippi
    to Maine, I would like to offer testimony on behalf of the strongest
    possible mark for conservation funding programs in the fiscal year 2006
    Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations bill,
    including $80 million for the U.S. Forest Service's Forest Legacy
    program with $50.155 million allocated for eastern projects (see list
    below), and $64.586 million for eastern projects funded through the
    Department of Interior's Federal Land & Water Conservation Fund (see
    list below). Despite current fiscal challenges, eastern forest
    conservation is a vital investment to ensure clean air and water, a
    sustainable supply of timber products, and opportunities to enjoy
    wildlife and outdoor recreation for the sixty percent of the U.S.
    population that lives within a day's drive of the eastern forests.
        Conservation funding shortfalls in recent years have deprived some
    Forest Legacy projects like the Walls of Jericho the full amount of
    needed funding, and kept these under-funded projects in the already
    full pipeline for another year. In other instances, important Forest
    Legacy projects like Pennsylvania's Birdsboro Waters have been
    eliminated in conference despite being included in the House, Senate,
    and administration lists. Last year's appropriated amount covered just
    over 20 percent of national Legacy requests.
        For the Federal Land & Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), the
    reduction to just over 33 percent of its authorized level continues to
    hamper Federal agency land acquisition in the East, most notably for
    national forest and national wildlife refuge enhancement. The Region 8
    list of national forest acquisitions, in particular, is annually full
    of time-sensitive opportunities that are being lost as funding does not
    come through. Eastern refuges are also in dire need of acquisition
    dollars: the Silvio Conte National Wildlife Refuge ranks fourth in the
    Land Acquisition Priority System (LAPS), in part because the
    Connecticut River watershed is projected by the U.S. Forest Service as
    one of the top twenty in the nation for future development.
      fiscal year 2006 forest legacy program needs in the eastern forests
        For the upcoming fiscal year, there is a compelling list of Forest
    Legacy projects that would greatly advance eastern forest conservation.
    Some of these projects, like Walls of Jericho and Machias River, Phase
    II, would complete projects were either partially funded last year or
    broken into multiple phases. Others, like the Katahdin Ironworks
    project in the Northern Forest, the History of Forestry project in
    Pennsylvania, and the Campbell Creek Watershed in North Carolina, are
    new priorities that would protect national treasures.
        We believe that, at a minimum, Congress should fund the Forest
    Legacy program at the $80 million level advocated in the President's
    budget. However, even this level of funding could result in lost
    opportunities to conserve critical eastern forests, such as the North
    Fork Corridor Forest Legacy project in Virginia. Prior to fiscal year
    2005, Forest Legacy had enjoyed slow but steady growth in funding
    thanks to bipartisan support for the program. Funding Forest Legacy at
    $80 million in fiscal year 2006 would continue the growth of this
    popular program to better meet the needs in the East and throughout the
    nation to prevent the conversion of forestlands and the resulting loss
    of traditional forest values.
        In fiscal year 2006, the Eastern Forest Partnership supports
    funding requests for the following Forest Legacy projects in the
    eastern forests. (All projects and amounts below, listed alphabetically
    and not in order of priority, are included in and consistent with the
    President's budget except for those in italics, which recommend a
    suggested project addition or increase in funding.)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    State                       Project                           Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
       CTSkiff Mountain                                         $2,300,000
       DEGreen Horizons                                          3,000,000
       GAAltamaha River Corridor                                 3,000,000
       KYKnobs State Forest and Wildlife Management Area         1,750,000
       MAQuabbin Corridor Connection                             3,700,000
       MDBroad Creek                                             1,500,000
       MEKatahdin Ironworks                                      5,000,000
       MEMachias River Project--Phase II                         2,500,000
       NCCampbell Creek Watershed                                1,800,000
       NHRossview                                                2,600,000
       NHWillard Pond                                              550,000
       NJSparta Mountain South                                   3,900,000
       NYAdirondack Working Forest Easement                      5,000,000
       NYSurprise Lake                                           1,000,000
       PAHistory of Forestry                                     2,800,000
       RIBugnet Tract                                              600,000
       TNWalls of Jericho                                        2,600,000
       VANew River Corridor                                        230,000
       VANorth Fork Corridor                                     1,500,000
       VTGreen Mountain Wildlife Corridor                        1,052,000
       VTOrange County Headwaters                                1,098,000
       VTEnosburg-Adams Pond                                       875,000
       WVPotomac River Hills                                     1,800,000
                                                           -----------------
               Total fiscal year 2006 Eastern Forest            50,155,000
                Legacy Requests
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

           fiscal year 2006 lwcf program needs in the eastern forests
        There are also many Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund
    projects of critical need. A number of these projects, including
    funding for the Silvio Conte National Wildlife Refuge and the Jefferson
    National Forest, represent significant omissions from the President's
    budget. Eastern Federal land units are too often compromised by in-
    holdings that undermine the conservation values of these Federal lands.
    With the rapid rate of rural land conversion to development across the
    East--an area larger than New Hampshire is now lost every five years
    according to the U.S. Geological Survey's Natural Resources Inventory--
    opportunities to consolidate these Federal holdings are dwindling.
    Increased LWCF allocations beyond the President's would be invaluable
    to fill out existing Federal land units in the eastern forests. The
    steep decline in Federal LWCF dollars in recent years has hampered the
    efforts of eastern land managers to buffer key resource areas from
    sprawling development pressures.
        The following quote from recent U.S. Forest Service testimony
    regarding acquisition needs in Alabama captures the challenges faced by
    Federal land managers from encroaching development and their need for
    increased acquisition dollars:

    ``National Forest lands comprise the largest blocks of land in the
    State for management of endangered species, endangered species habitat,
    protection of water quality and opportunities for the public for
    recreation and hunting. If the United States does not acquire private
    properties within the Forest boundaries as they become available, many
    will be developed for residential or commercial purposes to the
    detriment of watersheds, protected species habitat and public
    recreational needs.''

        It is also worth noting that the Land and Water Conservation Fund
    Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C.A. Sections 460l-4--460l-11) recognized special
    needs for U.S. Forest Service acquisition dollars in the eastern
    states:

    ``Provided further, That except for areas specifically authorized by
    Act of Congress, not more than 15 per centum of the acreage added to
    the National Forest System pursuant to this section shall be west of
    the 100th meridian.'' (16 U.S.C.A. 460l-9(a)(1))

        In fiscal year 2006, the Eastern Forest Partnership supports
    funding requests for the following LWCF projects in the eastern
    forests. (Projects are listed alphabetically and not in order of
    priority.)

                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Project                               Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Projects included in the President's budget (italics indicate
     increase above President's request):
        Cache River NWR [AR].....................................       .809
        Arkansas Forests [AR]....................................      1.539
        Carter G. Woodson Home NHS [DC]..........................      1.600
        Georgia Mountains [GA]...................................      4.500
        Illinois Disappearing Habitat [IL].......................      1.000
        Hoosier Unique Areas [IN]................................      1.500
        Daniel Boone NF [KY].....................................      5.463
        Lake Umbagog NWR [NH]....................................       .750
        Wayne Selected Lands [OH]................................      1.000
        Flight 93 Memorial [PA]..................................      4.200
        Francis Marion/Sumter NF's [SC]..........................      7.500
        Eastern Shore NWR [VA]...................................      1.750
        Prince William Forest Park [VA]..........................      1.175
    Projects not included in the President's budget:
        Silvio Conte NWR (multi-state)...........................      3.300
        Alabama National Forests [AL]............................      2.300
        Cahaba River NWR [AL]....................................      1.000
        Florida National Scenic Trail [FL].......................      3.000
        Suwannee Wildlife Corridor/Pinhook Swamp [FL]............      3.000
        Chattooga Wild & Scenic River [GA, NC, SC]...............      2.500
        Cumberland Gap NHP-Fern Lake Watershed [KY/TN]...........      3.000
        Delta NF [MS]............................................      2.300
        Uwharrie NF [NC].........................................       .500
        Great Swamp NWR [NJ].....................................      1.000
        Tennessee Mountains [TN].................................      3.000
        Obed Wild and Scenic River [TN]..........................      1.500
        Jefferson NF-Black Lick, Rumley Branch [VA]..............      1.900
        Green Mountain NF-Broad Brook and others [VT]............      3.500
                                                                  ----------
          Total fiscal year 2006 LWCF Request for Eastern Forests     64.586
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It is worth noting that the state LWCF program, for which funding
    was entirely eliminated in the President's budget, is also an important
    source of funding for eastern forest conservation, and is often used to
    fund complementary state park and recreation projects that leverage the
    conservation value of Federal lands and areas conserved using Forest
    Legacy funding. Continued allocations for the state LWCF program would
    be very positive for eastern forests and synergistic with the other
    funding that we have requested.
        The Forest Legacy and Federal LWCF projects listed in this
    testimony represent the best that the eastern forests have to offer,
    but are just a sliver of the total range of important and ready
    projects across the region that would conserve important public
    resources. We would be grateful for your consideration of this
    testimony as you go through the appropriations process.
                                     ______

               Letter From the Grand County, Utah Council Members
                                  Grand County Council Members,
                                    Grand County, Utah, April 25, 2005.
    Hon. Conrad Burns, Chairman,
    Hon. Byron L. Dorgan, Ranking,
    Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies,
            U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
        Dear Sirs: I am writing this letter on behalf of the Grand County
    Council expressing our support of our local Bureau of Land Management
    Moab Field Office's application for 2006 Land Water Conservation Funds
    in the amount of $1.2 million.
        The money would allow the BLM to purchase 14 acres of private lands
    in the Colorado River Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA) for
    expansion of BLM's Westwater Ranger Station. This expansion would allow
    the BLM to add additional parking, campsites and a leach field for
    wastewater.
        The money would also be used to purchase a conversation easement of
    530 acres of riverfront property located downstream of the Westwater
    Ranger Station. This easement would prevent development in a habitat
    for nesting bald eagles, four endangered fish species and for
    enhancement of wetland properties.
        We strongly support this application and ask that you do all that
    you can to lobby for the Colorado River SRMA project on behalf of the
    BLM office in Grand County.
        Thank you for consideration of this request.
                Sincerely,
                                       Jerry McNeely, Chairman,
                                                  Grand County Council.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Izaak Walton League of America
        Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: Thank you for
    the opportunity to present this testimony in support of a $2 million
    appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for critical
    land protection in the Minnesota National Forests. The top priority for
    the Minnesota Forests is the acquisition of undeveloped Long Island on
    Burntside Lake in the Superior National Forest. The Izaak Walton League
    of America supports this request.
        I have visited and canoed on Burntside Lake many times, and can
    speak from personal experience of Burntside's value, and the
    increasingly difficult opportunity of preserving publicly-owned,
    undeveloped islands on this popular lake. Though I have not visited
    Long Island itself, since it has been in private ownership, I have seen
    it many times and know of its value if it were to become a publicly-
    owned, undeveloped island.
        Burntside Lake is located about three miles northwest of the city
    of Ely in northeastern Minnesota. The entire 7,100-acre lake is located
    within the boundaries of Superior National Forest. The lake is an
    important recreational area, with two entry points into the Boundary
    Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW), the nation's most heavily visited
    unit of the National Wilderness Preservation System. Burntside also has
    five public, primitive campsites and six public boat and canoe
    launching points. The lake is also the start of an 11-mile canoe route
    called Burntside-Dead River-Twin Lakes-Everett, which is outside the
    BWCAW yet within the National Forest boundaries. The deep lake (126
    feet deep) supports lake trout and is one of the few lakes in Minnesota
    outside of the BWCAW that supports a natural cold-water fishery. The
    lake is renowned for its big lake trout and walleye and also supports
    one of the largest populations of loons (Gavia immer) in the state.
        Burntside Lake also holds significant historic and cultural value.
    The historic Burntside Lodge, for example, built in 1913, is located on
    the lake and is on the National Historic Registry. Even more
    importantly, however, Burntside Lake is also the location of writer and
    conservationist Sigurd Olson's famous Listening Point, a forested
    shoreline point and a rustic cabin. Listening Point was a place of
    inspiration for Sig, his wilderness advocacy, and his many books
    (including one entitled Listening Point). Long Island is situated
    directly across from Sig's Listening Point, a place I have visited many
    times. The view from Listening Point includes Long Island, a view that
    inspired Sig during his lifetime and the many visitors who still come
    to visit the point.
        The Izaak Walton League believes that Long Island would be an
    outstanding addition to the Superior National Forest, bringing one mile
    of undeveloped lakeshore into public ownership. The island has a
    beautiful sand beach along that lakeshore, which would be utilized by
    the public for recreation. The island is home to nesting osprey, great
    blue herons, and common loons. The 64-acre Burntside Islands Scientific
    and Natural Area (SNA), owned by the State of Minnesota, features two
    virtually undisturbed islands and is located immediately southwest of
    Long Island. These two forested bedrock islands are home to old-growth
    Great Lakes pine forests that are extremely rare outside of the BWCAW.
    Public acquisition of the Long Island property will bring to public
    ownership an outstanding treasure that will be protected in perpetuity.
        The League supports an appropriation of $2 million from the Land
    and Water Conservation Fund in fiscal year 2006 to secure the
    acquisition of Long Island, protect its critical natural resources for
    the public, and maintain the integrity of the great northwoods
    experience provided for by the Superior National Forest.
        Thank you for the chance to submit this request.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Foresters
                                  introduction
        The National Association of State Foresters (NASF) is pleased to
    provide testimony on the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) $4.88 billion
    budget request for fiscal year 2006. Representing the directors of
    state forestry agencies from the states, eight U.S. territories, and
    the District of Columbia, our testimony centers around those program
    areas most relevant to the long term forestry operations of our
    constituents. State and Private Forestry programs multiply the public
    benefits of federal funding by leveraging in-kind contributions through
    cost-share programs and matching funds from states. Wildland Fire
    Management supports essential State and Private Forestry and federal
    programs that address wildland fire.
        We commend the President's commitment to the Forest Stewardship
    Program and the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program in the USFS
    budget for fiscal year 2006. Our recommendations include restoring
    funding to our top three priorities (State Fire Assistance, Cooperative
    Forest Health Management, and Urban and Community Forestry) and
    discussing other opportunities for Congress to further the advancement
    of sustainable management on both public and private forestland
    nationwide.
                      state and private forestry programs
    State Fire Assistance (SFA)
        State Fire Assistance (SFA) provides much-needed financial and
    technical assistance to states for wildland fire management. It helps
    to ensure preparedness of state and local resources who serve as the
    first line of defense for their forests and communities. These fire
    fighting resources function as both ``first responders'' for local
    situations and as ``ready reserves'' for large federally managed
    catastrophic fires. Further, SFA is the only program that currently
    provides funding for fuel reduction work on non-federal lands. It is
    also one of the few programs that helps communities develop Community
    Wildfire Protection Plans, which are an important component of the
    Healthy Forests Restoration Act.
        SFA provides the flexibility to meet different state needs, which
    may include firefighting preparedness, firefighter training, fire
    suppression, and hazardous fuel reduction, Community Wildfire
    Protection Plans, as well as prevention activities. SFA is funded under
    both Cooperative Fire Protection (State and Private Forestry) and
    Wildland Fire Management in the Forest Service budget. All SFA funds
    under Cooperative Fire Protection are used to help states increase
    preparedness at the local level through training, coordination, and
    providing communications equipment to local firefighters. Funding under
    Wildland Fire Management is used for both preparedness and hazard
    mitigation. Reducing these funds would seriously hamper the states'
    ability to treat hazardous fuels on private lands and to work with
    communities to complete Community Wildfire Protection Plans.
        NASF recommends continued level funding for State Fire Assistance
    at $33 million under Cooperative Fire Protection and $40 million under
    Wildland Fire Management. Funding these line items at last year's level
    provides continued protection for local communities from catastrophic
    wildland fire, many of which originate on federal lands.
    Cooperative Forest Health Management
        The Cooperative Forest Health Management program provides funding
    assistance to address Forest Health issues on non-federal forestland.
    Cooperative Forest Health Management concerns include prevention,
    detection, and suppression of damaging insects, diseases, and plants.
    Every year, the American public loses billions of dollars to invasive
    species, insects, and disease detection and control. The Cooperative
    Forest Health Management program assists in the development and
    application of new technologies that mitigate these forest health
    concerns and reduce public expenses. These funds, from both State and
    Private Forestry (S&PF) and Wildland Fire Management, are critical to
    the maintenance of healthy sustainable forests. Forest pests know no
    land ownership boundaries and often move to and from federal lands.
        NASF recommends funding S&PF Cooperative Forest Health Management
    at the fiscal year 2005 level of $48 million to provide the tools
    needed to address forest health issues across the many non-federal
    forest types and ownerships in the United States.
        NASF also recommends $10 million to continue level support for
    Cooperative Forest Health Management under Wildland Fire Management to
    address forest health problems that increase the risk of catastrophic
    wildland fire. Cooperative Forest Health Management funds help states
    achieve the goals of the Healthy Forests Initiative by restoring
    healthy forests across ownership types.
    Urban and Community Forestry
        The Urban and Community Forestry program provides technical and
    financial assistance to promote the stewardship of urban and community
    trees and forest resources. The program leverages existing local
    efforts that help urban areas and rural communities manage, maintain,
    and improve their tree cover and green spaces. Such efforts emphasize
    the vital connection between human and natural environments, and create
    social and aesthetic benefits.
        NASF is working with the Forest Service to develop a new allocation
    formula to distribute funding among the states and territories. This
    new formula will more closely align state funding allocation with
    program goals and objectives.
        NASF recommends funding the Urban and Community Forestry program at
    the fiscal year 2005 level of $32 million to enhance the quality of
    life for communities in urban and rural areas.
    Forest Stewardship Program
        The Forest Stewardship Program continues to serve as the primary
    program for promoting sustainable forest management on family forest
    lands. From 1991 to 2002, the Forest Stewardship program turned out
    more than 217,000 Stewardship Plans covering more than 25 million
    acres. These management plans help landowners to sustainably manage
    their forestland for the benefit of all. NASF encourages efforts to
    better target the delivery of the Forest Stewardship Program in order
    to focus on priority resources concerns. NASF supports the President's
    proposed funding of $37.1 million in fiscal year 2006 for the Forest
    Stewardship Program.
    Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA)
        The Forest Inventory and Analysis program provides crucial forest
    information to policy makers and land managers, enabling them to make
    informed forestry-related decisions. FIA data provides users with
    relevant information on the condition, extent, use, and health of
    forests across ownership. Increasing funding for this program will
    enable this important work to continue, while improving the quality of
    information being provided. NASF supports the President's
    recommendation of providing $73.3 million for full funding of the FIA
    program. We recommend the funding increase be used to establish a full
    inventory cycle in each state, and to ensure timely annual reporting.
    Together with a well-funded research program, FIA will continue to
    provide essential inventory data for addressing long-term forest
    management needs.
    Economic Action Program (EAP)
        The Economic Action Program is the only federal assistance program
    that targets forest-based economic development. With our current forest
    health threats across the country, EAP helps find local solutions to
    forest health problems while fostering economic sustainability in
    communities. State Foresters will continue to work with the Forest
    Service and rural communities to help them deliver a focused and
    results oriented forest-based economic development program.
                             other federal programs
    Federal Wildland Fire Management
        NASF recommends continued funding of federal wildland fire
    management at the 10-year average. Funding is integral to rapid
    suppression of small fires before they grow into large and costly
    fires. The increasing costs of wildfires--due mainly to drought, fuel
    accumulation, and the rapid expansion of the wildland-urban interface--
    makes adequate suppression funding critical. We support continued
    funding for preparedness, fire operations, and hazardous fuels
    treatment on federal land, including the $15 million provided under
    State and Private Forestry Appropriations that may be used on non-
    Federal land to protect communities at risk from adjacent USFS lands
    where hazard reduction activities are planned.
    DOI conservation grant programs
        NASF supports the Department of the Interior conservation grant
    programs for private landowners to manage their land for a variety of
    public benefits. Continued funding will ensure these programs remain
    viable.
                                   conclusion
        NASF seeks the Subcommittee's support for a Forest Service fiscal
    year 2006 budget that will ensure the continued delivery of a broad
    range of public benefits from privately owned forest lands.
    Collaboration among stakeholders across the landscape--federal, state,
    and local government agencies, private landowners, industry, and non-
    profit organizations--is necessary to manage for the wide range of
    forest resources found on all ownerships and the values derived from
    those lands. Cooperative Forestry, State and Private Forestry (S&PF),
    and Wildland Fire Management provide these links. The federal share
    leverages private dollars and provides an important catalyst for
    collaboration in order to take the work far beyond the usual boundaries
    of federal land management.
        We realize that the Subcommittee will be faced with some difficult
    funding decisions this year and will have to make sacrifices and
    tradeoffs to some programs. NASF encourages you to keep our priorities
    in mind when making these decisions.
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide our testimony.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the National Wildlife Federation
        Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the more than four million members and
    supporters of the National Wildlife Federation, thank you for the
    opportunity to express to your Subcommittee our funding recommendations
    for Interior Department and U.S. Forest Service programs in fiscal year
    2006. The purpose of our testimony is to recommend levels of funding
    for a few specific programs that are vital to our mission to educate,
    inspire and assist individuals and organizations of diverse cultures to
    conserve wildlife and other natural resources in order to achieve a
    peaceful, equitable and sustainable future. NWF requests a total of
    $1,296,387,000 in funding for our priority programs, or $260,547,000 in
    increases above the President's budget request.
                                    u.s. fws
    State and Tribal Wildlife Grants
        The State and Tribal Wildlife Grant program provides states and
    their partners a broad suite of conservation tools early enough to
    allow for meaningful and effective species conservation. The program
    strategically focuses resources on those species most in need of
    conservation, leverages state and private funding, and promotes
    scientific understanding of these species and their habitats. The
    Administration's request for $74 million is an increase in funding for
    this program from the 2005 enacted level, but is still $6 million less
    than the $80 million the President requested last year. This program's
    needs are much larger and growing, so we ask the Subcommittee to
    increase its support to $85 million, an increase of $11 million over
    the President's request. This is the nation's only program to keep
    species of every state common.
    Endangered Species Program
        We are disappointed that the Endangered Species Program has not
    been funded at the level needed to carry out its purpose of preventing
    extinction and recovering our irreplaceable wildlife. While we note
    with appreciation the increases in funding for the Listing and
    Consultation programs, we are concerned that the President's budget
    proposal would cut total funding by over $3.1 million. The Species
    Recovery program would suffer the deepest cuts of more than $5.6
    million, while funding for Candidate Conservation faces the largest
    percentage reductions of over 10 percent. Overall, the President's
    budget allots only $140 million to ESA protections, and although this
    is an improvement over the fiscal year 2005 budget request, the needs
    of the FWS are much greater. We urge the Subcommittee to appropriate at
    least $212 million toward the Endangered Species Program (an increase
    of $72 million) for the following critical activities:
      --Listing Program.--The proposed $2 million increase in the Listing
            and Critical Habitat account will not begin to cover the
            backlog of species awaiting action on listings and critical
            habitat designations. More than 250 candidate species have been
            denied the ESA's safety net due to lack of resources, including
            the Washington ground squirrel, sheath-tailed bat, gunnison
            sage grouse, and the elfin woods warbler. Some of these have
            been candidates for years and could become extinct while
            waiting for ESA protection. To address this backlog, FWS needs
            $30 million, or an $11.87 million increase in the Listing
            account (FWS has estimated that it would take $30.6 million a
            year for 5 years to clean up this backlog).
      --Recovery Program.--Under the President's budget this program would
            be reduced by $5.63 million to 8 percent below the 2005 enacted
            level, even though FWS has said that more than 200 currently
            listed species are on the verge of extinction because not
            enough funds are available for recovery activities. The cut
            includes a $1.18 million decrease for wolf recovery in Montana,
            Idaho, and Wyoming, undermining a great wildlife recovery
            success stories. The President's budget also cuts almost $4
            million in grants for Pacific and Atlantic salmon, as well as
            $986,000 from the Platte and Upper Colorado River Recovery
            Programs. Loss of this funding would erase benefits from past
            investments, since these recovery programs are just now being
            implemented. In order to develop and implement recovery plans
            for all species needing them, FWS needs $110 million--or $46
            million over the President's request.
      --Consultation Program.--Consultation received an increase of $1.35
            million, which is not sufficient to meet the FWS's future needs
            in this area. In order to ensure consultations are successfully
            completed in a timely manner, we urge the Committee to increase
            funding for consultation to $57.146 million, which is $7.66
            million over the President's request.
      --Candidate Conservation.--Candidate species are plants and animals
            for which listing is precluded due to lack of resources and
            other higher priority listing activities. The President has
            also proposed reducing the Candidate Conservation program by
            approximately $1 million, despite the fact that efforts to
            protect candidate species early are extremely cost-effective
            and reduce the difficulty and expense of species recovery. We
            request an increase to $14.808 million, which is $6.56 million
            over the President's request.
    Habitat Conservation
        While we appreciate the $7.5 million increase in funding for
    Habitat Conservation included in the Administration's request, NWF is
    extremely disappointed that the Administration's budget eliminates
    funding for the High Plains Partnership. This public-private
    partnership proactively conserves declining grassland habitats and
    species like the sage grouse, lesser prairie chickens, and black tailed
    prairie dogs while making private lands more economically viable, using
    land owner incentives and technical assistance. We ask the Subcommittee
    to reinstate full funding of $986,000 for the important and highly
    cost-effective High Plains Partnership Program.
    National Wildlife Refuge System Operations and Maintenance
        The President's budget calls for a $12.87 million increase for the
    National Wildlife Refuge System Operations and Maintenance budget.
    While we appreciate the President's commitment to increasing funding
    for the Refuge System, we note with concern that when cost-of-living,
    energy, and increasing levels of visitor services and wildlife
    management requirements are taken into account, this increase would
    ultimately be an effective cut in refuge funding (and thus a decrease
    in refuge services). NWF supports the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge
    Enhancement (CARE) recommendation of a $16 million increase over the
    fiscal year 2005 level to a total of $397 million to approach a ``no-
    net-loss'' position for the Refuge System, and avoid layoffs and
    reductions in services, maintain protections for wildlife and habitat,
    prevent backsliding on gains already made, and help reduce the $931
    million maintenance backlog and address critical operations needs in
    the National Wildlife Refuge System in coming years.
    Multinational Species Conservation Funds and Wildlife Without Borders
        NWF is concerned to see that the President's budget reduces total
    funding for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund by $1.36
    million. For fiscal year 2006, we ask the Subcommittee to again support
    these successful programs by appropriating $2 million each for the
    African Elephant, Asian Elephant, Great Apes and Marine Turtle
    Conservation Funds, $2.5 million for the combined Rhinoceros and Tiger
    Conservation Funds, and $5 million for the Neotropical Migratory Bird
    Conservation Fund for a total of $15.5 million for these 6 funds, $7.2
    million above the President's request. We also suggest an increase of
    $1.5 million over the President's request for Wildlife Without Borders,
    for a total of $2.5 million. All of these highly successful programs
    enables the Department of Interior to promote conservation of
    threatened species in their natural habitats. Each of these programs is
    highly leveraged, bringing in several times as much funding from
    private and other public sources as the amounts appropriated. These
    funds will enable the Department of Interior to expand critical support
    for these threatened populations in their natural habitats. All of
    these proposed increases amount to a total of $8.7 million above the
    President's request.
    Service Landowner Incentive Program
        NWF supports the President's increases in funding for the Landowner
    Incentive Program. We request that $6 million of the total $40 million
    budgeted for this program be allocated to strengthen the technical
    capacity of the State Natural Heritage Programs and NatureServe to
    provide the reliable scientific information required for effective
    conservation efforts.
               blm national landscape conservation system (nlcs)
        The NLCS is an American treasure that consists of 26 million acres
    of BLM's most spectacular lands. Since its creation in June 2000,
    however, the System has been chronically under-funded, and is in
    critical need of adequate resources just to meet the planning
    requirements and to manage the growing number of visitors for these new
    units. A shoestring budget means critical needs go unmet; illegal and
    irresponsible off-road vehicle traffic increases, invasive species
    spread, land acquisition opportunities slip away, and ancient artifacts
    are vandalized. We request an increase of $3.2 million in Operations,
    Maintenance, and Planning funding for the NLCS, for a total of $46.6
    million for resource protection, archeological inventories, and law
    enforcement capability. Additionally, we request an additional $2
    million in critical land acquisitions needs above the President's
    request.
        NLCS Operations request of $3.2 million above the President's
    request for the following projects:
      --Agua Fria National Monument, AZ: $300,000 for cultural resource
            protection, visitor education and infrastructure needs.
      --Canyons of the Ancients National Monument, CO: $100,000 to prevent
            looting and vandalism of cultural treasures.
      --Craters of the Moon National Monument, ID: $100,000 for invasive
            species control.
      --Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument, AZ: $350,000 for habitat
            restoration, resource monitoring, cultural and historic site
            research and protection.
      --Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, UT: $400,000 for
            cultural and paleontological research and biological
            monitoring.
      --Headwaters Forest Reserve, CA: $25,000 for wildlife survey analysis
            and education.
      --Ironwood Forest National Monument, Las Cienegas National
            Conservation Area and San Pedro Riparian Area, AZ: $150,000 for
            increased law enforcement, field presence and visitor
            education.
      --Pacific Crest Trail, CA: $150,000 for improved trail maintenance
            and management.
      --Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument, CA:
            $500,000 for tamarisk removal, watershed assessment, and
            visitor education.
      --Sonoran Desert National Monument, AZ: $385,000 for visitor
            management, law enforcement and education.
      --Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area, OR:
            $60,000 for creation of a new Wilderness volunteer coordinator.
      --Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument, MT: $300,000 for
            ilaw enforcement.
      --Vermilion Cliffs National Monument, AZ: $400,000 for cultural
            resource protection, invasive species control, visitor
            education and environmental monitoring.
        NLCS Land Acquisition request of an additional $2 million above the
    President's request:
        We support the President's fiscal year 2006 request for Land and
    Water Conservation Fund projects for Canyons of the Ancients, Santa
    Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains, and Agua Fria National Monuments; El
    Malpais, and Colorado Canyons National Conservation Areas; and other
    NLCS units. In addition to those projects, we urge the Subcommittee to
    fund $600,000 for land acquisition along Ankle Creek in Steens Mountain
    Cooperative Management and Protection Area, Oregon; $700,000 to acquire
    Soda Mountain inholdings in Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument, Oregon;
    and $770,000 to acquire the Calf Creek parcel in Grand Staircase-
    Escalante National Monument, Utah.
                   u.s. forest service forest legacy program
        NWF commends the Administration for requesting a $22 million
    increase for the Forest Legacy Program, but we note that this is
    actually $20 million less than the President requested in fiscal year
    2005. The needs of this program are much larger and growing, so we ask
    the Subcommittee to appropriate $100 million for the program, or an
    increase of $20 million. Forest Legacy protects environmentally
    important forests that are threatened with conversion to non-forest
    uses, while protecting local communities and their way of life. The
    program has been especially important in states where there are few
    federal land holdings and timber companies are in the process of
    consolidating and selling their lands.
        We also request that you to include $5 million for the U.S. Forest
    Service's North Florida Wildlife Corridor-Pinhook Land and Water
    Conservation Fund project. Located between the Osceola National Forest
    in Florida and the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge in Georgia this
    important corridor includes the headwaters of the Suwannee and St.
    Mary's rivers and provides habitat for a number of threatened and
    endangered species, as well an array of diverse birds and other
    wildlife. The North Florida Wildlife Corridor/Pinhook Swamp provides a
    critical biological and hydrological link between these two areas. It
    represents the final piece of a conservation strategy to create one of
    the largest contiguous protected natural areas in the United States. In
    fiscal year 2006, $5 million is needed to purchase 5,000 acres of lands
    that are critical to the project. Each year the pressures of
    encroaching development and increased human populations threaten the
    ultimate goal to create the largest wildlife corridor in the United
    States. We urge you to help protect this vital area while there is
    still time.
                     and and water conservation fund (lwcf)
        The federal LWCF provides funding for the acquisition of valuable
    wildlife habitat by the federal land management agencies. The LWCF is
    an invaluable tool to help enhance wildlife habitat, preserve natural,
    cultural, and historic sites, restore declining native species, and
    halt the destruction and fragmentation of millions of acres of habitat
    occurring annually across the United States. NWF is concerned to see
    that the President's budget includes significant cuts to the LWCF.
    Massive cuts to the LWCF would be devastating to this highly effective
    program, responsible for preserving nationally beloved areas such as
    Redwoods National Park, Gettysburg Military Park, and the Appalachian
    Trail. In fiscal year 2001, Congress and the President agreed to fund
    the federal LWCF at $450 million, as part of the CCPII ($300 million
    above the President's request). We urge the Subcommittee to provide at
    least $200 million for federal LWCF.
        In addition, Stateside LWCF provides matching funds for state and
    local recreation and conservation programs. We are extremely
    disappointed to see that the Administration's budget cuts all funding
    for stateside LWCF. Eliminating this Fund would seriously impact
    locally sponsored recreation projects that provide opportunities for
    youth, seniors and the physically challenged. We ask the Subcommittee
    to restore $90 million for Stateside LWCF in keeping with the
    previously agreed-upon levels of funding for LCPII.
        Thank you for providing us with this opportunity to testify on the
    budget requests for the Interior Department and U.S. Forest Service.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the National Wildlife Refuge Association
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of the
    National Wildlife Refuge Association (NWRA) and its membership
    comprised of current and former refuge professionals and members of the
    more than 240 refuge ``Friends'' group organizations throughout the
    United States, thank you for the opportunity to offer comments on the
    fiscal year 2006 Interior Appropriations bill.
        Specifically, we respectfully request that the Subcommittee support
    a $16 million increase in the operations and maintenance budget of the
    National Wildlife Refuge System, managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service (FWS), in the fiscal year 2006 budget. This request represents
    a ``no-net-loss'' approach to the Refuge System budget. We also ask the
    Subcommittee to: restore funding for the refuge Wildlife and Habitat
    and Visitor Services accounts; continue to support volunteer projects
    on and in connection with refuges, like the Cooperative Volunteer
    Invasives Monitoring Program, that utilizes Friends and volunteers to
    identify and eradicate invasive species; allocate $150,000 in the U.S.
    Geological Survey (USGS) budget to integrate Refuge System invasive
    species data with the USGS National Institute of Invasive Species
    Science (NIISS) database; protect refuges from threats under the
    auspices of right-of-way privileges; provide $85 million for the State
    and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program; and provide funding for land
    acquisition in the Refuge System through the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund.
        As you know, the National Wildlife Refuge System continues to be
    crippled by a $2 billion funding backlog that harms every refuge in the
    System. Specifically, funding shortfalls limit the ability of refuges
    to successfully conduct important biological programs and hire critical
    staff, while also hindering opportunities for the public to engage in
    compatible wildlife-dependent recreation.
        While significant strides were made to reduce the shortfall in
    connection with the 100th anniversary of the National Wildlife Refuge
    System--and we are grateful to the Subcommittee for its work in this
    regard--efforts must be made to prevent any backsliding on these past
    gains. The Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE), 21
    diverse conservation and sporting organizations, of which the NWRA is a
    member, has determined that it will be necessary to increase the annual
    Refuge System budget to $700 million simply to meet the System's top
    tier needs. Our groups, representing a national constituency numbering
    more than 5 million Americans, recognize the value of a healthy Refuge
    System to both the wildlife and habitats refuges were established to
    protect and the 40 million visitors that frequent these special places
    each year.
        The National Wildlife Refuge System budget must increase by
    approximately $16 million in fiscal year 2006 to achieve a ``no-net-
    loss'' funding level. The $16 million increase accounts for cost-of-
    living increases for FWS personnel, rising energy costs and other cost
    increases, while sustaining current levels of visitor services and
    wildlife management. This funding level will allow the Refuge System to
    avoid employee layoffs and reductions in services, maintain protections
    for wildlife and habitat, prevent backsliding on gains already made,
    and help to contain growth in the Refuge System backlog.
        The NWRA is concerned about cuts in the Administration's fiscal
    year 2006 budget proposal for the Wildlife and Habitat account. The
    cuts affect funding for essential staffing needs and represent
    approximately 10 FWS jobs.
        We are also concerned about cuts in the Administration's fiscal
    year 2006 budget proposal for the Refuge System's Visitor Services and
    Visitor Facility Enhancements programs. Visitor Services funding pays
    for many Friends group and volunteer programs that support refuges and
    provide the public with wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities. We
    urge the Subcommittee to restore this vital funding to prevent refuges
    from losing the ability to provide to the public the simplest and most
    cost-effective methods of outreach, education and orientation, made
    possible, in part, by the vibrant Refuge System volunteers.
        For fiscal year 2006, we also encourage the Subcommittee to
    continue its support for volunteer-based invasives detection and
    eradication activities by again appropriating $1 million for volunteer-
    oriented invasives programs.
        The NWRA thanks the Subcommittee for its work in the fiscal year
    2003 and fiscal year 2005 budgets to promote the use of volunteers to
    address the growing threat of invasive species on and adjacent to our
    national wildlife refuges. More than 300 separate refuges have taken
    actions to control invasives, and the Refuge System has identified $150
    million of invasive species projected needs. By utilizing the strong
    volunteer support available to the Refuge System, we can significantly
    expand our ability to identify and record data on invasives in refuges,
    and implement control measures.
        The Cooperative Volunteer Invasives Monitoring Program (VIMP),
    currently underway at six pilot refuges (Hobe Sound (FL); National
    Bison Range (MT); Ottawa (OH); San Bernard (TX); San Pablo Bay (CA);
    and the Pondicherry unit of Silvio O. Conte (NH)), is showing
    tremendous results. The Program is a partnership among the NWRA, FWS,
    USGS and The Nature Conservancy that seeks to train refuge volunteers
    to identify invasives and collect extensive data using inexpensive but
    sophisticated global positioning system (GPS)/geographic information
    system (GIS) data-collection equipment. The data is entered into a
    centralized database and will augment incomplete information previously
    compiled by refuge staff.
        As a result of funding provided by this Subcommittee in fiscal year
    2005, the six original pilot refuges in the VIMP will begin invasive
    species control efforts, while at least six new sites will be added to
    the program. The balance of the fiscal year 2005 allocation will
    provide funding for a competitive grants program for cooperative
    invasives projects with refuge Friends and volunteers.
        Collection of this data aids the FWS in detecting early
    infestations of invasives on refuges, and helps to prioritize rapid
    response eradication activities. This technology is already proving
    successful and should continue to be expanded to a larger percentage of
    refuges in the coming years. The program provides a more complete
    picture of the scope and impact of invasives on fragile refuge habitats
    and helps the FWS develop stronger invasives management protocols. In
    addition, broader community awareness and involvement generated through
    this program serves to strengthen federal, state and private lands
    initiatives aimed at addressing this rapidly growing threat.
        The USGS National Institute of Invasive Species Science assists the
    FWS and other Department of the Interior agencies in invasive species
    monitoring and management efforts. In 2002, NIISS conducted a refuge-
    wide survey of invasive species and created a web-based database to
    report this information. Expanding this database into one capable of
    combining existing disparate data on invasive species in the Refuge
    System would greatly advance efficiency and cost-effectiveness of early
    detection and control as well as help track the success of control
    efforts.
        We recommend that the Subcommittee allocate $150,000 in the USGS
    budget to integrate National Wildlife Refuge System invasive species
    data (such as the data created through the Cooperative Volunteer
    Invasives Monitoring Program, Invasive Plant Strike Teams and Refuge
    Lands GIS) with the NIISS database.
        The NWRA supports the Administration's request for funding to
    increase the number of rapid response strike teams to quickly respond
    to invasive species infestations. We ask the Subcommittee to include
    funding for the creation of two more strike teams for fiscal year 2006
    to effectively combat the spread of invasive species in wildlife
    refuges, while preserving funding for base programs.
        We would also like to express our appreciation to the Subcommittee
    for extending the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program for 10 years
    in fiscal year 2005. Our organization, members and affiliated Friends
    groups see first-hand the benefits this valuable program provides the
    Refuge System. We hope the 109th Congress will act to make this
    important program permanent.
        The NWRA also encourages the Subcommittee to include language
    prohibiting the use of funds by the Bureau of Land Management to use
    the recordable disclaimer regulations with regard to any lands within a
    designated National Wildlife Refuge System unit, national monument,
    wilderness study area, National Park Service unit, or lands within the
    National Wilderness Preservation System. As the Subcommittee is aware,
    issues such as rights-of-way claims in national wildlife refuges
    through the use of Revised Statute 2477 threaten wildlife habitat and
    visitor experiences at many refuges.
        We encourage the Subcommittee to fund the State and Tribal Wildlife
    Grants Program at $85 million. This important program gives states the
    needed funding to develop and implement comprehensive conservation
    plans to protect declining species and their habitats.
        The NWRA also encourages the Subcommittee to provide funding for
    land acquisition in the Refuge System through the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund. Specifically, we request the following:
      --$1.9 million for Balcones Canyonlands NWR (TX);
      --$2 million for Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge (UT);
      --$2.3 million for Big Muddy NWR (MO);
      --$500,000 for Chickasaw NWR (TN);
      --$300,000 for E.B. Forsythe NWR (NJ);
      --$510,000 for Great Swamp NWR (NJ);
      --$2.5 million for Laguna Atascosa NWR (TX);
      --$2.5 million for Lower Rio Grande Valley NWR (TX);
      --$1.6 million for Rachel Carson NWR (ME);
      --$2.5 million for Tensas NWR (LA); and
      --$2.15 million for Trustom Pond NWR (RI).
        In conclusion, the NWRA believes the National Wildlife Refuge
    System can meet its important conservation objectives only with strong
    and consistent funding leveraged by the valuable work of refuge
    volunteers. We extend our appreciation to the Subcommittee for its
    ongoing commitment to our National Wildlife Refuge System.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Native Plant Conservation Campaign
                                   regarding
        Botany Programs of the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S.
    Forest Service, the Recovery Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service, Prevention and the Department of the Interior Programs for
    Control of Invasive Non-Native Species Infestations and the Native
    Plant Materials Development.
        The Native Plant Conservation Campaign (NPCC) is a nationwide
    network of native plant science and conservation organizations. The
    NPCC is a project of the Center for Biological Diversity and the
    California Native Plant Society. Our mission is to promote appreciation
    and conservation of native plant species and communities through
    collaboration, education, law, policy, land use and management.
    Currently the NPCC network includes 33 affiliate native plant
    societies, botanic gardens, museums, and arboreta, representing more
    than 60,000 scientists and laypersons nationwide. NPCC members rely on
    public lands and botanical resources for enjoyment, education,
    research, and recreation. The NPCC requests that the Senate augment the
    budget of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) by $21,126,613 and that
    of the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) by $15,516,977 to adequately staff
    botany programs within these agencies. We further request a minimum of
    $100 million for the FWS Recovery Program budget to begin to address
    the backlog in recovery plan implementation, and $14.4 million for
    invasive non-native plant inventory and control. Finally we request $10
    million for the BLM and USFS Native Plant Materials Development
    Program.
                                   background
    Land Management Agency Staffing
        America's native plants and public lands are central to the
    nation's quality of life and economic well being. Botanists are among
    the most important resource managers on public lands, but land
    management agencies are severely understaffed in botany. Nationwide,
    the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) employs approximately 61 botanists
    to manage vegetation on its 264 million acres (1 botanist/4.3 million
    ac.). The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) employs approximately 200
    botanists across 191 million acres of National Forests (1 botanist/1.1
    million ac.). This is a serious problem for a number of reasons.
        First, plants are the foundations of ecosystems. Health of native
    vegetation controls the quality and quantity of goods, services and
    enjoyment that Americans derive from our public lands. Second,
    butterflies, bears, and all native wildlife that the public enjoys
    require healthy native plant communities for survival. Third, species
    conservation, recreation, commodity production and all other programs
    require input and review from qualified botanists to avoid resource
    damage, controversy and litigation. National Forests, for example,
    provide habitat for nearly 2,000 ``sensitive'' plants, any of which
    could become eligible for federal listing if mismanaged. Finally, the
    President's priorities for public lands include increased emphasis on
    fire and invasive species management to prevent further ecological
    degradation. These priorities require high quality vegetation
    management, so botanists are integral to their successful
    implementation. Staffing levels are inadequate to meet agencies' duties
    to taxpayers or the needs of our resources.
    Recovery
        Recovery of imperiled species and their removal from the federal
    endangered species list is the primary goal of the Endangered Species
    Act (ESA). Unfortunately, the President's 2006 budget request reduces
    recovery funding by 10 percent. Further, plant recovery programs are
    severely underfunded and understaffed. Sixty percent of federal
    endangered species are plants. However, according to the FWS in fiscal
    year 2000, only 4.5 percent of federal recovery funding went to listed
    plants. Thus, most plant recovery plans are not adequately implemented;
    many are not implemented at all. The FWS has a recovery ranking system
    based on likelihood of recovery and degree of threat to each listed
    species and a priority system for recovery tasks. We suggest that this
    system be used as the basis for more equitable recovery budgeting.
    Invasive Non-Native Species
        Invasive non-native species cause up to $123 billion in economic
    losses in the United States each year. Scientists implicate non-native
    species in the decline of 49 percent of federally listed species (57
    percent of plants). According to the BLM, invasive non-native plants
    (weeds) already dominate at least 17 million acres of federal lands.
    These infestations reduce the value of our public lands for recreation,
    wildlife, and livestock. They also often cause other problems such as
    reduced water supply and increased fire danger. Agencies must be
    adequately funded to prevent and control invasive non-native species
    infestations. The President's budget calls for a reduction of funding
    for the Forest Service invasive species program. This is unacceptable
    as weeds are devastating ecosystems and economies throughout the United
    States.
    Native Plant Materials Development Program--BLM Wildland Fire
            Management Budget
        The purpose of this program is to develop seed of local native
    plants to be used for restoration and revegetation projects on federal
    lands. The use of native plant materials ensures sustainable,
    successful revegetation and restoration of public lands, helps maintain
    local biological diversity, and maintains a sustainable flow of goods
    and services from public lands. Funding for this program has been
    dropping. It should be fully funded. This program is funded through the
    BLM wildland fire management budget.
                                    request
    Land Management Agency Staffing
        The following augmentations are the minimum necessary to begin to
    move the agencies towards adequate botany staffing:
      --Each USFS Ranger District should be staffed with at least one full
            time series 430 botanist.
      --There are 156 BLM field offices. Their areas of responsibility vary
            from several thousand to several million acres. We propose that
            BLM nationwide employ one series 430 botanist for each 500,000
            acres under management. Botanists should be distributed based
            on local workloads. At minimum each BLM field office should be
            staffed with one full time botanist.
        Based on a GS-11 Step 1 base salary with no locality adjustment
    ($45,239/yr), these staff levels would require the following budget
    augmentations:

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                        Additional
                                                                   Current                               cost (vs.
                               Agency                                FTEs       FTE goal     Needed       current
                                                                                                          budget)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    USFS.......................................................          200      \1\ 543        343     $15,516,977
    BLM........................................................           61      \2\ 528        467      21,126,613
                                                                                                     ---------------
          Total................................................  ...........  ...........  .........      36,643,590
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ 1 FTE per Ranger District.
    \2\ 1 FTE per 0.5 million acres.

    Recovery
        We request full funding for FWS recovery plans for fiscal year 2006
    for plants and animals with High Recovery Potential and a High or
    Moderate degree of Threat, according to the FWS priority ranking
    system. For lower ranked species, we request that Priority 1 recovery
    actions identified in recovery plans be funded for fiscal year 2006.
    Priority 1 actions are defined by FWS as actions needed to prevent
    extinction.
        We do not have the FWS recovery budget requests for the species
    that fall into these categories. However, recent scientific studies
    based on the FWS priority system and species status recommended an
    augmentation of $300 million above current annual recovery spending.
    This augmentation would certainly improve recovery success under the
    ESA. Given current budget constraints, we request a recovery budget of
    at least $100 million for the fiscal year 2006 FWS recovery program.
    Invasive non-native species
        The BLM received $7.7 million in fiscal year 2004 for control and
    inventory of invasive non-native plants nationwide. The agency
    estimated it required approximately $16 million to adequately meet
    needs for fiscal year 2005. That was a budget augmentation of $8.3
    million. We do not have fiscal year 2006 figures.
        Region 5 of the USFS has estimated that an additional $700,000/yr
    is needed to meet regional weed control needs for fiscal year 2006.
    Based on the assumption that all 10 USFS regions need at least that
    amount, we request a budget augmentation of $7 million for USFS non-
    native plant inventory and control programs service-wide. Total fiscal
    year 2006 request for BLM + Forest Service = $15.4 million over fiscal
    year 2005 budget
    Native Plant Materials Development
        This crucial program should be funded at a minimum of $10 million.
        We hope that you will take these proposals and issues into account
    as you formulate budgets for fiscal year 2006 and beyond. Thank you for
    the opportunity to present this request.
                                npcc affiliates
        Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum; Arizona Native Plant Society; Botanic
    Gardens Conservation International (BGCI); California Native Plant
    Society; California Oak Foundation; Center for Biological Diversity;
    Colorado Native Plant Society; Florida Native Plant Society; Grand
    Prairie Friends of Illinois; Herb Society of America; Idaho Native
    Plant Society; Iowa Native Plant Society; Kauai Native Plant Society;
    Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center; Maryland Native Plant Society;
    Minnesota Native Plant Society; Missouri Native Plant Society; Montana
    Native Plant Society; Native Plant Society of New Mexico; Native Plant
    Society of Northeastern Ohio; Native Plant Society of Oregon; New
    England Wild Flower Society (NH, CT, RI, MA, ME, VT); New Mexico Rare
    Plant Technical Council; North Carolina Botanical Garden; North
    Carolina Wild Flower Preservation Society; Oklahoma Native Plant
    Society; South Carolina Native Plant Society; Ticonderoga Arboretum and
    Botanical Gardens, VA; Utah Native Plant Society; Virginia Native Plant
    Society; Washington Native Plant Society; West Virginia Native Plant
    Society; and Wyoming Native Plant Society.
                                npcc cooperators
        Botresearch USA; CalFlora Database; California Trout; Center for
    Native Ecosystems; Defenders of Wildlife; Endangered Species Coalition;
    Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics; Pacific Rivers
    Council; PlantaEuropa; PlantLife, UK; Public Employees for
    Environmental Responsibility T&E Inc.; and Xerces Society.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Northern Forest Alliance
        On behalf of the Northern Forest Alliance, a coalition of fifty
    non-profit organizations, I would like to offer testimony in support of
    fiscal year 2006 Forest Legacy Program and Land and Water Conservation
    Fund (LWCF) projects in the Northern Forest totaling $21.667 million
    and $7.55 million, respectively. We hope to see these projects included
    in the fiscal year 2006 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations
    Bill, and have listed them in two tables at the end of this testimony.
        Even in the face of challenging fiscal times, we feel that the
    federal government would greatly advance the public good by continuing
    to invest in Northern Forest conservation. The Northern Forest is a
    rural region of 26 million acres stretching from the Tug Hill Plateau
    in New York through the Adirondacks, northern Green Mountains and
    northern White Mountains, and into northern Maine. The Northern Forest
    is truly a place out of time that has retained its rural character and
    resource-based economy in the face of overwhelming changes in the
    broader eastern landscape.
        For example, forest products remain the largest industrial sector
    in the Northern Forest. The forest products industry in Maine alone
    contributes $6.5 billion annually to the Northern Forest economy with
    wages and salaries of more than $1 billion. To maintain this important
    economic activity, many of the Forest Legacy projects in our region
    have been designed to maintain working forests that might otherwise be
    converted for private development. The Katahdin Ironworks project in
    Maine, for example, has already put $200,000 into local payrolls from
    timber harvest on the project site. Timber harvest from the Adirondack
    Working Forest Easement (IP Lands) project in New York will feed a mill
    in Ticonderoga that employs 500 people--the only remaining large mill
    in Adirondack Park.
        Like other rural regions across the country, the Northern Forest is
    also seeking to diversify its economy through tourism and other
    measures. Tourism has already grown to include 10 percent of all
    Northern Forest jobs, with a payroll of $455 million. All of the fiscal
    year 2006 Forest Legacy and LWCF projects in the Northern Forest would
    have a significant impact on tourism. The Machias River, Phase II
    project in Maine's Downeast Lakes exemplifies this significance. The
    project will help conserve 20 percent of the remaining Atlantic salmon
    habitat in the country, maintain access to the famed Machias River
    canoe trip, and create permanent public access to backcountry campsites
    and river access points across more than 7,000 acres. While more than
    329,000 acres surrounding the Machias River project area are being
    conserved specifically to maintain the Downeast Lakes' forest products
    industry, the Machias River project will help bring anglers, paddlers,
    and other tourists to this beautiful region.
        The LWCF projects for the Silvio Conte National Wildlife Refuge,
    Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge, and Green Mountain National
    Forest would have similar positive impacts on tourism. The Conte and
    Umbagog National Wildlife Refuges have brought previously unimagined
    levels of tourism and related economic benefits to rural towns like
    Island Pond, Vermont and Errol, New Hampshire. Through our Businesses
    for the Northern Forest, we have worked with these towns and others to
    help them remain important hubs for the forest products industry while
    also developing other tools such as gateway tourism amenities that will
    support diversified economic growth. In a sign of how much towns across
    the Northern Forest are embracing land conservation as part of their
    economic future, the town of Pownal voted to approve the Green Mountain
    National Forest project included in our list by a two to one margin
    last year. The fiscal year 2006 funding would complete the USFS
    acquisition of the Broad Brook property, an area of over 3,900 acres
    that serves as a critical water supply area for local communities and
    is valued by locals and visitors alike for its extended section of the
    Long Trail.
        The Northern Forest is also a vital investment area for America to
    conserve important wildlife habitat and public water supplies. The
    Northern Forest is critical habitat for many forest-dependent species,
    most notably birds. The Northern Forest is part of ``BCR 14'', an
    internationally significant bird breeding habitat that produces more
    than a third of global populations of some familiar species like the
    black-throated blue warbler. The region is also the headwaters of
    virtually every major river in the Northeast, including the Hudson,
    Connecticut, and Androscoggin. These rivers meet the needs of major
    population centers along the coast as well as local communities, and
    investing in land conservation around the headwaters of these rivers
    conserves public dollars that would otherwise be needed for water
    treatment costs.
        The Forest Legacy and LWCF project funding that we are requesting
    is made necessary by a relentless string of large land sales in the
    Northern Forest that are destabilizing the land base while upsetting
    local economies and community traditions alike. As recently as 1990, 51
    percent of the Northern Forest land base was in the hands of large
    private landowners, primarily timber companies with long ties to the
    region and long-term management goals. In just the last 6 years a full
    25 percent of the region--7 million acres--has changed hands. According
    to the North East State Foresters Association, more than 3 million
    acres of that land have passed from traditional industrial timber
    owners to new classes of owners, such as Real Estate Investment Trusts,
    that have short-term investment horizons, increased willingness to use
    development and other different methods of producing revenue, and less
    affiliation with local communities.
        These changes have led to widespread mill closings, liquidation
    harvesting, and new development in formerly consolidated timberlands.
    These changing ownerships have also led to new restrictions on public
    access to private forestland that greatly impact hunters, snowmobilers,
    hikers, skiers, and others. For example, the Vermont Department of Fish
    and Wildlife reports a remarkable 1,287 percent increase in posted land
    just since 1991.
        It is imperative that the states and federal government continue to
    partner to accomplish conservation projects through Forest Legacy and
    LWCF that can help maintain the Northern Forest's economy, communities,
    and natural resources. Funding the projects listed below would help
    assure that as inevitable changes hit the Northern Forest, we are able
    to utilize this time of transition to conserve and maximize the
    region's natural assets as the basis for a bright future.

                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Project                               Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fiscal year 2006 Forest Legacy Projects Supported by the
     Northern Forest Alliance (Order reflects rank in President's
     Budget):
        Katahdin Ironworks (ME)..................................      5.000
        Machias River, Phase II (ME).............................      3.000
        IP Lands/NY Working Forest Easement (NY).................      5.000
        Green Mountain Wildlife Corridor (VT)....................      1.050
        Rossview (NH)............................................      2.000
        Willard Pond (NH)........................................      2.500
        Orange County Headwaters (VT)............................      1.542
        Adams Pond (VT)..........................................       .875
        Tumbledown Mountain (ME).................................       .700
                                                                  ----------
          Total..................................................     21.667
                                                                  ==========
    Fiscal year 2005 LWCF Projects Supported by the Northern
     Forest Alliance (Order reflects rank in President's Budget):
        U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:
            Lake Umbagog NWR (NH)................................       .750
            Silvio Conte NWR (VT/NH/MA/CT).......................      3.300
        U.S. Forest Service:
            Green Mountain National Forest (VT)..................      3.500
                                                                  ----------
              Total LWCF.........................................      7.550
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note.--Italicized projects not included in President's Budget.

        These projects represent the best that our region has to offer,
    only a piece of the total range of ripe projects across the region. In
    appreciation of the severe constraints on federal resources for the
    upcoming fiscal year, we have gone through careful evaluation to
    develop this prioritized set of time-sensitive strategic investments
    that will leverage other funding sources and deliver critically
    important public benefits. We would be grateful for your consideration
    of this testimony as you go through the appropriations process.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Outdoor Industry Association
        Outdoor Industry Association urges the subcommittee to fund the
    Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) State Assistance Program at
    $100 million for fiscal year 2006 and the Urban Park and Recreation
    Recovery Program (UPARR) at $60 million for fiscal year 2006. We also
    urge adequate funding for the federal LWCF program.
        Outdoor Industry Association (OIA) is a national trade association
    whose mission is to ensure the growth and success of the outdoor
    industry. A wide spectrum of leading manufacturers, distributors,
    suppliers, and retailers of outdoor recreation equipment and services,
    as well as other related business entities make up OIA's membership.
    OIA programs include representation in government/legislative affairs,
    cutting edge market research, member cost-saving benefits and consumer
    outreach initiatives to grow participation in outdoor activities and
    promote healthier lifestyles. Conferences including the annual Outdoor
    Industry Rendezvous and the Capitol Summit in Washington, D.C. are
    hosted by OIA. Outdoor Industry Association is the exclusive endorser
    of the Outdoor Retailer tradeshow.
        The outdoor industry is made up of over 4,000 businesses with
    500,000 employees in all 50 states, generating $20.1 billion in sales
    every year. Last year 159 million Americans participated in outdoor
    recreation, with the greatest numbers in the gateway activities of
    hiking, biking, camping and paddling.
        The LWCF stateside assistance and the Urban Parks and Recreation
    Recovery programs are vital for providing recreation experiences and
    healthy lifestyle options to all Americans. Stateside LWCF and UPARR
    are the government's primary investment tools for ensuring that kids
    and families have access to outdoor recreation activities. The
    stateside program has 40 years of strong success as one of America's
    most effective federal/state recreation and conservation partnership
    programs. Since its inception, LWCF has underwritten the development of
    more than 40,000 state and local park and recreation projects, touching
    98 percent of the counties in the United States.
        The Land and Water Conservation Fund was established by Congress in
    1964 to meet America's needs for outdoor recreation opportunities,
    wildlife habitat conservation and open space. According to the
    Congressional Research Service, through fiscal year 2004, $27.2 billion
    has been credited to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, but only
    $13.8 billion has been appropriated.
        We encourage the subcommittee to consider the following as it works
    on funding levels for programs under its jurisdiction for fiscal year
    2006:
      --69 percent of the American population, or 159 million people,
            participate in outdoor recreation each year.
      --Parks and recreation facilities drive a $20.1 billion industry.
      --In fiscal year 2004, Stateside LWCF funded nearly 600 state and
            local park projects across the nation, improving quality of
            life for millions of Americans.
      --The documented unmet need for state and local park facilities is
            $836 million.
      --``Exploring the Active Lifestyle'', research conducted by Harris
            Interactive for Outdoor Industry Foundation, found that hiking,
            biking and camping are gateway activities to an active
            lifestyle.
      --The same research showed that if children start early, these
            behaviors will be engrained, leading to healthier, active
            lives.
      --The stateside LWCF program increases the opportunities and
            availability of trails, parks, and other outdoor recreation in
            local communities.
      --61 percent of U.S. adults are overweight.
      --According to a Task Force on Community Preventive Services,
            increased accessibility of open space can boost physical
            activity by 25 percent.
      --The LWCF program helps ensure that this and future generations of
            Americans can have quality outdoor experiences in America's
            Great Outdoors.
        In the fiscal year 2003, 2004, and 2005 Interior Appropriations
    bills, Congress stepped back from a deal struck in 2001 to increase
    dollars for these programs through the Conservation Spending Category.
    Instead of steadily increasing programs as outlined in 2001, many
    programs have seen significant decreases. Both federal and stateside
    LWCF have lost ground, and UPARR has been zeroed out. The President's
    proposed budget eliminates funding for both stateside LWCF and UPARR in
    fiscal year 2006. The elimination of the LWCF State Assistance Program
    is of significant concern to the outdoor business community; we urge
    the Subcommittee to reject the President's recommendation to zero-out
    stateside LWCF.

                                             LWCF AND UPARR FUNDING HISTORY
                                                [In millions of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year                          Our
                                                   -------------------------------------------------------  request
                                                                                                             fiscal
                                                       2001       2002       2003       2004       2005    year 2006
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Land and Water Conservation Fund:
        Federal LWCF..............................     $450.0     $429.0     $313.0     $176.0     $167.0     $450.0
        Stateside LWCF Grants.....................       90.0      144.0       97.0       94.0       92.5      100.0
    Urban Park Recreation and Recovery (UPARR)....       30.0       30.0  .........  .........  .........       60.0
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        OIA strongly encourages the Senate Interior and Related Agencies
    Appropriations Subcommittee to invest in healthier communities through
    the LWCF State Assistance Program and the Urban Park and Recreation
    Recovery Program, and in backcountry recreation opportunities through
    the federal LWCF. We look forward to working with you to provide
    adequate funding for these important programs in fiscal year 2006.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Society of American Foresters
        The Society of American Foresters (SAF), representing over 15,000
    professional foresters, supports sound management and stewardship of
    our nation's forest resources. SAF urges Congress to provide
    consistent, long-term funding to better enable long-term management of
    the nation's forest lands, both public and private, so our forests
    continue to provide desired values and benefits over the long-term. We
    offer the following suggestions to facilitate improved stewardship and
    management of federal forest lands and provide family forest owners
    with the tools to better manage their lands. Given the understandable
    restrictions on the length of our testimony, we do not offer the in-
    depth analysis we normally provide but would be pleased to offer
    further detail upon request.

                                                [In millions of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Fiscal year
                      Discretionary appropriations                   --------------------------------    2006 SAF
                                                                       2005  enacted  2006  proposed  recommendation
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Forest and Rangeland Research \1\...............................           220.4           216.7           220.4
    Forest Inventory and Analysis \2\...............................            60.9            73.4            73.4
    State and Private Forestry Total \1\............................       \3\ 287.6           248.7           305.9
    Forest Health Management--Federal...............................            54.2            50.0            54.2
    Forest Health Management--Cooperative...........................            47.6            22.3            47.6
    State Fire Assistance...........................................        \3\ 32.9            20.9            32.9
    Volunteer Fire Assistance.......................................             5.9             5.9             5.9
    Forest Stewardship Program......................................            32.3            37.0            37.0
    Forest Legacy Program...........................................            57.1            80.0            70.0
    Urban and Community Forestry....................................            31.9            27.5            31.9
    Economic Action Programs........................................            19.0  ..............            20.0
    International Forestry..........................................             6.4             5.0             6.4
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          National Forest System Total..............................     \4\ 1,380.8         1,651.4         1,651.4
    Land Management Planning........................................            63.2            59.1            59.1
    Inventory and Monitoring........................................           167.3           167.0           167.0
    Forest Products.................................................           273.2           278.3           278.3
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          Wildland Fire Management Total............................     \5\ 1,703.0     \6\ 1,725.3         1,775.3
    Preparedness....................................................       \7\ 668.6           676.5           676.5
    Fire Operations.................................................           648.8           700.5           700.5
    Hazardous Fuels.................................................           262.5           281.0           281.0
    Rehabilitation and Restoration..................................            12.8             2.0            12.8
    Fire Research and Development \8\...............................            21.7            16.9            21.7
    Joint Fire Sciences Program.....................................             7.9              NS            10.0
    Forest Health Management--Federal...............................            14.8             7.0            14.8
    Forest Health Management--Cooperative...........................             9.9             4.6             9.9
    State Fire Assistance...........................................            40.2            29.4            40.2
    Volunteer Fire Assistance.......................................             7.9             7.9             7.9
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          Capital Improvement and Maintenance Total.................       \9\ 514.7           380.8           391.2
    Facilities......................................................      \10\ 198.8           117.8           117.8
    Roads...........................................................           226.4           189.6           200.0
    Deferred Maintenance............................................            13.8             9.8             9.8
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ This line does not include funding for FIA, as it is broken out in a separate line.
    \2\ This includes funding allocated under S&PF and Research in the proposed budget.
    \3\ This figure does not include $49 million in emergency & supplemental appropriations.
    \4\ This figure does not include $16 million in emergency funding.
    \5\ This figure does not include $12.1 million in emergency and supplemental funding.
    \6\ This figure does not include $426 million in emergency and supplemental funding.
    \7\ The figure includes hazardous fuels funding, which the budget proposes to move to National Forest system.
    \8\ This figure does not include $8 million for Joint Fire Sciences, as we chose to separate JFS as another line
      item.
    \9\ Includes regular appropriations and supplemental appropriations.
    \10\ This figure does not include $60.8 million provided in emergency and supplemental funding.

        State and Private Forestry.--SAF believes that the proposed
    budget's lack of support for family forests is not in the nation's
    interest and urges Congress to recognize its negative implications.
    While managing federal lands is extremely important, especially given
    the record levels of fuel buildup and insect and disease problems,
    management needs on over 393 million acres of private forest lands
    cannot be ignored if we expect to sustainably manage forests at
    landscape and watershed levels. Through federal appropriations, state
    agencies, non profit organizations, and individual landowners leverage
    millions of dollars to achieve management goals on family-owned forest
    lands, and at the same time, provide essential public benefits,
    particularly watershed protection and wildlife habitat.
        Forest Health Management.--SAF believes that the 53 percent
    decrease in funding proposed for forest health management on state and
    private lands under the State and Private Forestry and the Wildland
    Fire Management Accounts will inhibit responsible land stewardship.
    Again, the proposed budget appears to ignore the role of state and
    private forest lands in reducing the threat of invasive species,
    insects, and diseases in our forests. Without treatment, these threats
    can easily spread to other lands and can also result in increase fire
    risk, threatening homes, lives, and other values. These funds allow the
    states and private landowners to survey for these threats and treat
    them in a timely manner to prevent further damage to our public and
    private forests.
        State Fire Assistance.--The over 30 percent decrease proposed in
    the fiscal year 2006 budget for State Fire Assistance will severely
    limit protection of the nation's forests. Decreased funding of this
    magnitude will threaten the nation's capacity to ensure those who are
    often the first to respond to wildfires on both federal and non federal
    lands have the resources and training to do so. Lives, communities,
    property, and our forest resources rely on the protection and
    preventative treatments accomplished with State Fire Assistance
    funding. SAF recommends continued funding for this program through
    Wildland Fire Management and State and Private Forestry at fiscal year
    2005 enacted levels.
        Forest Stewardship Program.--SAF strongly supports the increase in
    the proposed budget for the Forest Stewardship Program. Developing a
    stewardship plan is a critical first step in enabling family forest
    owners to sustainably manage their forests and meet their own
    objectives while at the same time providing numerous public benefits.
    SAF encourages a more strategic approach to this program at both the
    federal and state level, where program funds are targeted at those
    forest lands faced with priority issues such as wildfire risk, invasive
    species, insect, or disease threats, endangered species habitats, and
    development pressure. With this targeted approach, Stewardship plans
    can be developed to address priority issues and subsequent educational,
    technical, and cost-share assistance can be targeted to address these
    priorities. This will make better use of federal dollars and leverage
    funding from other landowner assistance programs such as the Forest
    Land Enhancement Program and the Forest Legacy Program as well as non-
    federal resources.
        Forest Legacy Program and Land Acquisition.--SAF continues to be
    extremely concerned with the growing threat of loss of our nation's
    forest lands through conversion to non-forest uses, fragmentation, and
    parcelization into tracts that are too small to manage. The Forest
    Legacy Program helps landowners keep their land as a working forest
    which provide public benefits through retention of forests for
    watershed protection, wildlife habitat and other diverse values. We
    recommend $70 million for this program, which is less than the proposed
    budget request, in consideration of the overall current budget deficit.
    The budget should achieve balance between programs that help avoid
    conversion of forests to non forest uses and programs that help family
    forest owners sustainably manage their lands, and implement practices
    that address imminent threats. We also recommend shifting some funds
    from the Land Acquisition account to programs that encourage private
    forest stewardship. While there is certainly a need for the federal
    government to acquire strategically important forest lands,
    particularly key inholdings, we believe that, given the current fiscal
    constraints, federal land acquisition funds will be better spent by
    encouraging family forest owners to retain ownership and improve the
    long-term management of their lands.
        International Forestry.--Through this program, the Forest Service
    provides assistance to other countries striving towards sustainable
    forest management. Additionally, the program fosters partnerships
    across borders to help achieve common resource objectives. SAF supports
    funding this program at fiscal year 2005 enacted levels.
        National Forest System.--The National Forest System lands,
    comprising over one-quarter of the nation's forested lands, are
    increasingly important to the nation's economic and social well-being.
    It is critical that these lands be managed in a way that provides for
    their long-term health and productivity. SAF supports the funding
    levels proposed in the fiscal year 2006 budget for land management
    planning, inventory and monitoring, and forest products. These funding
    levels, along with anticipated improvements in the land management
    planning process and other new authorities, will improve the ability of
    forest managers to use proven silvicultural practices to address forest
    health and other issues on federal lands.
        Woody Biomass Utilization.--The utilization of woody biomass can
    offer a long-term solution to reducing fuel loads and addressing other
    forest management needs on public and private forests. Utilization of
    biomass can reduce costs of projects designed to improve our forests,
    particularly in wildfire-prone areas and can also foster economic
    growth in areas where there are limited markets for this type of
    material. Often, the high costs and limited infrastructure associated
    with biomass removal prevents the efficient use of these materials. SAF
    recommends providing $10 million of Forest Service hazardous fuels
    funding for grants to create incentives for biomass utilization from
    national forest lands, and recommends non-federal lands be explicitly
    included in this grant program. While biomass utilization should
    certainly be encouraged on federal lands, the surrounding non-federal
    lands can offer a consistent and adequate supply of biomass materials
    to stimulate investments in infrastructure for utilizing biomass from
    federal lands. In addition, SAF urges creation of opportunities for
    woody biomass utilization on other federal lands and tribal lands.
        Wildland Fire Management.--While federal land management agencies
    and their non-federal partners continue to make progress in reducing
    the threat of catastrophic wildfire, we remain concerned regarding the
    adequacy of wildfire suppression funding. It is difficult to predict
    wildfire suppression expenditures and when expenditures are
    underestimated, the agencies are forced to borrow from other accounts
    disrupting federal and non federal land management and, in fact, often
    taking from the very accounts that help prevent catastrophic wildfire
    through fuels treatment. SAF strongly urges a long-term solution to
    this problem with mechanisms for cost containment and accountability.
        SAF also recommends funding rehabilitation and restoration at the
    fiscal year 2005 enacted level of $12.8 million. SAF supports
    appropriate and timely efforts to rehabilitate and restore forests
    after wildfires and other catastrophic events. Timely rehabilitation
    can restore damaged watersheds and reduce the risk of long-term soil
    loss from surface erosion and landslides. The removal of dead and dying
    trees in certain areas can reduce potential for subsequent fires and
    recover some of the economic value of the forest.
        Forest and Rangeland Research.--The Forest Service's long-term and
    short-term research is a critical component of forestry research in the
    United States. The program helps maintain forest science capacity
    within the Forest Service and its partners and helps identify solutions
    to many of the forestry problems we face as a nation. Equally important
    is the transfer of research information to forest managers and land
    owners to implement new findings and solutions on the ground. We
    recommend funding this program at fiscal year 2005 levels and support
    the proposed focus on technology transfer. We encourage the Agency to
    utilize existing mechanisms such as State and Private Forestry Programs
    and Extension Agents at universities across the country to achieve this
    goal.
        Forest Inventory and Analysis Program.--The Forest Inventory and
    Analysis program is the only nationwide effort that monitors the
    extent, condition, uses, impacts of management, and health of forest
    ecosystems across all ownerships in the United States. This
    comprehensive analysis provides the basis for improved forest policy
    and forest management decisions and can provide warning of imminent
    problems such as loss of forest land to non forest uses, the long-term
    consequences of invasive species and insect and disease outbreaks, and
    losses due to catastrophic wildfire. SAF strongly supports the increase
    proposed in the fiscal year 2006 budget, and urges full implementation
    of the program with coverage of each state and annual reporting in a
    timely manner.
        Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM).--The
    BLM manages 55 million acres of forest lands, approximately 5 percent
    of all forestlands in the United States, of which 16 million acres are
    in need of restoration treatments including mechanical thinning,
    hazardous fuels reduction and tree species reintroduction to halt the
    spread of invasive species. SAF supports the BLM in its efforts to
    improve conditions on these forestlands through the BLM's Public Domain
    Forest Management Program funds. In addition to providing funding for
    treatments on BLM land, this Program also helps to ensure BLM has
    professional forestry expertise on its staff to make sound forest
    management decisions. SAF supports funding this program at the fiscal
    year 2006 proposed level, $10.6 million.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Town of Greenville, Maine
        I am Town Manager for the Town of Greenville, Maine, and am pleased
    to submit this testimony in support of the State of Maine's Katahdin
    Iron Works (KIW) Forest Legacy Project, and to specifically request a
    $5 million appropriation from the Forest Legacy Program for the KIW
    project. As you know, this funding has been proposed in the President's
    budget for fiscal year 2006 for the Forest Legacy Program, and the KIW
    project is ranked 4 in the nation.
        The funding proposed for this project will allow the state of Maine
    to purchase a conservation easement over 37,000 acres of critically
    located land about nine miles east of Greenville. The property is
    bisected by the Appalachian Trail and includes land around Gulf Hagas,
    the Barren/Chairback Mountain Range, a significant stretch of the Class
    A West Branch of the Pleasant River, and many other important natural
    and recreational features.
        When the Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC) purchased this property in
    2003, residents of Greenville were extremely pleased because that
    organization had already been working with us to fashion a sustainable
    future through enhanced outdoor recreation opportunities. The Forest
    Legacy project proposed at KIW will ensure that Greenville and other
    towns in the region can maintain continued economic vitality in the
    face of changing markets. This project has garnered significant local
    support because it protects the spectacular landscape that makes our
    region so special, creates new recreational opportunities for the
    public, and secures the future of this property as a working forest. In
    our view, these goals strike the right balance between conservation of
    important natural resource lands and economic development that comes
    from those lands.
        Just last month, the benefits of AMC's ownership of the KIW
    property has proven beneficial to the future economic growth of
    Greenville as it relates to outdoor recreation. We hosted the 1st
    Annual 100-Mile Wilderness Dog Sled Race, which ran from Greenville to
    Brownville and back directly across AMC's land and along trails they
    helped construct. The race was a huge success, drawing 11 mushers with
    teams of up to a dozen dogs from several states and territories. We
    expect growth in this event next year and are extremely excited about
    its impact on our economic growth. Had the KIW property been sold on
    the open market and subdivided or closed to public use, our future
    would look much less favorable.
        With a Forest Legacy Program conservation easement that ensures
    permanent public access, sustainable forestry and recreational
    opportunities, the KIW project fits in well to our community's future
    and we urge your support.
        We hope that you will provide $5 million to ensure the success of
    this effort in the fiscal year 2006 Interior appropriations bill.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present this request.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of The Wilderness Society
                                  introduction
        The Wilderness Society appreciates this opportunity to submit
    testimony on the President's fiscal year 2006 budget appropriations for
    wildfire management. As this committee is certainly aware,
    appropriations to the agencies responsible for managing public lands
    are divided into discrete categories, each representing a specific set
    of activities to be accomplished. We have three broad concerns about
    fiscal year 2006 proposed appropriations: ongoing suppression funding
    problems, implementation concerns related hazardous fuels treatments,
    and insufficient funding for State & Local Assistance programs. Much of
    the background data presented in this testimony comes from a
    forthcoming report by The Wilderness Society entitled Following the
    Money: Implementation of the National Fire Plan. In this report,
    empirical data on funding and reported accomplishments was gathered
    from the USDA Forest Service's Washington Office, Region 2, and two
    National Forests in Colorado: The Arapaho/Roosevelt and the Pike/San
    Isabel. Additionally, funds and accomplishments were tracked through
    the Colorado State Forest Service.
                                  suppression
        The biggest problem plaguing effective funding of long-term
    wildland fire management goals is the cycle of suppression
    appropriations, over-spending, borrowing, and partial repayment. With
    suppression funding accounting for approximately 70 percent of all
    Wildland Fire Program (Title IV of the Forest Service's budget) dollars
    spent, many have identified it as a primary source of concern. Current
    incentives do not encourage cost savings, and fire managers on the
    ground have something of a ``blank check mentality''. For example, in
    fiscal year 2003, which was a relatively mild fire year, the FS was
    appropriated a total of $351.9 million for suppression, including
    Congressionally authorized emergency appropriation funds. Still,
    suppression expenditures for that year were $1,023 million, leaving a
    $671.1 million shortfall which was covered only by transferring money
    out of other National Forest accounts. As the GAO noted in a recent
    report, when money is transferred out of other fire accounts, projects
    are frequently delayed or cancelled.
        We are aware that this committee is considering a proposal to
    authorize the creation of emergency accounts for suppression should
    expenditures again exceed appropriations. While this will likely reduce
    the negative impacts associated with suppression transfers, the
    solution is both short-term and inadequate. We urge the committee to
    consider more systemic and lasting changes to the current process of
    funding fire suppression. Only when suppression spending is contained
    will more proactive fire management activities be adequately funded.
                                hazardous fuels
        Funding for hazardous fuels reduction has again seen an increase in
    the fiscal year 2006 proposed budget. Increases are apparent both for
    the Forest Service and for the Department of Interior, suggesting an
    ongoing commitment to treating fuels and an effort to implement the
    ideals embodied in the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (2003). The
    Wilderness Society supports the treating of fuels in the places where
    it will effectively protect communities. However, current methods for
    funding this program and tracking accomplishments hamper efforts to
    achieve the desired outcomes.
        First, effective planning requires realistic cost estimates for the
    work, but the current method for estimating costs is deeply flawed.
    Most cost estimates are given in a cost per acre format, even though
    costs in the southeast are vastly different from those in the west.
    Estimates in the literature range from $31-$2,500, making any average
    essentially meaningless. Even two forests located along Colorado's
    Front Range, the Arapaho-Roosevelt (ARNF) and the Pike/San Isabel
    (PSI), show highly variable costs. In fiscal year 2003, the ARNF was
    allocated approximately $3.6 million for hazardous fuels reduction
    treatments; they treated nearly 5,000 acres, 87 percent of them in the
    Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI), and were able to use prescribed burning
    for 63 percent of the work. By contrast, the PSI got $5.8 million (60
    percent more than the ARNF), treated 18,869 acres (280 percent more
    than the ARNF) with similar WUI and prescribed burning percentages as
    the ARNF. The bottom line of these wildly different outputs is that it
    cost the ARNF $736.74 per acre, more than double the $311.14 it cost
    the PSI. As a result, the two neighboring forests are able to
    accomplish a vastly different amount of work with only slightly
    different pots of money.
        Explanations for this disparity have been many and varied. Whatever
    the reason, these two forests are located in very similar forest types,
    have extensive Wildland-Urban Interface areas, and are able to burn as
    opposed to mechanically treat approximately the same proportion of
    acres; the difference in cost/acre highlights the tremendous
    variability in costs and accomplishments even within a limited
    geographic area. More research must be devoted to understanding the
    factors that influence costs, and thereby increase the agency's ability
    to accomplish more work with limited funds.
        Second, the agencies report the number of acres they treat, and
    track these acres both by method of treatment (prescribed fire or
    mechanical means) and location (priority Wildland-Urban Interface, or
    ``other''). More recently, they have also begun to record fire regime
    and condition class changes. In many cases, acres get counted twice or
    even three times. A single WUI acre might be thinned one year, burned
    the next, and contribute to a landscape-scale condition class change.
    Most readers of the data would easily conclude that three times as much
    terrain had actually been treated, since the treatment of that single
    acre would appear in several columns over two different years.
        Current incentive structures thus strongly favor the treatment of a
    high number of acres, without requiring consistent priority-setting
    across National Forests. Treating acres that may not represent the
    highest hazard but help elevate accomplishment data is clearly
    inadequate. In the absence of more rigorous efforts to prioritize
    hazardous fuels reduction treatments, projects are often selected for
    reasons such as safety of treatment and lack of local objection.
    Funding for hazardous fuels reduction must be matched with careful
    priority-setting, reliable record-keeping, and transparent reporting of
    accomplishments.
                            state & local assistance
        In 2001, federal planners identified 11,376 ``communities at risk''
    (66 FR 751-777) as an indication of the extent of the land ownership
    problem facing fire managers. Since fire doesn't recognize ownership
    boundaries, private land must be integrated into landscape-scale
    problem definition and fire management planning. State forest officials
    therefore have a fundamental role to play in ensuring that public fire
    managers work across ownership lines.
        Funding hazardous fuels reduction exclusively on federal lands is
    incomplete and will ultimately undermine program success. The
    President's fiscal year 2006 budget actually decreases funding
    allocated to State & Local Assistance, reducing it to a mere 3 percent
    of total money in the National Fire Plan. The Forest Service estimates
    that 59 million private acres in the ``community protection zone'' are
    at high risk, but the agency is powerless to address fuel treatment
    needs there with such limited funds. Increasing funding to state and
    private entities will go a long way toward communicating commitment,
    reducing fire risk and building capacity to bridge the public-private
    divide.
                                   conclusion
        The current Administration has focused much of its rhetoric around
    the wildfire issue on protecting communities and yet, they continue to
    make dramatic cuts to State and Local Assistance programs. Even though
    up to 85 percent of the land around communities at the highest risk is
    state or private, resources going to non-federal lands continue to
    decrease.
        The Wilderness Society recommends the following fiscal year 2006
    funding levels for National Fire Plan State and Local Assistance
    programs:
      --State Fire Assistance.--Provides technical and financial assistance
            to states for grants and agreements with communities to
            implement fire protection activities, including the removal of
            hazardous fuels, fire prevention campaigns, personnel training,
            equipment availability and FIREWISE--a public education program
            developed by the National Wildland Fire Coordinating Group to
            assist communities located near fire-prone lands. Funding for
            this program has ranged from $72 million to $84 million since
            2001. The Wilderness Society recommends $84 million for fiscal
            year 2006.
      --Community and Private Land Fire Assistance.--Established to help
            western communities recover from the 2000 fire season and for
            assistance to areas threatened by wildfire. This program has
            not been funded since fiscal year 2001 and The Wilderness
            Society recommends $35 million for fiscal year 2006.
      --Rural Fire Assistance.--Targeted to communities of less than 10,000
            people, this DOI program provides technical expertise,
            training, supplies, and materials, equipment and educational
            activities to fire departments. The Wilderness Society
            recommends $10 million for fiscal year 2006.
      --Volunteer Fire Assistance.--Provides technical and financial
            assistance for grants with rural communities for the protection
            of more than one billion acres of state and private lands,
            targeted to volunteer fire department in communities of less
            than 10,000 people. The Wilderness Society recommends $14
            million for fiscal year 2006.
      --Economic Action Program.--Facilitates and fosters sustainable
            community development opportunities utilizing the wood removed
            through hazardous fuels reduction treatments. The Wilderness
            Society recommends $40 million for fiscal year 2006.
                                     ______

                  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 2006 Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
    Appropriations bill. On behalf of the more than 250,000 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
    2006 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 $1.8 billion;
      --Within the Conservation Trust Fund, $450 million for Land and Water
            Conservation Fund federal land acquisition;
      --Within the Conservation Trust Fund, reinstate the Land and Water
            Conservation Fund state-side to a minimum of last year's level:
            $92.5 million; and
      --Within the Conservation Trust Fund, $80 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 are a national birthright.
                            conservation trust fund
        In 2000, a bipartisan Congress enacted a roughly $2 billion-per-
    year dedicated conservation funding mechanism called the Conservation
    Trust Fund. This fund was designed to ensure that, in good times and in
    bad, the country always had adequate federal resources to meet our most
    important conservation, recreation, wildlife and preservation needs.
    Unfortunately, the administration's new budget has abandoned the
    Conservation Trust Fund mechanism, underfunding the lands and wildlife
    portion of its programs by nearly $1 billion, with the result that,
    across the nation, our parks, forests, wild lands and wildlife will
    suffer. We respectfully urge the Subcommittee to provide full funding
    for its portion of the Conservation Trust Fund (CTF) at $1.8 billion
    for fiscal year 2006.
                        land and water conservation fund
        The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is our nation's
    premiere tool to create and preserve parks, forests, wildlife refuges
    and open space. For the first time, the administration does not even
    try to claim that it is fulfilling the president's campaign promise to
    fully fund LWCF at $900 million. And while the administration says its
    budget funds the program at $680 million, in reality the fiscal year
    2006 budget provides only $132 million for LWCF's core programs--
    funding federal land acquisition at $130 million and eliminating
    stateside assistance. As it did last year, the budget then attempts to
    cloak this glaring shortfall by declaring more than a dozen other
    ongoing programs to be part of the LWCF. National treasures from the
    Everglades to our neighborhood parks will suffer from the resulting net
    loss in funds for expanding and consolidating parks, refuges and
    forests.
        Within the CTF, we urge the Subcommittee to provide $450 million
    for Federal Land Acquisition and reinstate state-side LWCF to last
    year's level: $92.5 million. For decades, LWCF has been a premier tool
    to fund two things: federal land acquisition and the state assistance
    program. Again this year, in an attempt to make LWCF look ``full'', the
    Administration shoehorns in numerous additional unrelated programs.
    This was done to mask real cuts in funding for 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 proposed $220 million in fiscal year
    2005 to $130 million proposed for fiscal year 2006. 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 support the administration's requested project list for LWCF and
    Forest Legacy. In addition to the administration's projects, we
    recommend LWCF federal land acquisition funding for 42 priority
    projects for fiscal year 2006, listed in Table A. Federal acquisition
    of these lands is necessary to address 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 support the President's fiscal year 2006 request
    of $80 million for the Forest Legacy program and the administration's
    list of requested Forest Legacy projects. 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. In
    fiscal year 2005, the approved funding level met just over 20 percent
    of national requests, resulting in lost opportunities to conserve
    critical private forestlands. For fiscal year 2006, project requests
    from states enrolled in the program totaled over $200 million. This
    program is especially important in our eastern forests, where over 80
    percent of forestlands are in private ownership and are increasingly
    threatened by sprawling development patterns.
                additional agency appropriations recommendations
        Fish and Wildlife Service.--The National Wildlife Refuge System is
    suffering under a $1.408 billion backlog in operations and $1.3 billion
    backlog in maintenance. Consequently, we strongly recommend that
    funding to the Refuge System be increased over the fiscal year 2005
    levels, in an effort to begin to counteract the massive backlogs. We
    urge the subcommittee to appropriate $800 million for the Operations
    and Maintenance Program to carry out necessary repairs, fund staff
    positions, and support development of Comprehensive Conservation Plans.
        Bureau of Land Management.--We support the Administration's
    proposal to raise approximately $9 million from new user fees imposed
    on oil and gas operators on public lands to help defray the growing
    administrative costs of the oil and gas program. No BLM constituency
    group profits more handsomely from extracting resources from the public
    lands, nor demands more in terms of performance from the BLM, than does
    the oil and gas industry. We note that since 2000, funding for the
    BLM's oil and gas program has increased from $55.3 million to $87.3
    million, all from appropriated funds. We also note that funding for
    other critical programs--such as wilderness management and fisheries
    and wildlife--have remained essentially flat during the same time
    period.
        We urge the committee to increase the Administration's fiscal year
    2006 budget for the National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS) by
    $3.1 million, for operations and maintenance, to provide a total of
    $46.6 million to conserve the unique National Monuments, Conservation
    Areas, Trails, Rivers, and Wilderness areas which the System
    encompasses. Since the System's inception five years ago, funding has
    ranged from $38-$42 million a year--never enough to meet the System's
    unmet needs. Priority needs include law enforcement and vandalism
    prevention, resource monitoring, cultural resource protection, and
    invasive species control. Even with the proposed increase in 2006
    funding, the 26 million acre System will still receive less than $1.80
    an acre. We also urge the committee to add $2.1 million to purchase
    inholdings in BLM National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS) areas
    which are threatened by development, including Oregon's Steens Mountain
    wilderness and Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument, and in Utah's Grand
    Staircase-Escalante National Monument. The fiscal year 2006 budget is
    particularly critical for the NLCS, as the BLM will need to implement
    at least 15 forthcoming Resource Management Plans for areas in the
    System in 2005 and 2006.
        As stated, we support the President's priority projects for BLM
    land acquisition through the Land and Water Conservation Fund. We note
    that the President's request includes important projects that will
    improve ecosystem and wildlife health and recreational opportunities in
    the National Landscape Conservation System.

        TABLE A.--RECOMMENDED FEDERAL LWCF PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Total
                   State                          Unit             project
                                                                     need
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    AL.................................  Cahaba River NWR (AL).   $1,000,000
    AL.................................  Alabama NFs (AL)......    2,300,000
    AR.................................  Ouachita NF...........    1,300,000
    AZ.................................  Coconino NF...........    4,000,000
    CA.................................  Tahoe NF..............    2,500,000
    CO.................................  White River NF........      500,000
    CO.................................  Uncompahgre NF........    2,500,000
    FL.................................  Florida National          3,000,000
                                          Scenic Trail (FL).
    FL.................................  Suwannee Wildlife         3,000,000
                                          Corridor/Pinhook
                                          Swamp (FL).
    GA.................................  Kennesaw Mountain NBP.    2,200,000
    GA.................................  Chattahoochee NF......    3,000,000
    GA, NC, SC.........................  Chattooga Wild &          2,500,000
                                          Scenic River (GA, NC,
                                          SC).
    ID.................................  Idaho WSR (phase I)...      500,000
    ID.................................  Payette NF (phase II).    2,000,000
    KY.................................  Cumberland Gap........    3,000,000
    MA.................................  Cape Cod NS...........    3,000,000
    ME.................................  Rachel Carson NWR.....    2,300,000
    MN.................................  Superior NF...........  \1\ 2,000,0
                                                                          00
    MS.................................  Gulf Islands NS.......    2,000,000
    MS.................................  Delta NF (MS).........    2,300,000
    MT.................................  GYE...................    2,250,000
    MT.................................  Beaverhead-Deerlodge      3,000,000
                                          NF.
    MT.................................  Flathead NF...........   10,600,000
    Multi-state (NH/VT)................  Silvio Conte NWR          3,300,000
                                          (multi-state).
    NC.................................  Uwharrie NF (NC)......      500,000
    NJ.................................  E.B. Forsythe NWR.....    1,300,000
    NJ.................................  Great Swamp NWR (NJ)..    1,000,000
    OR.................................  Pac NW Streams........  \1\ 550,000
    PA.................................  Flight 93 Memorial        4,200,000
                                          (PA).
    RI.................................  Trustom Pond NWR......    2,150,000
    TN.................................  Chickasaw NWR.........    1,500,000
    TN.................................  Chickamauga-              2,000,000
                                          Chattanooga.
    TN.................................  Tennessee Mountains       3,000,000
                                          (TN).
    TN.................................  Obed Wild and Scenic      1,500,000
                                          River (TN).
    TX.................................  Balcones NWR..........    1,900,000
    USVI...............................  Virgin Islands NP.....      850,000
    UT.................................  BST...................    3,000,000
    VA.................................  Jefferson NF-Black        2,000,000
                                          Lick, Rumley Branch
                                          (VA).
    VT.................................  Green Mtn NF-Broad        3,500,000
                                          Brook and others (VT).
    WA.................................  Mt. Rainier NP........  \1\ 1,500,0
                                                                          00
    WA.................................  Mount Baker-Snoqualmie    1,300,000
                                          NF.
    WI.................................  Chequamegon NF........  \1\ 2,700,0
                                                                          00
                                                                ------------
          Total........................  ......................   81,550,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Part of a larger program.

                                     ______

                        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

               Prepared Statement of the Alliance to Save Energy
                                  introduction
        The Alliance to Save Energy, a bipartisan, nonprofit coalition of
    more than 90 business, government, environmental, and consumer leaders,
    appreciates this opportunity to submit written testimony in support of
    a $10 million increase for the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
    Energy Star Program in fiscal year 2006. The Alliance's mission is to
    promote energy efficiency worldwide to achieve a healthier economy, a
    cleaner environment, and greater energy security. The Alliance, founded
    in 1977 by Senators Charles Percy and Hubert Humphrey, currently enjoys
    the leadership of Senator Byron Dorgan as Chairman; Washington Gas
    Chairman and CEO James DeGraffenreidt, Jr. as Co-Chairman; and
    Representatives Ralph Hall, Zach Wamp and Ed Markey and Senators Jeff
    Bingaman, Susan Collins and Jim Jeffords as its Vice-Chairs. The
    American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) also supports
    the recommendations in this testimony.
        The Energy Star program is one of the government's most successful
    efforts to promote marketplace solutions to greater energy efficiency.
    The Energy Star program is an entirely voluntary program that reduces
    energy demand, lowers energy bills, and helps avoid greenhouse gas
    emissions. Increased investment by the federal government in the Energy
    Star program will translate to increased energy savings by taxpayers
    across the country. The EPA estimates that every federal dollar spent
    on the Energy Star program results in an average savings of $75 or more
    in consumer energy bills; the reduction of about 3.7 tons of carbon
    dioxide emissions; an investment of $15 in private sector capital; and
    the contribution of over $60 to the economy.
        The Energy Star program testifies to the important achievements
    that can be made through cooperative partnerships between government
    and businesses. The Climate Protection Partnerships Division at EPA,
    which operates the Energy Star program, works closely with
    manufacturers, retailers, building owners, and energy service
    providers, as well as state and local governments, nonprofits, and
    other organizations to promote energy-efficient products and buildings.
        Energy efficiency is an investment. There is often a modest
    additional cost for purchasing more efficient, smarter technologies,
    but that additional cost is paid back many times to the consumer
    through lower energy bills. Energy Star helps consumers understand and
    realize these benefits. The label represents the ``good housekeeping
    seal of approval.'' In order to qualify for the Energy Star label, a
    set of rigorous guidelines that represent high energy efficiency goals
    are established through the Energy Star program for the products or
    services of the participants. Last year alone, Americans, with the help
    of Energy Star, saved $10 billion on their energy bills. Consumers can
    use these savings to invest in the economy, their families, and their
    future.
            energy efficiency is america's greatest energy resource
        Energy efficiency is America's greatest energy resource. It makes a
    larger contribution to meeting our energy needs than petroleum, natural
    gas, or coal. The Alliance to Save Energy estimates that energy
    efficiency gains since 1973 are now saving at least 40 quadrillion Btus
    of energy each year, or about 40 percent of our actual energy use.
    What's more, increasing America's energy efficiency is the quickest,
    cleanest, and cheapest way of meeting our energy needs. Without these
    enormous savings, our difficulties in meeting energy demand would be
    far, far worse than they are today.
        For example, in 2004 alone, Energy Star helped Americans save
    24,000 Megawatts of peak power, enough to avoid the need for 72 300-
    Megawatt power plants, and thus avoiding the use of electricity from
    some of the dirtiest, oldest power plants that come online during peak
    hours. Working together with Energy Star, Americans prevented the
    release of 30 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions, which is
    equivalent to removing 20 million cars from the road. As these
    statistics exemplify, the Energy Star program is helping millions of
    Americans get the energy they need, while saving money and avoiding
    pollution.
                  how energy star capitalizes on this resource
        EPA's Energy Star program has proven to be an extremely effective
    way for this nation to capitalize on the potential of energy efficiency
    as a resource. Energy Star's voluntary partnership program--which
    includes Energy Star Buildings, Energy Star Homes, Energy Star Small
    Businesses, and Energy Star Labeled Products--works by removing
    marketplace barriers to existing and emerging technologies, providing
    information on technology opportunities, generating awareness of
    energy-efficient products and services, and educating consumers about
    life-cycle energy savings.
        Two years ago, the Alliance to Save Energy undertook an extensive
    public opinion survey and found that the name recognition of the Energy
    Star program is very high--86 percent among U.S. homeowners.
    Approximately one-third of U.S. consumers report using the Energy Star
    label as an information tool for making purchase decisions; and an even
    higher number report using Energy Star as an information tool to help
    them save energy. Most consumers who are aware of the Energy Star label
    correctly understand that products bearing the Energy Star label use
    less energy and can save them money on energy bills.
                       about the energy star partnerships
        Energy Star is composed entirely of voluntary partnerships, and
    these have grown since the early 1990s to include thousands of product
    manufacturers, private and public building owners and operators,
    homebuilders, small businesses, utilities, and retailers. These
    partnerships demonstrate that energy efficiency delivers ``pollution
    prevention at a profit.''
        Energy Star serves broad constituencies in every state in the
    country. Energy Star currently has more than 7,000 company partners who
    are committed to improving the energy efficiency of our homes,
    businesses and products. Among those partners are over 1,400
    manufacturing partners who make and market over 32,000 different models
    of Energy Star qualifying products, and 550 retail partners
    representing 21,000 storefronts. Energy Star counts more than 2,000
    builder partners and partners who supply products and services for
    energy-efficient home construction. More than 360,000 families now live
    in Energy Star Homes--locking in financial savings for homeowners of
    more than $200 million annually. In fact, nearly 10 percent of all
    homes built in 2004 earned the Energy Star label.
        As you may know, 2005 marks the fifth year that the Alliance has
    asked Energy Star company partners to join us in our request for a
    significant increase in funding for the program. The response has been
    remarkable. Joining us in our request this year are 620 companies and
    partners and another 25 individuals.
        much has been accomplished, but huge potential remains untapped
        Although the Energy Star program has made a significant
    contribution to reducing consumer energy use, a wide array of
    important, additional opportunities to use the program to promote
    energy remain untapped. Energy Star is a success, poised to provide
    more savings and enhanced environmental protection as soon as the
    government is ready and able to invest more.
        In 2001, the President's National Energy Plan recommended that the
    Energy Star program be expanded and that the Energy Star labeling
    program be extended to cover more products. Time and again, the
    President and the Administrator of the EPA have noted that voluntary
    measures are vital to addressing climate change and have held up Energy
    Star as an exemplary program. Yet funding for the program has remained
    flat. The fiscal year 2006 proposed budget for Energy Star, $50.5
    million, is up less than 1 percent from last year, and is the same as
    the fiscal year 2002 appropriation. Worse, funding rescissions and
    internal cuts have plagued the program over the past several years.
    Even with tight federal budgets, the number of products and
    manufacturers in the labeling program has greatly expanded, and the
    number of partners in the Buildings, Homes, and Small Business programs
    has soared.
        But more funds are needed. Considering the soaring energy prices
    around the country and the concerns about electricity reliability and
    pollution abatement, the Alliance believes that funding for the Energy
    Star program should be significantly increased for fiscal year 2006 and
    should be doubled over the next five years. This would enable the
    Energy Star program not only to add additional products and increase
    consumer education campaigns but also to address energy-efficient home
    improvements nationwide.
        By building on the Energy Star name, we can save much more energy
    and break through additional market barriers, building homeowner trust
    in energy audit programs and whole-home retrofits, including
    insulation, duct sealing, and home envelope sealing. In addition to
    labeling products and buildings, Energy Star has begun a successful
    effort working with state and local organizations to help homeowners
    audit and upgrade the efficiency of their homes. Home Performance with
    Energy Star is growing as state and utilities look for opportunities to
    save energy and reduce peak load. More than 11,000 homes in California,
    Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York,
    Texas, and Wisconsin have been improved through this program. But much
    more needs to be done to implement similar programs across the country.
    With additional funding, the Energy Star program could develop a
    supportive infrastructure for contractors around the country, share
    information with interested state organizations, and develop marketing
    efforts in up to 10 metropolitan areas per year.
                                recommendations
        EPA's Energy Star program has clearly demonstrated its importance
    in helping the United States to capitalize on its greatest energy
    ``resource''--energy efficiency. The program is delivering real
    progress toward meeting our country's environmental and energy security
    goals, while at the same time putting more money in consumers' pockets
    through reduced energy bills. More investment by the federal government
    is needed to expand the impact of this voluntary partnership between
    the government and industry.
        The Alliance to Save Energy recommends the subcommittee take the
    following actions to best leverage the proven results that stem from
    EPA's Energy Star program:
      --First, we ask that the House, Senate, and conference specify the
            exact level of federal funding that is appropriated for the
            Energy Star program. Both the House and the Senate included
            such report language for fiscal year 2004; the Senate did again
            in fiscal year 2005. Such direction to EPA is needed to assure
            that funding intended by Congress for the program is used by
            the agency for that purpose.
      --Second, we recommend that the Congress increase funding of the
            Energy Star program by $10 million over the Administration's
            request, in order to expand the number of products, programs,
            and partners involved in the current program. This should be a
            first step to doubling the $50 million budget for the Energy
            Star program within five years. In particular, the added funds
            will allow expansion of the new Energy Star ``Home
            Performance'' component nationwide.
                                   conclusion
        The Energy Star program proves that we can protect the environment
    while simultaneously saving consumers money on their energy bills and
    enhancing the economy. Energy Star provides the catalyst for many
    businesses, state and local governments, and consumers to invest in
    energy efficiency, which in turn yields multiple private and public
    benefits. It does this by providing access to information, improving
    brand recognition, and providing positive publicity.
        While there are many demands on the country's financial resources,
    Energy Star has proven tremendously cost-effective, and it returns
    important benefits to the nation. Every added federal dollar invested
    in Energy Star in fiscal year 2006 will return a significant and cost-
    effective yield in pollution reduction; economic stimulation; energy
    security; and consumer savings.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Ecological Society of America
        As President of the Ecological Society of America, I am pleased to
    provide written testimony for the Environmental Protection Agency
    (EPA), the Forest Service, and the U.S. Geological Survey. The
    Ecological Society of America has been the nation's premier
    professional society of ecological scientists for 90 years, with a
    current membership of 9,000 researchers, educators, and managers. We
    appreciate the opportunity to offer written testimony on behalf of
    these three agencies.
                     environmental protection agency (epa)
        The Ecological Society of America is disappointed that the proposed
    budget for the EPA would reduce the agency's Human Health and
    Ecosystems Program, which includes much valuable biological and
    ecological research. The agency is requesting $169.6 million for the
    program in fiscal year 2006, a 4 percent drop from last year's request.
    In addition, the agency's valuable fellowship programs would stay at
    flat funding levels.
        The Ecological Society of America is concerned about several
    science programs slated to be cut in the budget proposal: the ecosystem
    protection research program would be reduced by $5.8 million to $88
    million, negatively affecting the Western Environmental Monitoring and
    Assessment Program (EMAP), the National Coastal Assessment, the
    Regional Vulnerability Assessment tools and watershed modeling
    research. In addition, the proposed EPA budget also includes a $5.0
    million (50 percent) cut to its exploratory grants program, which
    supports investigator-initiated research projects that address future
    or emerging environmental issues.
        It is regrettable that the agency is slated to see no expansion of
    its valuable fellowship programs, which, when taken together, would be
    funded at the current level of $8.3 million. These include the Science
    to Achieve Results (STAR), Greater Research Opportunities (GRO),
    Environmental Science and Technology (EST) and Environmental Public
    Health (EPH) fellowship programs. EPA's STAR Fellowship Program is of
    particular interest to our community. The program is the only one of
    its kind--funding graduate students conducting applied environmental
    research--and has had an excellent track record since its inception in
    1995. An extremely competitive program--only 7 percent of applicants
    are awarded fellowships--the program has produced high quality research
    and is helping to train the next generation of environmental
    scientists.
        We appreciate the opportunity to provide our comments on the
    Environmental Protection Agency and its proposed budget. Thank you for
    your consideration of our testimony.
                            u.s. forest service (fs)
        The Ecological Society of America supports the President's budget
    request for an increase in the Forest Service (FS) Research and
    Development (R&D) budget to $285 million. The FS is responsible for
    managing 191 million acres across the United States. This is no simple
    task considering that those acres are home to 360 endangered species
    and 2,500 sensitive species. Along with maintaining ecosystem
    sustainability, the FS is also charged with providing forest products
    from its lands for the economic well being of the surrounding
    communities. In order to complete these sometimes competing mandates,
    it is essential that the Forest Service have the ability to perform
    high level ecological analysis and research to ascertain the needs of
    the ecosystems that it manages.
        The R&D division of the Forest Service provides this research, as
    well as critical support to land management activities on Forest
    Service land. It contributes to overall ecological knowledge and
    expertise, and is of great importance to the Society's membership. The
    Forest Service R&D budget is an essential element in the overall
    success of the Forest Service's mission, as it provides basic and
    applied research in the biological and physical sciences on national
    forests and grasslands. These lands are extremely diverse and
    biologically rich, providing a great store of information on ecology.
    The Forest Service's R&D has particular strengths in researching the
    habitat needs of wildlife species, watershed function, invasive
    species, aquatic habitats, and the role of the atmosphere and climate
    in forest health.
        The Forest Service R&D, in cooperation with State and Private
    Forestry and the National Forest System, administers the Forest
    Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program. FIA is the only program to
    comprehensively assess all of the nation's forests in a nationally
    consistent manner across all land ownerships. Data collected through
    this program has been invaluable in helping government and non-
    government scientists document the role of U.S. forests in sequestering
    carbon from the atmosphere, a process that slows climate change. In
    fiscal year 2004, the Forest Service R&D expanded its inventory of
    America's forests to two more states, bringing the total coverage to 83
    percent of America's forests. ESA supports the President's request for
    full implementation of the FIA in all 50 states.
        The Ecological Society is disappointed that the President's budget
    request reduces funding for the National Fire Plan by $4.8 million.
    While funding for research on fuels will increase by $711,000 under the
    budget request, this will not offset the cuts to National Fire Plan
    research. The budget shortfall for fire research will ultimately hinder
    effective management of our nation's forests. This is of particular
    concern given that the Healthy Forests Initiative is a far-reaching
    proposal that will require an increased and sustained level of
    scientific research in order to be successful. If fire research funds
    are reduced, the overall ecological integrity of our national forests
    may be sacrificed.
        The Society remains concerned that the proposed Forest Service
    budget for fire fighting is inadequate. For several years, the FS and
    the Department of the Interior's wildfire suppression costs have
    exceeded appropriated levels. To make up the difference, the agencies
    have transferred funds from other accounts to cover the costs,
    decreasing the ability to conduct research as well as necessary on-the-
    ground work such as rehabilitation and restoration, wildlife habitat
    improvements, and hazardous fuels reduction. A long-term solution to
    the lack of sufficient funding is needed to avoid negative consequences
    for the nation's forests and for the communities that live, work and
    recreate in them. The Ecological Society supports the establishment of
    a non-discretionary fire emergency fund to ensure that both fire
    suppression and fire research needs are met in the future.
                         u.s. geological survey (usgs)
        ESA is grateful to Congress for its leadership in restoring past
    budget cuts and for report language supporting strengthening USGS core
    science programs and cooperative initiatives. We ask that Congress
    strongly consider funding USGS at $1 billion for fiscal year 2006. This
    7.1 percent boost above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level would
    restore proposed cuts to key agency programs and begin to reverse the
    nearly decade-long funding shortfall for this agency.
        As the Department of Interior's sole science agency, the USGS
    conducts research critical to Interior's responsibilities in managing
    land, water and in protecting wildlife and environmental resources. In
    addition, USGS's long-term monitoring programs, nationwide networks and
    multidisciplinary scope make USGS a unique and important research body
    in such areas as combating invasive species, maintaining water quality
    and quantity, and tracking wildlife diseases. These problems affect the
    health, well being and economic security of many U.S. residents, in
    addition to being key areas of ecological research.
        The President's budget would provide essentially flat funding to
    USGS' biology division, a funding increase to the mapping program, and
    cuts to geology and water. Overall funding for the science agency would
    fall by 0.2 percent to $933.5 million. The Society is concerned that
    the proposed cuts would curb the agency's ability to provide integrated
    scientific information. For example, proposed cuts to the Mineral
    Resources program would terminate research that has important
    implications for public health and environmental protection, such as
    studies on mercury, arsenic, and other inorganic toxins.
        These proposed budget cuts would adversely affect the ability of
    the USGS to achieve its mission. We encourage Congress to restore these
    cuts, but this funding should not come at the expense of other high
    priority programs.
        The USGS budget request would expand funding for several
    initiatives, including increases of $300,000 for invasive species
    research, $250,000 for ecological systems mapping, and $19.5 million
    for land remote sensing activities. It also would expand funding by
    $750,000 for the Science on the DOI Landscape initiative, a
    collaborative effort building on scientific expertise to meet regional
    priorities of Interior Bureaus and local communities.
        These initiatives would enhance and integrate ecological knowledge
    and deserve the support of Congress.
        The USGS budget request for fiscal year 2006 provides full funding
    for increases in fixed costs such as employees' salaries. In past
    years, increases in fixed costs were not accounted for in the budget
    and so were partially absorbed by individual programs, ultimately
    curtailing the USGS' ability to carry out research in its core
    programs. The Ecological Society encourages Congress to meet the
    President's budget request for full funding of fixed costs in fiscal
    year 2006 so that fixed costs will not be met at the expense of
    research.
        The USGS is an exceptional and unique research organization. Many
    of the ecological problems that the USGS is charged with addressing
    require an interdisciplinary and integrative approach. USGS is
    positioned to utilize its expertise in geology, hydrology, geography
    and biology to address these complex problems so crucial to maintaining
    human and environmental health.
        We hope that Congress will do its best to support USGS at the $1
    billion level. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of our
    request.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Energy
                                   Officials
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Sara Ward of
    Ohio and Chair of the National Association of State Energy Officials
    (NASEO). NASEO represents the energy offices in the states,
    territories, and the District of Columbia. NASEO is submitting this
    testimony in support of funding for the Energy Star program (within the
    Climate Protection Division of the Office of Air and Radiation) at the
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). NASEO supports funding of
    at least $10 million above the Administration's fiscal year 2006
    request of $50.6 million, including specific report language directing
    that the funds be utilized only for the Energy Star program.
        The Energy Star program is focused on voluntary efforts that reduce
    the use of energy, promotes energy efficiency and renewable energy, and
    works with states, local governments and business to achieve these
    goals in a cooperative manner. NASEO has worked very closely with EPA
    and over thirty-five states are Energy Star Partners. In February, EPA
    and NASEO announced a new Clean Energy and Environment State
    Partnership program, which already has over ten state members. With
    very limited funding, EPA's Energy Star program works closely with the
    state energy offices to give consumers and businesses the opportunity
    to make better energy decisions, without regulation or mandates.
        Energy Star focuses on energy efficient products as well as
    buildings. The Energy Star label is recognized across the United
    States. It makes the work of the state energy offices much easier, by
    working with the public on easily recognized products, services and
    energy savings targets. In order to obtain the Energy Star label a
    product has to meet established guidelines. Energy Star's voluntary
    partnership programs include Energy Star Buildings, Energy Star Homes,
    Energy Star Small Business and Energy Star Labeled Products. The
    program operates by encouraging consumers and by working closely with
    state and local governments to purchase these products and services.
    Marketplace barriers are also eradicated through education.
        In addition to the state partners, the program has more than 7,000
    company partners. More than 360,000 families now live in Energy Star
    homes. We are working with EPA, DOE and HUD on the development of a
    ``Home Performance'' with Energy Star activity. This allows us to focus
    on whole-house improvements, not simply a single product or service.
    This will be extremely beneficial to homeowners. Pilots have already
    been undertaken in New York, Illinois and Wisconsin. We are also
    working closely with EPA in the implementation of the new Energy Star
    Challenge, which is encouraging businesses and institutions to reduce
    energy use by 10 percent or more, usually through very simple actions.
    We will work with the building owners to identify the level of energy
    use and compare that to a national metric, establish goals and work
    with them to make the specified improvements. Again, this is being done
    without mandates. In just one week, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New
    Hampshire, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania have agreed to participate.
        The state energy offices are very encouraged with progress made at
    EPA and in our states to promote programs to make schools more energy
    efficient, in addition to an expanding Energy Star business partners
    program. This expansion will continue. EPA has been offering critically
    useful technical assistance to state energy offices in such areas as
    benchmark training (how to rate the performance of buildings), setting
    an energy target and training in such areas as financing options for
    building improvements and building upgrade strategies.
        This Subcommittee was instrumental in funding the State
    Technologies Advancement Collaborative (STAC), which is a joint venture
    between the state energy offices, the state research institutions and
    the Department of Energy. We are working closely with the Energy Star
    program to ensure that STAC coordinates the Rebuild America activities
    with EPA's Energy Star program.
        The state energy offices are working cooperatively with our peers
    in the state environmental agencies and state public utilities
    commissions to ensure that programs, regulations, projects and policies
    are developed recognizing both energy and environmental concerns. We
    have worked closely with this program at EPA to address these issues.
    The level of cooperation from the agency has been extraordinary and we
    encourage these continued efforts.
                                 state examples
        In the examples noted below, the state energy offices have been
    active program participants and promotion agents for Energy Star.
    Alaska
        Thirty companies and public entities in the State are now working
    with the Energy Star program, with 7,200 homes already earning the
    Energy Star label. With high energy costs, the evaluation tools
    prepared by Energy Star have been very helpful in assessing building
    performance and recommending and implementing improvements. For
    example, the Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District has upgraded
    lighting, installed programmable thermostats and taken other measures
    to reduce energy usage.
    California
        More than 1,850 companies and public entities are participating in
    the program, with 202 manufacturers of Energy Star products located in
    the State. More than 21,100 homes have already earned the Energy Star
    label. The State is focusing on a new homes program, there is a State
    ``Energy Star'' purchase requirement and companies as varied as Intel
    Corporation and Hilton Hotels have been program participants.
    Colorado
        Energy Star initiatives and projects have been implemented
    throughout the State. Some notable examples include the: (1) Poudre
    School District in Fort Collins, which completed 95 projects saving
    over $300,000/year; (2) Jefferson County Public Schools in Golden,
    which are saving $2.8 million each year; and (3) 26 different
    homebuilders constructing Energy Star homes.
        Hundreds of companies and public entities are participating in the
    program.
    Idaho
        Twenty-eight companies are building Energy Star homes in the State.
    Western Window in Caldwell is producing Energy Star windows for use in
    the southern part of the State. Utilities are actively participating in
    the program, including both investor-owned and municipal utilities. The
    State's ``GemStar'' program is promoting the use of high performance
    homes. Over 100 companies and other public entities are involved in the
    program.
    Maryland
        Almost 800 companies and public agencies, with active participation
    of the Executive Branch, are involved in Maryland. Over 4,000 homes
    have earned the Energy Star label. State legislation has promoted the
    use of Energy Star appliances, including making some energy efficient
    models tax free. Partners include such diverse entities as Harley-
    Davidson, Howard County Public Schools and Archstone Smith Realty.
    Mississippi
        With 60 companies and public entities, numerous manufacturers and
    many homes participating in Energy Star and earning the Energy Star
    label, Mississippi is moving aggressively to promote the program.
    Retailers stocking Energy Star products include Wal-Mart, Best Buy,
    Circuit City, Home Depot, Lowe's, Sam's Club, and Sears. Five companies
    are now building Energy Star homes.
    Montana
        Over 50 companies and public entities are participating in the
    program, with 210 retail locations selling Energy Star products.
    Executive Order 03-01 has directed that Energy Star be included in
    state procurement. Active partners include the Northwest Energy
    Efficiency Alliance, Montana State University, hospitals, schools
    districts, etc. The State has forcefully promoted the program.
    Nevada
        Over 100 companies and public entities are program participants.
    The state energy office and the public utility commission are working
    together to promote a variety of activities, including a recent Energy
    Star appliance rebate program for utilities. The Clark County School
    District has reduced annual utility costs by $4 million through energy
    efficiency efforts across 147 schools. The City of Las Vegas has saved
    4.8 million kWh through aggressive energy efficiency measures. Thirty-
    three companies are now building Energy Star homes.
    New Hampshire
        Over 110 companies and numerous public entities are program
    participants. Hundreds of retail locations are selling Energy Star
    products. Rebates for Energy Star products are now offered by the
    utilities as a result of regulatory actions. The State initiated a
    master lease program to promote performance contracting for energy
    efficiency initiatives. Over 500 State-owned buildings are either being
    evaluated or undergoing modifications.
    New Mexico
        Over 80 companies and public entities are participating in the
    program, with over 2,200 homes already receiving the Energy Star
    rating. Active participants thus far include Two Park Square in
    Albuquerque, the federal buildings in Gallup and Roswell, the
    Albuquerque Indian Hospital and the VA Health Center and scores of
    schools in Albuquerque. Six companies are now building Energy Star
    homes, led by Artistic Homes.
    North Dakota
        Thirty companies and public entities are participating, with 3
    manufacturers of Energy Star products located in the State. Numerous
    schools have been involved, including, for example, Grand Forks West
    Elementary School, Grand Forks Winship Elementary School, Cavalier
    Public Schools and Walhalla Public Schools. A variety of retailers sell
    these products and Thermal Line Windows in Mandan sells Energy Star
    windows in 12 states.
    Utah
        Over 110 companies and public entities are program participants,
    with over 170 retail outlets selling Energy Star products. More than
    1,800 Energy Star homes have been constructed in the State, with
    notable developers including Ence Homes (St. George). Thirty-two
    companies are now building Energy Star homes. Amsco Windows of Salt
    Lake City is a major seller of Energy Star windows. The University of
    Utah has now retrofitted 81 buildings with significant energy
    efficiency improvements.
    Vermont
        Over 150 companies and public entities are program participants,
    with 5 manufacturers of Energy Star products located in the State. Over
    1,900 homes have already earned the Energy Star rating, with active
    promotion of the program accelerating market penetration and
    acceptance. The state energy office, the Vermont Energy Investment
    Corporation (operating public benefit programs), Efficiency Vermont
    (composed of 20 utilities and others), Green Mountain College,
    Killington Ski Resort and the University of Vermont are all aggressive
    program participants.
    West Virginia
        Seventy companies and public entities are participating in the
    program. The state energy office has provided technical assistance to
    industries, public institutions and local governments to promote Energy
    Star products and services, including over 100 energy audits leading to
    significant improvements. Individual participants have included Royal
    Vendors, Inc. (Kearneysville), Simonton Windows (Parkersburg) and
    Marion County Schools (Fairmont).
    Wisconsin
        Almost 800 companies and public entities are participating in
    Energy Star. Over 2,300 homes have earned Energy Star recognition. In
    addition 45 schools, 6 office buildings, and 4 supermarkets have now
    earned Energy Star recognition. In addition to active promotion work by
    the state energy office having spearheaded the implementation of 22
    facility upgrades leading to $2.6 million in annual savings, 291
    builders are constructing Energy Star homes. Johnson Controls, based in
    Milwaukee, has been an industry leader in promoting Energy Star through
    their performance contracting activities.
        We can provide a myriad of other state examples at your request.
                                   conclusion
        Increases in funding for the Energy Star Programs are justified.
    NASEO endorses these activities and the state energy offices are
    working very closely with EPA to cooperatively implement a variety of
    critical national programs.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the National Research Center for Coal and Energy
                                  (NRCCE) \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The National Research Center for Coal and Energy is located at
    West Virginia University. This statement has been prepared by Richard
    Bajura, Director. George Fumich, NRCCE Program Advisor, now deceased,
    contributed to this statement. For additional information, contact our
    web site at http://www.nrcce.wvu.edu.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This testimony requests appropriations for three projects
    administered under the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] in the
    area of water and one program in the area of air quality. Comments on
    each project are described below.
        The NSFC and the NETCSC programs were funded in fiscal year 2005
    appropriations. The remaining two programs have been funded in previous
    years, but are not funded in fiscal year 2005.
                                 water programs
    1. Rural Water Technical Assistance [RWTA] Projects
        This portion of our testimony focuses on two projects funded under
    the RWTA provision in the Environmental Programs and Management section
    of the EPA budget. The RWTA funds several national organizations that
    provide drinking water and wastewater services to small and rural
    communities. While the types of services provided by each organization
    are different, each organization is dedicated to improving the water
    environment of rural America.
        Small communities in the United States (populations less than
    10,000) need significant assistance for basic water and wastewater
    services. Services provided by RWTA organizations enable the
    communities to achieve and maintain regulatory compliance using
    technologies which are less costly than conventional sewers and
    treatment plants.
        Section 1442(e) (42 U.S.C. 300j-1(e)) of the Safe Drinking Water
    Act provides funding in the amount of $15 million per year through the
    Safe Drinking Water Act for Rural Water Technical Assistance.
    Congressional support to continue the work of these programs is
    imperative because the communities these programs assist cannot pay the
    RWTA organizations on a fee-for-service basis.
    National Small Flows Clearinghouse [NSFC]--$2 million
        The NSFC, one of the programs funded under the RWTA provision of
    the Clean Water Act, was created in legislation to provide information
    and assistance to small and rural communities on proper technology
    selection and the management of onsite and small wastewater systems.
    Users of these services include individual home owners, small town
    officials who do not have staff support to address regulatory
    requirements, developers and state regulators, and professionals who
    install and service alternative treatment systems.
        NSFC is the premier (and only) comprehensive national source of
    information about ``small flows'' systems--those systems that have
    fewer than one million gallons of wastewater flowing through them per
    day. These systems range from individual septic systems to small sewage
    treatment plants and require technologies which are different from the
    technologies used for large volume water treatment plants.
    Decentralized systems such as onsite septic systems and small cluster
    systems serve 25 percent of the total U.S. population, especially in
    small communities. Projections through 2019 show that 40 percent of
    wastewater utilities and 25 percent of water utilities have
    insufficient funds for services, and 29 percent of utilities have
    deferred maintenance on their plants.
        Using NSFC services, small communities across the nation have been
    able to learn how to leverage funding in the face of declining federal
    and state support and obtain information about small system
    technologies which are less expensive yet meet regulatory requirements.
    The NESC's mandate is to serve small and rural communities throughout
    the United States by providing information and assistance on small
    wastewater treatment system technologies. The NSFC accomplishes this
    mandate by:
      --Better enabling operators of small water treatment systems to
            comply with federal regulations.
      --Providing access to expert advice and training on wastewater.
      --Guaranteeing the most current, comprehensive information in small
            wastewater system financing, technologies, and management.
      --Delivering public health and environmental awareness education,
            information and technical assistance to small communities and
            rural areas.
        National benefits of the program include increased health of
    residents through effective management of wastewater treatment systems
    and reduced costs for infrastructure investments. We request continued
    support for the National Small Flows Clearinghouse at $2 million for
    fiscal year 2006.
    National Environmental Training Center for Small Communities [NETCSC]--
            $1.5 million
        Environmental professionals such as operators, engineers,
    regulators and installers, and local decision makers in small
    communities need training to resolve their community environmental
    problems. In 1991, Congress created NETCSC to meet this need. In a
    unique approach, NETCSC develops, disseminates, and delivers training
    customized for small community environmental management. NETCSC
    provides training resources to environmental trainers and technical
    assistance providers, who in turn train environmental professionals
    that serve small communities. NETCSC has developed more than 40 model
    training packages. These training packages are delivered and available
    coast-to-coast to thousands of participants, often in co-sponsorship
    with other training and/or service providing organizations.
        Hundreds of environmental trainers across the nation attend NETCSC
    training and subsequently use NETCSC training materials in turn to
    train thousands of local officials, operators, installers, regulators,
    engineers and homeowners. More than 7,000 environmental trainers,
    technical assistance providers, and small community professionals
    receive NETCSC's environmental training newsletter to obtain relevant
    updates on environmental infrastructure, training, security, and
    emergency preparedness issues and opportunities.
        Since September 2001, NETCSC has been assisting smaller communities
    in addressing water security concerns. At the request of the
    Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture,
    NETCSC has developed and delivered training courses designed to improve
    the security of small drinking water and wastewater systems. NETCSC has
    also developed and compiled an array of vulnerability assessment,
    emergency response, and security resources. These efforts include
    multiple training deliveries, substantial coverage of security issues
    in E-Train (NETCSC's newsletter), and substantial coverage of security
    issues on the organization's frequently accessed worldwide web sites.
    These and other security-related efforts have been undertaken in
    consultation with a variety of national, regional, and state and local
    partners. A vulnerability assessment guide for small wastewater systems
    has also been developed in cooperation with the Environmental
    Protection Agency. NETCSC is playing a leading role in assisting small
    treatment systems with security training issues. The present request
    for the National Environmental Training Center for Small Communities
    includes an added $0.5 million over the fiscal year 2005 level for a
    total appropriation of $1.5 million to expand our work in the area of
    homeland security. EPA is the lead agency for homeland security issues
    in the area of water.
    2. Monongahela Basin Mine Flooding Program--$1 million
        This project addresses the assessment, monitoring, and control of
    contaminated water from abandoned coal mines in the Monongahela River
    Basin area of Northern West Virginia and Southwestern Pennsylvania.
        Coal has been mined in the Monongahela River Basin since colonial
    times, resulting in more than 1,200 mines having been developed. All
    but 10 of them are now abandoned or closed. The non-active mines are
    either flooded or are rapidly filling with polluted mine water. Over
    the past 30 years, much of this mine water had been treated by active
    mining companies. They treated water from adjacent, abandoned mines to
    keep their working faces dry. However, after closure of a mine, the
    companies are only responsible for the water issuing from their
    portals. As a result, significant new discharges are anticipated from
    old workings.
        The recent water eruption from a mine shaft in the town of
    McDonald, PA, near Pittsburgh, illustrates the need for continued
    effort for mapping, monitoring, and cataloging the older mine sites. In
    the McDonald incident, the mine discharge burst from a long-forgotten
    portal and flowed through the town at rates of up to 10,000 gallons per
    minute.
        We request funding of $1 million for the Monongahela Basin Mine
    Flooding Program for fiscal year 2006. The project was supported
    previously under the U.S. EPA Clean Water Action Plan. The National
    Environmental Technology Laboratory [NETL], through its Environmental
    Technologies Program, is a partner in this project.
                              air quality programs
    3. National Alternative Fuel Vehicle [AFV] Day Odyssey--$0.5 million
        We seek support from the Environmental Protection Agency for the
    third National Alternative Fuel Vehicle Day Odyssey, a public outreach
    event which supports the EPA programs in clean air through the
    deployment and use of alternative fuel vehicles and advanced technology
    vehicles. EPA was a partner and provided extensive cost-sharing to the
    first two Odyssey events in 2002 and 2004. The event is coordinated by
    the National Alternative Fuel Training Consortium [NAFTC], a consortium
    of 25 higher education educations which also develops curricula and
    conducts training on the servicing of alternative fuel vehicles and
    advanced technology vehicles.
        National AFV Day Odyssey is a focused, well-defined, public
    awareness event that brings national attention to cleaner, more energy-
    efficient and smarter choices in transportation. The Odyssey is held at
    multiple sites simultaneously in conjunction with a central national
    headliner event. The Odyssey program has shown that the results of such
    a unity-of-purpose event held on one day increases the impact of each
    individual site's Odyssey event and catalyzes momentum for the AFV/
    advanced technology vehicle movement nationwide.
        National AFV Day Odyssey 2004, conducted on April 2, reached over
    24 million individuals through media and participant attendance.
    National AFV Day Odyssey was conducted in 54 sites in 32 states and 2
    Canadian Provinces and involved over 650 Local Partners in the events.
    Participating organizations included the National Clean Cities local
    coalitions, AFV associations such as the Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition
    and the Electric Drive Transportation Association, Professional
    Associations and Industry Associations. Sponsors of the Odyssey event
    included General Motors Corporation, Diamler-Chrysler Corporation,
    American Honda Motor Company, and Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc., and
    the USDOE through Oak Ridge National Laboratory, in addition to EPA as
    our cooperative agreement partner. In view of the success of the first
    two Odyssey events, the NAFTC and its partners wish to establish a
    regular cycle for repeating the Odyssey program. We seek $0.5 million
    from the EPA for the NAFTC National Alternative Fuel Vehicle Day
    Odyssey.
        Thank you for considering these requests.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
                                    Registry
        Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee: The
    Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) is pleased to
    provide written testimony in support of the President's fiscal year
    2006 budget request of $76.024 million. This funding will support
    ATSDR's ongoing activities and critical programs, including programs to
    enhance the understanding of health impacts from exposures to hazardous
    substances.
        As an agency newly under your jurisdiction, we would first like to
    introduce ourselves. We will then discuss some highlights of ATSDR's
    Superfund site work, demonstrating how the Agency has been successful
    in meeting its goal to mitigate the risks of health effects at toxic
    waste sites and how we have assisted the Environmental Protection
    Agency (EPA) in documenting the need for and effectiveness of its
    remediation efforts. This testimony will address (1) ATSDR's
    achievements in carrying out its mission under the Superfund to assess
    potential health impacts from exposures of hazardous waste sites; (2)
    ATSDR's education of the public and the medical community to mitigate
    potential health problems facing communities around the nation; and (3)
    ATSDR's partnerships and their protective impact on the public's health
    from hazardous substances.
                                  introduction
        What is ATSDR? A community discovers its drinking water is
    contaminated with a toxic substance that came from the local landfill .
    . . An Indian tribe has concerns about mercury in fish and wild game .
    . . A child is found to be suffering from exposure to high levels of
    lead . . . Basements in a neighborhood have annoying fumes that smell
    like gas or oil . . . What health effects might have occurred, or will
    occur, as a result of these exposures? These are the types of
    environmental health issues that ATSDR addresses every day.
        ATSDR was created under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
    Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), more commonly known
    as the Superfund law. The Superfund program is charged with finding and
    cleaning up the most dangerous hazardous waste sites in the country.
    ATSDR supports this mission by providing and using the best science,
    taking responsive public health actions, and providing trusted health
    information to prevent harmful exposures and disease related to toxic
    substances.
                               atsdr achievements
        All the work we do is geared toward meeting the overarching goal of
    ensuring that the sites where we work become healthy places to live,
    work, and play.
        Protecting the Public's Health by Addressing Asbestos Exposure: Our
    work in addressing health problems associated with exposure to asbestos
    is an example of our efforts. The asbestos exposures that took place in
    Libby, Montana, have become well known since ATSDR studies and
    screening defined the extent of the health problem. ATSDR medical
    screening revealed that:
      --Nearly one in five of the 7,300 people participating in the medical
            testing during the years 2000 and 2001 were found to have lung
            or breathing abnormalities associated with exposure to asbestos
            fibers.
      --Of the former W.R. Grace employees receiving x-rays, 51 percent had
            pleuralabnormalities.
        In addition, an updated analysis of deaths due to asbestos-related
    disease in the Libby area from 1979-1998 showed increased mortality due
    to asbestosis, lung cancer, and other, non-malignant respiratory
    diseases. We are continuing to provide medical screening for exposed
    individuals and have established a registry to track their ongoing
    health status.
        But the contamination was not limited to Libby; the asbestos
    contaminated vermiculite was shipped for processing to over 200 plants
    around the country. ATSDR is now studying the 28 sites that received
    nearly 80 percent of the Libby vermiculite mined from 1964 through
    1980. The findings from studying these sites will indicate whether the
    scope of the project needs to be expanded to include other sites that
    processed Libby vermiculite and the associated health concerns. The 28
    pilot sites are scattered across the United States and include
    locations in California, Colorado, Maryland, and North Dakota. ATSDR is
    working to determine whether past (or current) exposures took place at
    or near these sites-paying particular attention to former workers and
    their families. The Agency will then work with community residents and
    state partners to mitigate any existing or potential health effects.
    Health statistics reviews to evaluate mortality and cancer registry
    data are under way in sixteen states, and pilot mesothelioma
    surveillance is being initiated in the states of New York, Wisconsin,
    and New Jersey.
        Another unfolding asbestos-related challenge is in El Dorado Hills,
    California, where workers found a vein of naturally occurring asbestos
    during construction of a soccer field at Oak Ridge High School. ATSDR
    has evaluated the public health threat associated with exposures to
    airborne asbestos fibers at the school, and will be documenting its
    findings. ATSDR will continue to consult with state and local agencies
    and the EPA to address this issue.
        Meeting the Goal to Mitigate the Risks of Human Health Effects at
    Toxic Waste Sites: Communities around the country benefit directly from
    ATSDR's assessment and interventions concerning potential exposures to
    hazardous substances and related risks of adverse health effects.
    Indeed, ATSDR has made significant strides in the past year at
    documenting the effectiveness of Agency recommendations and
    interventions to reduce community members' risk of adverse health
    effects. The Agency and its state partners work on hundreds of
    Superfund sites each year to evaluate the health hazards at these
    sites. Many are found to pose a public health hazard-sites where
    children and other residents suffer from potentially harmful exposures.
        Examples of Superfund sites where ATSDR's recommendations and
    interventions have helped people include the following:
      --Tar Creek, Oklahoma.--ATSDR-sponsored activities have helped
            produce a significant drop in blood-lead levels (BLLs) among
            young children in Tar Creek. In 1996, data from the Oklahoma
            State Department of Health (OSDH) showed that among young
            children (aged 1-5 years) living at the site, 31.2 percent had
            a BLL at or above 10 micrograms per deciliter (gg/dL), the
            Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) level of
            health concern. By 2003, OSDH data indicated that elevated BLLs
            among children in the same age group had dropped to just 2.8
            percent. Las Vegas, Nevada-ATSDR expertise helped limit
            injuries from mercury spilled m a Las Vegas home. Over a 2-3
            month period, a 17-year-old resident spilled approximately one
            quart of elemental liquid mercury inside and outside his home.
            When the boy was hospitalized for severe mercury poisoning, EPA
            emergency personnel checked the home and found toxic mercury
            vapors up to 150 times higher than acceptable levels. One
            sink's drain trap contained as much as two tablespoons of the
            metal. With the help of ATSDR guidance on cleanup levels and
            handling of mercury-contaminated household items, EPA was able
            to clean the house and eliminate further exposures. ATSDR also
            coordinated with health officials in California to ensure that
            several part-time members of the household who had been exposed
            but who were in California at the time of the investigation
            also received medical follow-up.
      --Eureka, Utah.--Interventions by ATSDR and state efforts have helped
            decrease average blood-lead levels (BLLs) in children living in
            Eureka, where mining activities conducted from 1870 to 1965
            resulted in elevated levels of metals in the soil. Children in
            this community are 10 times more likely to have elevated BLLs
            (at or over IOgg/dL) than children elsewhere in Utah. The Utah
            Department of Health, in cooperation with ATSDR, has developed
            a successful new health education program designed to encourage
            blood-lead testing for residents and to decrease average BLLs
            in children. The program reaches approximately 110 Eureka
            Elementary students twice per month. Cleanup by the EPA and the
            Utah Department of Environmental Quality has resulted in a
            return to blood-lead levels below the threshold of health
            concern. Blood-lead testing since 2000 indicates that BLLs
            among children in Eureka have dropped and stabilized, although
            average levels in the city's children remain high compared to
            the state average.
      --Bunker Hill Mining and Metallurgical Complex/Couer d'Alene River
            Basin, Idaho.--ATSDR has been engaged for several years in
            evaluating the public health impact of metals released during
            mining and smelting operations at the Bunker Hill site.
            Although ATSDR has identified seven chemicals of potential
            concern, including aluminum, antimony, arsenic, cadmium, iron,
            manganese, and zinc, the contaminant of greatest concern at the
            site is lead. In late 2004, ATSDR released for public comment a
            public health assessment (PHA) that concluded that (1) high
            levels of lead and other metals exist in surface soil,
            household dusts, and fish at and near the site; (2) possible
            long-term exposure to contaminants existed in a variety of
            media; and (3) site conditions have resulted in elevated blood
            lead levels in some children. The PHA's recommendations include
            conducting further testing of surface soils and household dusts
            throughout the River Basin site and remediating or covering
            contaminated soil in children's play areas at residences and
            common use areas.
              atsdr education of the public and medical community
        ATSDR also proactively works with EPA and the states to provide a
    variety of resources and technical support services, including
    emergency response, publication of toxicological profiles, and referral
    to environmental health specialists. ATSDR assessments and
    interventions concerning potential exposures to hazardous substances
    serve as an important link between health and environmental agencies
    and stakeholders. For example:
      --ATSDR published and distributed more than 12,000 copies of
            toxicological profiles, each one on CD-ROM containing
            information on more than 800 chemicals. These profiles are
            considered the authoritative source of up-to-date information
            on the known health effects of these chemicals by federal,
            state, and local health and environmental officials, as well as
            by private industry.
      --ATSDR supports the network of Pediatric Environmental Health
            Specialty Units in major medical centers in all 10 EPA/HHS
            regions of the country. These units provide pediatricians and
            other health care providers with experts on how best to
            diagnose and treat patients exposed to such chemical
            contaminants as lead, mercury, or dioxin.
                     atsdr partnerships and health impacts
        ATSDR leverages resources and partnerships to maximize health
    impacts. ATSDR has an extensive state cooperative agreement program and
    research partnerships with organizations such as the American Chemistry
    Council to improve and facilitate capacity-building in environmental
    health.
        Terrorism.--ATSDR has a significant role in planning for and
    responding to the threat of terrorist events, including performing
    emergency service functions of the National Response Plan. ATSDR's
    staff, located in EPA regional offices, work daily with EPA and
    regional staff and state partners to provide expertise in planning for
    and responding to chemical emergencies. ATSDR has responded and
    participated in several public health emergencies of this nature,
    including the ricin incident at a South Carolina post office.
        Strengthened Ties with EPA and Documented Health Improvements Post-
    Remediation.--Another measure of success ATSDR has established is the
    percentage of ATSDR recommendations that EPA adopts. More than 70
    percent of our recommendations for site action directed to EPA in 2003
    have been implemented by EPA, with 10 percent still pending decision.
    We also play a critical role in helping EPA and state site managers to
    prioritize and identify which sites pose the greatest threat to human
    health.
        Further, in this past year we have been working with EPA to support
    its remediation actions by measuring the effectiveness of its clean-up
    efforts in reducing adverse health effects. One of the best examples of
    that work is our joint effort at the Doe Run Smelter, in Herculaneum,
    Missouri. BLLs for children in the town are decreasing following EPA's
    remediation of lead sources and ATSDR-sponsored health education and
    intervention activities. In 2001, 28 percent of 118 young children
    (aged 6 to 72 months) tested had elevated BLLs. Of the 67 young
    children living within a half mile of the smelter, 30 (45 percent) had
    BLLs at or above 10 gg/dL, the level of concern set by CDC, and ten
    times the percentage of children with such levels nationally. Results
    were evident by the following year. By 2002, just 14 percent of the
    children tested had elevated BLLs. Similarly, of the young children
    living within a half mile of the site, only 17 percent had an elevated
    BLL. Another strong example of ATSDR work in support of EPA is a study
    that demonstrated that removal of lead-contaminated soil from
    residential yards in Idaho's Silver Valley was effective in reducing
    blood lead levels in children. Other examples of sites where strong
    partnerships have led to positive results include:
      --Beloit, Wisconsin.--Wisconsin's Department of Health and Family
            Services (DHFS) and ATSDR helped a business owner in Beloit
            protect people from breathing hazardous levels of volatile
            organic compounds (VOCs). Investigating odor complaints from
            occupants of a building, state health officials detected high
            levels of VOCs in the air. The VOCs, apparently from fuel oil-
            contaminated water seeping into the basement, posed an
            intermittent, short-term health hazard when vapors from the
            basement entered the main building. DHFS consulted with the
            building's owners and recommended interim measures to prevent
            exposures. The suspected source, an underground fuel oil tank
            on an adjoining property, is now slated for removal. Health
            officials will follow up to ensure that the measures were
            effective.
      --Huntington, West Virginia.--ATSDR expertise and guidance helped the
            West Virginia Cooperative Partners Program (WVCPP) and local
            health officials protect residents and school children from
            exposure to benzene, a known carcinogen. When a railroad-car
            valve failed at the TechSol facility in Huntington, some 23,000
            gallons of coal tar light oil spilled into Kraut's Creek and
            into storm sewers. The spill forced people in over 500 homes
            and an elementary school to evacuate. To ensure that people
            returning to their homes would be safe, WVCPP, an ATSDR
            partner, determined safe reoccupation levels and conducted
            indoor air tests. As a result, most of those evacuated were
            able to return two days later. WVCPP is now working with the
            community to address concerns about exposure, and cleanup of
            the creek continues.
        We look forward to working on these and additional challenges in
    the future. We thank you for the opportunity to provide you with
    written testimony and we look forward to responding to any questions
    you may have.
                                     ______

                    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

    Prepared Statement of the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Indians of
                                     Oregon
        I am Delores Pigsley, Chairman for the Confederated Tribes of the
    Siletz Indians of Oregon. On behalf of the Confederated Tribes of the
    Siletz Indians, I would like to thank the Committee for the opportunity
    to present written testimony regarding fiscal year 2006 Appropriations
    for the Indian Health Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
        Our Tribe is fortunate to live along the beautiful Oregon Coast.
    But we are isolated from metropolitan areas. As a result, our most
    critical funding needs are for health care and education. We urge
    Congress to provide additional funds for the Indian Health Service and
    the Bureau of Indian Affairs' Education Programs.
                             indian health service
        The Confederated Tribes of Siletz operate a small ambulatory health
    facility under a Public Law 93-638 Self-Governance Compact with the
    Indian Health Service. Our outpatient program was initially funded by a
    special congressional earmark as a demonstration project to serve the
    entire community of Siletz, Oregon. The demonstration project has been
    successful and today our small facility provides more than 24,000
    primary care visits each year.
        As you know, diabetes, heart disease, alcoholism, teenage suicide
    and infant mortality rates are higher for American Indians than for any
    other minority, and far higher than for the general American
    population. Congress has recognized that the Federal government has a
    trust responsibility to provide health care to Native Americans. This
    obligation was paid for long ago by the Native people of this country
    with millions of acres of land.
        Despite the demonstrated health needs in Indian country, the
    federal government has consistently failed to appropriate enough money
    to fulfill even its basic trust responsibility to Indian people.
    Funding for health care, especially preventative health care that
    clearly improves the quality of life and helps to avoid more expensive
    health care costs in the future, is completely inadequate in the
    President's fiscal year 2006 Budget. We urge Congress to honor its
    commitment to protect Indian tribes and our members. The failure of the
    Administration to recognize this responsibility and request sufficient
    funding for tribal health programs, while disappointing, cannot be a
    basis for Congress to abdicate its responsibility to appropriate the
    funds necessary to meet these needs.
    Overall IHS Funding Levels
        While the President's budget request for Indian Health Service
    represents an increase on paper, it fails to keep pace with medical
    inflation rates and will not translate into program improvements or
    expansions. The Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board has done a
    comprehensive study of the fiscal year 2006 IHS Budget, and made a
    series of recommendations regarding Indian health care funding needs.
    Our Tribe is an active participant in the Board's activities and we
    completely support the analysis and recommendations made by the Board.
    We urge the Committee to review the Board's analysis and
    recommendations and we have provided a copy of the Board's report to
    Committee staff.
        The Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board estimates that
    simply to maintain the current level of services provided in Indian
    health programs nationwide, it would be necessary to increase the
    Budget for IHS by $317 million (or 12 percent) over the fiscal year
    2005 funding levels. While the President's fiscal year 2006 IHS Budget
    proposes an increase to IHS funding, that increase is a mere 2.1
    percent (including the adjustment for facilities construction) and does
    not come anywhere close to accurately addressing the increased costs
    for such services caused by medical inflation and growing populations.
    As a result, the President's proposed budget will, in fact, fall short
    of meeting existing need by $308 million. Our programs cannot afford to
    absorb such large losses year after year.
        In addition, IHS must be protected from budget rescissions. Budget
    rescissions have occurred in each of the last four years, and have
    seriously damaged Indian health care programs. This year, after two
    rescissions were mandated, our tribal health program experienced a
    significant decrease in operating funds. The most responsible budget
    adjustments for inflation, pay costs and population growth are
    meaningless unless they are protected from across-the-board rescissions
    to deal with spending caps in the appropriations process.
    Contract Health Services (CHS)
        Particularly alarming is the failure to request adequate funding
    for Contract Health Services. For Tribes in the Northwest, where there
    are no IHS in-patient facilities, Contract Health is the only way some
    of our members can receive health care. All specialty care and
    hospitalizations are paid for through Contract Health Services. Because
    we lack the resources to pay all requests, we must prioritize needs.
    Under current funding levels, only Priority I (Emergency/Acutely Urgent
    Care) and Priority II (Preventive Care) are considered for approval.
    Medical, dental and mental health needs that are not Priority I or II
    are deferred. These include CT scans, MRIs, hernia repair, knee and/or
    hip surgeries, psychological counseling, back surgeries and many other
    treatments that do not meet current funded levels of priority. Later in
    the fiscal year, as funds become exhausted, our members are restricted
    only to care that will preserve life or limb. Our patients must become
    sicker to meet priority for treatment. This is contrary to responsible
    health care practice and to the Tribe's goals of promoting the health
    and well-being for our membership. If we can spend billions of dollars
    in Iraq, we should have the moral decency to fund Indian health at
    least at the same level as health care funding for federal prisoners.
        CHS is the program that is most vulnerable to inflation pressures.
    In order to maintain the current level of Contract Health Services in
    light of medical inflation and population growth, CHS funding should be
    increased by $62.3 million over fiscal year 2005 levels. While the
    President's proposed budget recommends an increase in Contract Health
    Services, the President's proposal will actually result in a shortfall
    of $35.3 million for CHS in fiscal year 2006. We urge Congress to
    increase Contract Health Services funding by $62.3 million above the
    fiscal year 2005 level.
    Contract Support Costs
        The Confederated Tribes of Siletz have partnered with our
    neighboring Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde, to
    explore the feasibility of joint assumption of the Western Oregon
    Service Unit, Chemawa Health Center located in Salem, Oregon. Our
    mission is to improve service delivery to our tribal members who access
    this facility, along with the Chemawa student population and a large
    urban Indian population. In order to proceed, it is critical that
    Congress appropriate adequate funds for Contract Support Costs, which
    cover the costs of the administrative functions of running Tribal
    health programs. Contract Support Cost funding was not increased in
    either of the last two fiscal years and, in fact, as a result of the
    rescissions, the Tribes have seen reductions in this funding. While the
    President's fiscal year 2006 Budget proposes a small increase in
    Contract Support Costs, that proposal does not even cover the past
    years' shortfalls. We estimate a shortfall of at least $107 million,
    and we urge Congress to increase Contract Support Costs funding by $107
    million over the fiscal year 2005 level.
                   bureau of indian affairs education funding
        The Confederated Tribes of Siletz, under a self-governance compact
    with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, provides educational programs and
    services to Indian children and adults over an eleven-county service
    area. Our services include Johnson O'Malley, Adult Vocational Training
    and Adult Education. In addition, higher education funding is provided
    to our students regardless of address. Every year we see an exponential
    growth in the number of students with no increase in funding level. To
    see success as individuals and as a united people and insure that no
    child is really left behind, additional BIA funding is needed for the
    following programs:
    Johnson O'Malley
        Funds for Johnson O'Malley are frozen at the 1995 TPA. We receive
    only $83,000 for this program, which does not cover services for
    children or staff time. In 2004, services were provided to 1,299
    children. The number of children that receive services has increased at
    a greater rate each year since 1995, and we are forced to spread few
    dollars among more children. Additionally, we serve tribal children in
    the three largest cities in Oregon and receive requests for children
    from other tribes. Despite this clear need, the President's fiscal year
    2006 Budget proposes to cut the Johnson O'Malley program by $8.8
    million. We urge Congress to at least restore those funds, but if at
    all possible to increase them.
    Higher Education
        We have seen significant increases in the number of children
    needing and eligible for higher education assistance. In 1995, Siletz
    had 35 such students. This number has grown to 155 students in 2004.
    The current funding level simply does not cover either the dramatic
    increase in students, or the increasing costs of higher education. We
    are now unable to cover the basic cost of education for our students.
    Lack of BIA funding limits opportunities for our students and they are
    unable to reach their potential. The President's fiscal year 2006
    Budget proposes only a $500,000 increase in this program and that
    increase would only be used for a pilot loan repayment project. We urge
    Congress to increase federal funds for the BIA Higher Education Program
    and allow those funds to be used for new scholarships.
    Adult Vocational Training
        In 1995, we had 12 students in Adult Vocational Training. In 2004
    that number has quadrupled to 49 students. With a need for new skills
    to compete for jobs in a dwindling job market, more Tribal members are
    turning to Adult Vocational Training. With an increase in applications
    we are now at the point where we cannot meet the needs of our Tribal
    members. This limits the opportunities that they would have with
    further training. We urge Congress to increase the BIA funds for Adult
    Vocational Training.
    Adult Education
        Increased funding is also needed to meet growing needs for Adult
    Education. Each year, we receive more applications to participate in
    this program. In 2004, we had 77 requests for Adult Education, but
    again without any increase in BIA funds. Adult Education is also an
    integral part of our overall Education program and provides a valuable
    service to our Tribal members. Without additional funding, our people
    are further handicapped and their opportunities limited.
        All of these programs are essential to Indian people. We urge
    Congress to assist us by providing federal funds at levels that will
    allow us to take real steps to meet our people's needs. Thank you for
    allowing us to share our recommendations with you.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board
             fiscal year 2006 indian health service budget analysis
    Introduction
        The 16th Annual Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board
    analysis of the Indian Health Service (IHS) Budget continues a
    tradition of close scrutiny of the IHS Budget that began in the 1980's.
    The character of budget formulation is vastly different for tribes than
    it is for the beneficiaries of other programs funded by the federal
    government. Trust responsibility and the government-to-government
    relationship between tribes and the federal government, by definition,
    requires a partnership in the development of the budget. Tribes welcome
    the continued commitment to joint development of the IHS budget under
    the Administration of President George W. Bush. The Northwest Portland
    Area Indian Health Board presented this budget analysis to tribes at
    its March 9, 2005 Budget meeting in Portland, Oregon.
        Tribes agree that, given the current budget realities, this is the
    best IHS budget of the Bush Administration. It includes an average
    increase of over 5 percent for the health services account. This is
    double the average increase for the Department's other health and
    social service programs. In addition to the reasonable health services
    account increase, Northwest tribes agree that the distribution of the
    increase and the redirection of new construction facilities dollars to
    health services is both smart and it is reflective of tribal
    consultation. In nearly every case, the sub-subactivity increases (line
    items) are true to the priorities identified by tribes in the budget
    formulation process. Compared to the last four years and with other
    agencies, IHS did very well and it deserves this increase given its
    record of strong performance. Unfortunately, compared to the great need
    it is still a budget that, taken together with other trends in health
    care finance and inflation, will be less than what is needed to
    maintain the IHS funded health programs.
        Although willing to concede that the President's request is a
    reasonable one and one that reflects priorities identified in the
    budget formulation process, tribes have serious concerns. Tribes fear
    that the Congress will once again take the President's request and make
    changes to suit the priorities of their own constituencies and
    secondly, that they will once again apply an across the board reduction
    to meet artificial budget targets that have nothing to do with health
    care priorities. Tribes want money added to the budget and they are
    alert to the danger of Congressional cuts hiding behind the word
    rescission.
        Northwest Tribes see their role as presenting reasonable estimates
    of needs so these needs can be understood and appropriated their fair
    share of available funds. Each year the Board first discusses its
    priorities during its January Board Meeting and during the February
    meeting of the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians. The Board then
    develops its analysis and conducts a budget workshop prior to the House
    Interior Appropriations hearing (if hearings are held) on the IHS
    budget. In addition to the Budget Analysis, the Board also prepares a
    Legislative Plan that presents official Board positions on the budget
    and other health legislation. The Legislative Plan is developed by the
    Board and presented for discussion and adoption through resolution at
    the January Board meeting and again at the Affiliated Tribes of
    Northwest Indians at its February meeting. The 2005 Northwest Portland
    Area Indian Health Board Legislative Plan and this budget analysis are
    the basis of the Board's lobbying activities (both are available at
    www.npaihb.org).
             budget formulation: the i/t/u budget formulation team
        For the past eight years representatives from the Portland Area
    have joined Tribes nationwide in the IHS budget formulation process
    that includes direct service Tribes, Tribally operated programs, and
    urban programs. This group, commonly referred to as the I/T/U, meets
    annually to develop the IHS budget. The Northwest Tribes' long interest
    in the budget process allows them to understand the complexity of
    developing the final approved appropriations. In the past, various
    Administrations have underestimated the need for funding the Indian
    Health Service. They have also often over estimated the amount of
    revenue received from collections from Medicare, Medicaid, and third
    party collections.
        This analysis was first conceived as a reality check to the lack of
    integrity in past executive branch budgets. The analysis establishes
    criteria that are used to grade the President's budget request.
                               funding true need
        The Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board supports the work
    of both the I/T/U Budget Formulation Process and the Federal
    Disparities Index (FDI) Workgroup (formerly known as the Level of Need
    Funded). The Indian Health Service Budget Formulation Process and the
    FDI Workgroup have both established that the approximate level of
    funding needed to meet the true health care needs of Indian people is
    $9-10 billion. This corroborates the long-held view that less than 50
    percent of true need is funded by the Indian Health Service budget. If
    funded at $9 billion, an additional phased-in facilities cost of $9-10
    billion would be needed to house the expanded health care services.
    This is sometimes stated as a $20 billion need-based budget, but in
    reality, the annualized need after facilities are constructed is closer
    to $10 billion per year in 2005 dollars. A 10-year phase-in of the $20
    billion budget can be achieved if the Congress and the Administration
    can commit to several years of sizeable increases.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ For more discussion on the ``IHS Needs Based Budget,'' see: The
    True Health Care Needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives,
    Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board, June 2003: available at
    www.npaihb.org.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Throughout the years, this analysis has sought to maintain the
    integrity of its estimates by not inflating amounts in the manner of
    conventional negotiations. Tribal leaders want information that is
    reliable so they can make their case to the Congress without fear of
    accusations of exaggerated estimates or double counting needs and
    challenge the true need. There is nothing to be gained by
    overestimating the funding required to meet the health care needs of
    Indian people. The Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board invites
    discussion over every estimate presented in this analysis.
        The following graph illustrates the diminished purchasing power of
    the IHS budget over the past 14 years (also see Table 8). The graph
    demonstrates the compounding effect of multi-year funding shortfalls
    that have considerably eroded the IHS base budget. In 1993, the IHS
    health services accounts received $1.52 billion, had the accounts
    received adequate increases for inflation and population growth, that
    amount would be $5.2 billion today. The NPAIHB estimates that the IHS
    budget has lost over $2.46 billion over the last 14 years.

     audience for this analysis: tribes, the administration and the united
                                states congress
        Efforts have been made to identify pertinent issues that impact
    Northwest Tribes and to provide a meaningful discussion of each. This
    information is intended to assist leaders of each of our 43 member
    tribes in making their own analysis of the budget proposal and its
    impact on their respective communities. It is also intended to serve as
    a useful analysis for tribes nationwide since in nearly every case the
    interests of tribes nationwide are the interests of Northwest Tribes.
    It is only by making these views known that effective budget policy can
    be developed. The Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board and
    Northwest Tribes actively participate in attempts to develop consensus
    positions on budget priorities.
        This analysis is distributed to the Administration and to
    congressional committees who finalize the annual IHS budget. Although
    the analysis is prepared for the tribes of the Northwest, the analysis
    is now made available to tribes throughout the country. It is
    distributed to the National Indian Health Board, National Congress of
    American Indians, Tribal Self-Governance Advisory Committee, Alaska
    Native Health Board, California Rural Indian Health Board, Aberdeen
    Tribal Chairman's Association, Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona,
    Montana-Wyoming Health Board, and the United South and Eastern Tribes.
    It was posted on the Board's website (at www.npaihb.org) as soon at it
    is published so all tribes can consider its recommendations for their
    own use in the consultation process.
        The Congress and the Administration must find common ground to
    maintain the purchasing power of health care resources, address unmet
    needs, and to facilitate service delivery that meets health objectives
    while maintaining fiscal discipline.
        The Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board estimates it will
    take $371 million to maintain the current level of services provided in
    our health programs nationwide. Indian Health programs cannot afford to
    absorb such a large portion of mandatory cost increases year after
    year. The health and very lives of American Indian and Alaskan Natives
    are being put at risk by this chronic under-funding of the Indian
    Health Service budget. The most obvious effect of these lost revenues
    is fewer services and ultimately lower health status for American
    Indians and Alaska Natives. If tribes received mandatory cost increases
    there would be a decrease in the health disparities between the general
    population and American Indians and Alaska Natives.
        Unfortunately, there is evidence that services have been cut
    despite the best efforts of Indian health programs. Further
    efficiencies in Indian health programs will be extremely difficult to
    attain. Cutting services for life threatening conditions are very
    likely, and in fact--some Northwest Tribes report that this is already
    the case in their programs.
            restored services will be cut due to inadequate funding
        There is strong evidence that services will be cut due to
    inadequate funding. After the 10 percent increase approved in the last
    Clinton Budget of fiscal year 2001 some services were restored. In
    fiscal year 2001, the number of service denials declined for the first
    time since 1993. In fiscal year 2004 the IHS deferred payment
    authorization for 156,862 recommended cases reached a new high and IHS
    funded programs denied care to 23,368 eligible cases, however, they
    were determined not to be within medical priorities (Priority One).
    These reported amounts understate the actual unmet need since many
    tribes no longer report deferred services because of the expense
    involved in reporting. More disturbing is that many IHS users do not
    even visit IHS facilities because they know they will be denied
    services due to funding shortfalls. Last year denial and deferred
    services increased to an unacceptable level.
        In fiscal year 2002, the first year of the Bush Administration, the
    IHS received a budget increase of 5 percent. In 2003, the increase was
    3 percent, in fiscal year 2004 the increase was just 2.1 percent, and
    again in fiscal year 2005 it is a mere 2.1 percent. This year's fiscal
    year 2006 President's request is again only a 2.1 percent increase when
    the reduction in new facilities construction is considered. The
    Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board estimates the lost
    purchasing power during the first Bush Administration at $886 million
    when the compounding effect of each year's absorption of mandatory cost
    increases is included in the estimate. The President's budget request
    is far less than what is needed to accomplish the stated goals of the
    Administration. It is very hard to argue that some of the management
    improvements have increased performance enough to cover these loses.
        The unfunded amount for Catastrophic Health Emergency Fund (CHEF)
    cases totaled $13.4 million in fiscal year 2004. There were 667 CHEF
    cases funded and 756 were not due to lack of funding. It is estimated
    that millions of dollars in unreported cases exist since Indian health
    programs do not report cases once they know the funding has been
    exhausted during the fiscal year. Nearly every one of the 20 tribes in
    attendance at the March 9, 2005 Budget workshop reported that they are
    already at Priority One. Others noted that they have shifted economic
    development funds to their contract health program to avoid priority
    one status. Tribes should not have to sacrifice their economic
    development to fund the federal obligation for health care services.
        How will this funding gap be filled? Unfortunately, some believe
    increased revenues from tribes or from the Medicaid program are filling
    this gap. Last year every state planned cuts to its Medicaid program.
    Washington has proposed a benefit reduction and has proposed cost
    sharing premiums, which American Indian and Alaska Native will have to
    pay if things stand with CMS. The number of American Indians and Alaska
    Natives who lost their coverage is estimated to be as high as 2,400 in
    Oregon. Without Medicaid coverage, these people will seek out services
    at IHS and Tribally operated facilities.
        The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights' reports ``A Quite Crisis'' and
    ``Broken Promises'' document the harsh realities of life in Indian
    Country. The reports discuss the United States' obligation to provide
    programs and services to Native Americans. In short, the report finds a
    crisis in the persistence and growth of unmet funding needs of Indian
    programs and concludes that conditions in Indian Country could be
    greatly relieved if the federal government honored its treaty
    obligations and commitment to provide funding. The report offers eleven
    recommendations, which if implemented, would greatly improve the lives
    of Indian people. Two of those recommendations include exempting Indian
    programs from across-the-board rescissions and funding the unique needs
    of Indian Country (which includes funding the disparate health
    conditions of Indian people). Failure to fund anything less will only
    signify that this Country's agreements with Indian nations and other
    legal rights are only empty promises.
        There seems to be a misconception in the Congress and with the
    general public that Indian Tribes are getting rich by operating
    casinos. That myth must be dispelled. Tribes are not getting rich
    through gaming. Like state lotteries, proceeds from Indian gaming must
    be used for purposes like building houses, schools, roads and sewer and
    water systems; to fund the health care and educational systems; and, to
    develop a strong, diverse economic base for the future. Tribes like all
    elected governments have many competing needs for resources and often
    dedicate a portion of gaming revenue to health care as this is what
    they have had to do to prevent illness and deaths due to funding
    shortfalls in their health programs. The health funding needs are so
    critical in Indian Country that gaming revenue alone will not solve the
    problem.
        The NPAIHB's recommends an increase of 12 percent or $317 million
    over fiscal year 2005 to fund current services and maintain the current
    program. Program increases above current services amount to $228
    million. The Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board recommended
    increase for current services and program increase totals $599.3
    million. This amount is required if the Administration is serious about
    addressing health disparities. The enhancements include small facility
    construction, pharmacy, Information Technology improvements, and
    increases above current services for many of the line items in the
    budget. It adequately funds mandatory cost increases and addresses
    unmet needs for the Indian Health Service, and addresses disparities in
    health status between the general population and the American Indian/
    Alaska Native population.
        This year's analysis continues to be dedicated to those who are
    suffering right now, just six months into fiscal year 2005, in health
    programs that are already in Priority One status. As we noted last
    year, there are a few members of Congress, some HHS bureaucrats, a
    reporter or two nationally that knows what the term means. Priority One
    means dishonor for all Americans and ill health for American Indians--
    this is beyond dispute for members of Northwest Tribes.
                                acknowledgements
        This analysis is based on over 16 years of contributions from
    delegates and staff of the Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board
    including: Pearl Capoeman-Baller, Chair; Julia Davis, former Chair;
    former Executive Directors: Doni Wilder (1990-1998) and IHS Portland
    Area Office Director; Cheryle Kennedy (1998-2000); and, Ed Fox,
    Executive Director (2000-current) and Jim Roberts, Policy Analyst.
      --Senate Democratic (http://www.senate.gov/budget/democratic/) and
            Republican http://www.senate.gov/budget/republican/Budget
            Committee publications.
      --The House analysis is available at www.house.gov/budget/
            prezbudget.htm.
      --The Budget for fiscal year 2006 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/
            budget/fy2006/is the President's budget request of February 7,
            2005. It is actually a set of documents with narrative and
            statistical information on the President's proposed budget for
            fiscal year 2006.
      --Congressional Budget Office (CBO http://www.cbo.gov/), The Budget
            and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2006-2015, January, 2005 and
            Preliminary Analysis of the President's Budgetary Proposals for
            Fiscal Year 2006, March 4, 2005. These documents examine the
            federal budget under different economic assumptions and provide
            estimates that are used for comparison to those of the
            President's Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
      --Department of Health and Human Services fiscal year 2006. DHHS
            Fiscal Year 2006 Budget In Brief, February 3, 2005 available at
            http://www.hhs.gov/budget/docbudget.htm.
      --The Indian Health Service, Justification of Estimates for
            Appropriations Committees Fiscal Year 2006 available at
            www.ihs.gov/AdminMngrResources/Budget/index.asp.
      --Additional information about the U.S. Budget is available at the
            Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: http://www.cbpp.org/
            pubs/fedbud.htm.
    the fiscal year 2006 northwest portland area indian health board budget
                          analysis and recommendations
        The fiscal year 2006 President's request for the Indian Health
    Service (IHS) budget is $3.05 billion and is an increase of $62.9
    million (2.1 percent increase) over last year's final enacted level.
    NPAIHB estimates that it will take $371 million to maintain current
    services for IHS and tribally operated health programs. Thus, the
    President's request will fall short by $308 million. The expenses
    associated with pay act increases and staffing for new facilities
    ($27.4 million) and proposed program increases ($35.4) exhausts the
    President's proposed increase of $62.9 million. Despite the small
    overall increase, Table 1 depicts comparatively large increases for the
    health services account line items. This is achieved by postponing new
    facilities construction for one year. By doing so, IHS is able to
    allocate increases to tribally identified priorities in the health
    services line items such as Dental (9.8 percent increase), Mental
    Health (7.8 percent increase) and Public Health and Health Education
    (10 percent).

                                         TABLE 1.--INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE BUDGET
                                                 [Dollars in thousands]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Final                       President's   Change over fiscal
                                              ------------------------ Change over     budget         year 2005
                                                 Fiscal      Fiscal    fiscal year  fiscal year --------------------
                                                year 2004   year 2005      2004         2006       Amount    Percent
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Services:
        Hospitals & Health Clinics...........  $1,249,781  $1,289,418     $39,637    $1,359,541    $70,123       5.4
        Dental Health........................     104,513     109,023       4,510       119,489     10,466       9.6
        Mental Health........................      53,294      55,060       1,766        59,328      4,268       7.8
        Alcohol & Substance Abuse............     138,250     139,073         823       145,336      6,263       4.5
        Contract Health Services.............     479,070     498,068      18,998       525,021     26,953       5.4
                                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------
          Sub-total, Clincial Services.......   2,024,908   2,090,642      65,734     2,208,715    118,073       5.6
                                              ======================================================================
    Prevention Health, Services:
        Public Health Nursing................      42,581      45,015       2,434        49,690      4,675      10.4
        Health Education.....................      11,793      12,429         636        13,787      1,358      10.9
        CHRs.................................      50,996      51,364         368        53,737      2,373       4.6
        AK Immunization......................       1,561       1,573          12         1,645         72       4.6
                                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------
          Sub-total, Prevention Health.......     106,931     110,381       3,450       118,859      8,478       7.7
                                              ======================================================================
        Urban Health.........................      31,619      31,816         197        33,233      1,417       4.5
        Indian Health Professions............      30,774      30,392        (382)       31,503      1,111       3.7
        Tribal Management....................       2,376       2,343         (33)        2,430         87       3.7
        Direct Operations....................      60,714      61,648         934        63,123      1,475       2.4
        Self Governance......................       5,644       5,586         (58)        5,752        166       3.0
        Contract Support Costs...............     267,398     263,683      (3,715)      268,683      5,000       1.9
                                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Services....................   2,530,364   2,596,491      66,127     2,732,298    135,807       5.2
                                              ======================================================================
    Facilities:
        Maintenance & Improvement............      48,897      49,204         307        49,904        700       1.4
        Sanitation Facilities Const..........      93,015      91,767      (1,248)       93,519      1,752       1.9
        Health Care Facilities Const.........      94,554      88,597      (5,957)        3,326    (85,271)    -96.2
        Facil & Env Hlth Support.............     137,803     141,669       3,866       150,959      9,290       6.6
        Equipment............................      17,081      17,337         256        17,960        623       3.6
                                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Facilities..................     391,350     388,574      (2,776)      315,668    (72,906)    -18.8
                                              ======================================================================
          Total, IHS.........................   2,921,714   2,985,065      63,351     3,047,966     62,901       2.1
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 the final enacted fiscal year 2005 ihs budget
        The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005 (Public Law 108-447)
    initially provided $3.03 billion for the Indian Health Service (IHS),
    however after two rescissions, the final enacted fiscal year 2005 IHS
    budget is $2.99 billion. The final fiscal year 2005 IHS appropriation
    is a $63.4 million increase, or a 2 percent increase, over the fiscal
    year 2004 spending level. Last year, the NPAIHB estimated that it would
    take $380 million just to maintain current services in fiscal year
    2005. The fiscal year 2005 budget increase of $63.4 fell short by
    $316.6 million. Pay cost increases, staffing for new facilities, and
    program increases alone accounted for $63.1 million. No funding was
    programmed for inflation and population growth in the final IHS fiscal
    year 2005 budget.
        The approved fiscal year 2005 IHS budget includes an additional
    $66.1 million, an increase of 2.6 percent, for the Health Services
    Accounts. The Health Facilities accounts were cut by .7 percent. Only
    three of the Health Facilities Construction accounts received any type
    of increase. Two years ago, the Health Facilities Construction account
    received a significant increase 13.6 percent ($12.9 million) however it
    did not benefit any Northwest tribes. Portland Area tribes are
    supportive of using a new health facility construction priority system
    that would hopefully include funding for the type of facilities needed
    in the Northwest; funding that would include both facilities and
    staffing packages.

        Congress continues the use of rescissions to deal with spending
    caps in the appropriations process. These rescissions have begun to
    have a significant impact on the IHS appropriations. Over the last four
    years, the rescissions as a percentage of the approved IHS budget have
    increased significantly. In fiscal year 2002, the rescission ($1
    million) was approximately 1 percent of the approved increase ($130
    million) for the IHS budget. In fiscal year 2003, the effect of the
    rescission ($18 million) grew to 17 percent of the approved increase
    ($109 million) for the IHS budget. In fiscal year 2005, the rescissions
    ($42 million) have escalated to become 40 percent of the approved
    increase ($105 million) for the IHS budget. Members of Congress can now
    have it both ways; they can first say they supported increases and then
    go on to say (after elections) that they supported fiscal
    responsibility by cutting funding. No one has even engaged the Congress
    in a discussion about how unfair and illogical across the board cuts
    are to IHS funded programs.
        The information that follows describes how insufficient funding has
    created funding shortfalls that threaten health care services for
    American Indian and Alaska Native people.
    fiscal year 2006: preserving the basic health program funded by the ihs
                                     budget
        Unfortunately, the fiscal year 2006 IHS budget falls far short of
    preserving the existing IHS programs. Tribes and IHS are focused on
    preserving the basic health care program funded by this budget.
    Preserving the purchasing power of the IHS base program should be the
    first budget principle, not an afterthought. How can unmet needs ever
    be addressed if the existing program is not maintained? Tribes have one
    overriding concern that is crucial to this discussion. There must be a
    trusting relationship between tribes who are concerned about improving
    their health status, the Administration that is charged with that
    responsibility, and the Congress who holds the purse strings. Tribes,
    IHS and Congress must continue to focus on the goals and objectives of
    the IHS program and assure that the necessary resources are available
    to continue to make improvements in health status. If the
    Administration is serious about addressing health disparities it must
    improve its commitment to adequate funding for the Indian Health
    Service. If it is not serious it should stop highlighting these
    disparities as if words are the same as action.
                      the office of management and budget
        The Office of Management and Budget continues in its refusal to
    share vital budget information with Tribes. The ``who-struck-john''
    table that allows tribes to understand where budget cuts were made is
    embargoed information. This table should be public information. The OMB
    could open the process even further by sharing budget information prior
    to the first Monday in February. The continued embargo of the fiscal
    year 2006 budget information allows the Administration to violate
    accepted standards of government-to-government consultation. Tribes
    have specifically requested that OMB allow the Department of Health and
    Human Services to share the OMB passback information with tribes so
    they can provide their comments to the Administration and the IHS to
    assist in preparation of its appeal to the Department and OMB. Sharing
    the final budget information with tribes would allow them to prepare
    their testimony for the oversight committees in a timely manner.
        Tribes cannot be content with an under funded program that so
    deeply affects their communities. In the course of this budget review,
    the President's budget request is evaluated, major issues and concerns
    are identified, and suggestions are provided that will benefit tribes
    and IHS. Recommendations for funding levels are also included. It is
    hoped that this document will be a valuable resource for the
    Administration, the Congress, and the congressional staff that are
    responsible for understanding the Indian Health Service Budget. The
    treaties, executive orders, and the legislation that tribes have fought
    so hard to achieve with the government of the United States remain the
    basic foundation of the unique status of health care for Indian people.

    Medicare and Medicaid Collections
        The IHS Congressional Justification document proposes that the IHS
    and Tribes will increase their Medicare and Medicaid collections by
    $8.4 million in fiscal year 2006. While the IHS and Tribes have
    significantly increased their ability to collect third party
    reimbursements, the Medicare and Medicaid programs have entered a
    period of no growth or actual reductions in collections.
        The Medicare Modernization Act (MMA) will be fully implemented in
    2006 and it will negatively impact the ability of Indian health systems
    to collect third party resources from this very important program. The
    President has also proposed $48 billion in cost savings in the Medicaid
    program over the next ten years and current discussions are underway
    for Medicaid reform. Tribes support the concept of a Medicaid
    Commission and welcome the invitation to be a part of that Commission's
    work. The prospect of IHS and Tribal programs increasing Medicaid
    collections is not likely given the President's proposed savings and
    the fact that states continue efforts to balance their budgets with
    cost containment in Medicaid programs.
        Increasing Medicare collections will be difficult since the MMA
    fails to adequately integrate Indian health programs into the
    prescription drug program. It fails to protect the right of elderly and
    disabled Indian people to receive prescription drug coverage without
    charge from the federal government. The new program raises significant
    issues of access and cost-sharing which will impact how and where
    elderly and disabled Indians get coverage. The Medicare program also
    threatens to significantly reduce reimbursements to Indian health
    programs for prescription drugs provided by IHS and Tribally operated
    programs.
        Beginning in 2006, Medicare enrolled-seniors who previously got
    their pharmacy coverage under Medicaid (Dual-Eligibles) will be
    required to choose or be assigned to a private prescription drug plan.
    There is no guarantee that if they continue to receive prescriptions
    from Indian programs or that payment will be made to the I/T/U
    programs. It is estimated that there are 25,963 \2\ to 30,544 \3\
    individuals in the IHS patient database who are receiving both Medicare
    and Medicaid. While there is no comprehensive data on the per-capita
    drug costs for dual-eligibles in the Indian health system, estimates
    can be made by examining average state per-capita spending for this
    population. In 2002, the average per-capita spending for dual-eligibles
    was $918.\4\ This is thought to be a very conservative figure for
    Indian Country, in view of the higher rates of illness that have
    expensive drugs associated with their treatment, including diabetes and
    mental illness. Thus, if this average is projected to 2006, the
    expected average per capita spending on drugs for dual-eligibles would
    be $1,756. Using these population and per-capita spending data, it is
    estimated that the Medicaid payments for dual eligible drug costs to
    Indian health programs ranges from $23 million to $53 million.\5\ \6\
    NPAIHB estimates that between $10 million to $25 million in payments
    are likely to be lost by Indian health programs unless tribally
    recommended changes are made. The President's proposed budget fails to
    take into consideration this dramatic effect of the MMA on the Indian
    health system. In fact, the dual eligible issue could result in as much
    as a 20 percent decrease in Medicare collections for the IHS and Tribal
    health programs. In their present form, the Part D rules would
    jeopardize the ability of the Indian health system to maintain this
    level of dual eligible (Medicaid) reimbursements. These important
    revenues must be protected.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ This number represents 85 percent of the three-year total of
    active users.
        \3\ This is the number of active users, defined as at least one
    visit in the past three years.
        \4\ From Table 2, ``Full'' Dual Eligible Enrollment and
    Prescription Drug Spending, by State, 2002, in ``The `Clawback:' State
    Financing of Medicare Drug Coverage'' by Andy Schneider, published by
    the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, June 2004.
        \5\ This low number was calculated using the 25,963 figure for dual
    eligibles in 2003 and the $918 per capita spending in 2002. It is
    probably unrealistically low for 2006 given the increase in aging
    population in Indian Country and the increase in drug prices.
        \6\ This higher number uses the 30,544 number of dual eligibles in
    2003 and the $1,756 estimated spending in 2006.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The state fiscal crisis continues to threaten the viability of IHS
    and Tribal health programs as states continue efforts to contain costs
    in Medicaid programs. At the end of 2004, there were at least 22 states
    across the country that projected funding shortfalls averaging from 6-8
    percent of their general fund spending. Over half of these states have
    American Indian tribes in them. Oregon and Washington are two of the
    states that project funding shortfalls. Despite improving revenues,
    projected state deficits threaten many public services including the
    Medicaid program. This will negatively impact the ability for Tribes to
    obtain Medicaid reimbursements.
        The unique status of tribes and Indian people has also been
    challenged by the Executive branch. In 2004, CMS informed Oregon and
    Washington that it would not approve waiver amendments containing
    special provisions for Indian participation in the Medicaid program.
    This is a departure from past CMS policy, in which Indian people were
    allowed special provisions for participation in Medicaid and SCHIP
    programs. CMS indicates that such treatment would have consequences
    related to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The former CMS policy is one
    that acknowledges the federal government's unique legal
    responsibilities under the trust obligation to provide recognized
    privileges to American Indians and Alaska Natives. This standard holds
    that the federal government's unique legal responsibilities under the
    trust obligation provide recognized privileges to American Indians and
    Alaska Natives. It is a standard that permits American Indians and
    Alaska Natives to be treated differently in federal programs because of
    the political status of Tribes as sovereign nations and is the standard
    that should be followed by CMS in determining eligibility, access to
    services and cost sharing issues for American Indian and Alaska Native
    people.
        Congress acknowledges the Federal trust responsibility for Indian
    health on a continuing basis through annual appropriations to the
    Department of Health and Human Services for the operation of Indian
    Health Service programs, in fiscal year 2005, a total of $3 billion was
    supplied for provision of health services and health facility needs in
    Indian Country. This budget is supplemented by some $600 million
    collected by Indian health programs from Medicare, Medicaid and other
    third-party insurance sources. By including Medicare and Medicaid
    collections in the IHS appropriations, Congress expects that these
    resources will be available to IHS and Tribes in order to provide
    health services to American Indian and Alaska Native people.
        The Medicaid program could be a more effective means of financing
    Indian health programs if it would exempt American Indians and Alaska
    Natives from cost sharing including co-pays, premiums and any other
    form of cost sharing. It makes little sense to Indian people to sign up
    for a health program that charges them for health care services that
    their tribe gave up lands and other considerations to secure for all
    generations. The practical effect is that they will not sign up for
    Medicaid and the IHS funded programs will end up paying all the costs
    of their health care. If this becomes the case, CMS will save the
    federal government millions of dollars, but renege on rights guaranteed
    by law and treaties. The Administration or Secretary of HHS could
    easily exempt American Indians and Alaska Natives from these cost
    sharing requirements. The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs fiscal
    year 2006 Views and Estimates letter supports this same exemption.
    Tribes in the Northwest have repeatedly stated their preference for
    full funding of the health needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives
    by fully funding the Indian Health Service over grants or increases in
    Medicare and Medicaid collections. However, most tribes are reconciled
    to the fact that all revenue sources must be pursued until some type of
    entitlement to full funding is secured through the IHS budget. The past
    four years' reductions in state Medicaid programs do call into question
    the wisdom of relying on this uncertain source of income. Northwest
    Tribal leaders again call on the Congress to consider making Indian
    health an entitlement similar to the Medicare program promise to those
    over 65 years.
    current services budget: maintaining the current health program and the
                president's proposed fiscal year 2006 ihs budget
        This year's fiscal year 2006 IHS budget increase of $62.9 million
    (an increase of 2.1 percent) is far short of the $371 million needed to
    maintain current services. In addition, Portland Area tribes are
    recommending an additional $228 million for program increases to
    addresses health priority needs. This brings the total recommended
    increase to $599 million or 20 percent (see Table 4).

        Current services estimates' calculate mandatory costs increases
    necessary to maintain the current level of services. These
    ``mandatories'' are unavoidable and include medical and general
    inflation, pay costs, staff for recently constructed facilities and
    population growth. The 10 percent increase received in fiscal year 2001
    was the last budget that allowed tribes to reduce denials of services.
    The Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board estimates a fiscal year
    2006 current services need of $371,293,000. This is the amount
    necessary to fund inflation and population growth and fully fund
    contract support costs. Anything less will continue the trend of denied
    health care services as illustrated above.
        There are a number of ways to compute current services. The Indian
    Health Service usually estimates pay cost increases and reports this as
    separate from inflation. The reason for this has less to do with budget
    presentation and more with the simple fact that since Congress passes a
    pay act each year these are costs that are very precisely computed for
    federal employees. The Indian Health Service has also added reasonable
    tribal pay estimates and also reports these. The pay act is legislation
    that requires compliance, no matter how long it may take the President
    to act on pay cost increases. Last year, the Consolidated
    Appropriations Act that the President signed included a 3.5 percent
    overall average pay increase for Federal employees, which became
    effective on the first day of the first applicable pay period beginning
    on after January 1, 2005.

        TABLE 3.--SUMMARY OF MANDATORY COST INCREASES (CURRENT SERVICES)
                            [In thousands of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Increase
                                                                 needed to
                         Mandatory Cost                          maintain
                                                                  current
                                                                 services
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CHS inflation estimated at 12.5 percent.................          62,259
    Health Services Account (not including CHS) inflation            127,182
     estimated at 7.5 percent...............................
    Facilities Inflation Needs (M&I, Sanitation, etc).......          15,325
    Contract Support Costs (unfunded amount)................         112,000
    Population Growth.......................................          54,526
                                                             ---------------
          Total Mandatory Costs.............................         371,293
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note on Medical Inflation.--Medical Inflation is estimated at between 8
      to 14 percent in the Northwest states of Oregon, Washington and Idaho
      Health care analysts understand that increases in medical spending
      reflect increases in the value of services and pharmaceuticals and not
      simply inflation as measured for most goods and services Medicare and
      Medicaid will increase their spending by 9 percent in fiscal year
      2006, but NPAIHB assumes Indian health programs will not achieve the
      same level of cost containment due to the lack of large group
      purchasing power.

        In the Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board proposed budget
    (Table 4), pay act costs are not displayed separately from general and
    medical inflation costs. Personnel inflation is a part of the overall
    inflation adjustment and does not need a special treatment for the
    purposes of calculating a current services budget. The proposed budget
    applies an 8 percent inflation adjustment in fiscal year 2006 for the
    health services accounts. This amount is added to the fiscal year 2005
    budget as the estimated amount needed just to maintain current
    services. The CHS account has a separate adjustment of 12.5 percent
    percent since 100 percent of this line item is subject to the higher
    level of medical inflation for specialty and hospital care. The Urban
    line item is also estimated at 12.5 percent as a result of inflation
    and the lack of any real increases in past years. Contract Support
    Costs need is estimated at $112 million amount, the amount provided by
    the Office of Tribal Activities, and includes inflation and past year's
    shortfalls. Finally, the facilities account estimate uses a 4 percent
    adjustment since the inflation rate for facilities activities is
    similar to the general inflation rate.

                   TABLE 4.--COMPARING PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2006 REQUEST TO CURRENT SERVICES BUDGET
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Enacted    President's    Change
                                          fiscal year     request      over      Increase    Current    (President's
                                           2005  19-   2006  7-Feb-   fiscal       for       services      is less)
                                            Nov-2004       2005      year 2005  inflation
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    SERVICES:
        Hospitals & Clinics.............   $1,289,418   $1,359,541    $70,123     $90,259   $1,379,677     -$20,136
        Dental Health...................      109,023      119,489     10,466       7,632      116,655        2,834
        Mental Health...................       55,060       59,328      4,268       3,854       58,914          414
        Alcohol Substance Abuse.........      139,073      145,336      6,263       9,735      148,808       -3,472
        Contract Health Services........      498,068      525,021     26,953      62,259      560,327      -35,306
        Public Health Nursing...........       45,015       49,690      4,675       3,151       48,166        1,524
        Health Education................       12,429       13,787      1,358         870       13,299          488
        CHRs............................       51,364       53,737      2,373       3,595       54,959       -1,222
        AK Immunization.................        1,573        1,645         72         110        1,683
        Urban Health....................       31,816       33,233      1,417       3,977       35,793       -2,560
        Health Professions..............       30,392       31,503      1,111       1,216       31,608         -105
        Tribal Management...............        2,343        2,430         87          94        2,437           -7
    Direct Operations...................       61,648       63,123      1,475       2,466       64,114         -991
        Self Governance.................        5,586        5,752        166         223        5,809          -57
        Contract Support Costs..........      263,683      268,683      5,000   \1\ 10,54      274,230        -5547
                                                                                        7
                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, SERVICES...............    2,596,491    2,732,298    135,807   \2\ 189,4    2,796,479      -53,634
                                                                                       41
                                         ===========================================================================
    FACILITIES:
        Maintenance & Improvement.......       49,204       49,904        700       1,968       51,172       -1,268
        Sanitation Facilities...........       91,767       93,519      1,752       3,671       95,438       -1,919
        Health Care Facilities                 88,597        3,326    (85,271)  \3\ 3,326        3,326  ............
         Construction...................
        Facil & Env Hlth Support........      141,669      150,959      9,290       5,667      147,336        3,623
        Equipment.......................       17,337       17,960        623         693       17,869          -70
                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, FACILITIES.............      388,574      315,668    -72,906      15,325      315,141      -88,231
                                         ===========================================================================
          Total, IHS....................    2,985,065    3,047,966     62,901     204,766    3,111,620     -141,865
                                         ===========================================================================
    Other increases:
        Population Growth...............  ...........  ...........  ..........     54,526       54,526      -54,526
        Contract Support Cost (CSC).....  ...........  ...........  ..........    112,000      112,000     -112,000
                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal Pop. Growth/CSC......  ...........  ...........  ..........    166,526      166,526     -166,526
                                         ===========================================================================
    Program Enhancements................  ...........  ...........  ..........  .........      228,000  ............
                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Totals........................    2,985,065    3,047,966     62,901     371,293      599,293     -308,392
                                         ===========================================================================
    Percent increase....................  ...........  ...........       2.11        12.4         20.1  ............
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Contract Support Costs (CSC) are calculated for inflation at 4 percent, however are not factored into the
      total for increase for Inflation column. Rather, the CSC estimate of $112 million is used to determine the
      total increase required for CSC inflation. (Source: Indian Health Service, Office of Tribal Activities)
    \2\ Does not include $10,547 CSC increase (see footnote above).
    \3\ The President cut the Health Facilities construction line item by $85 million; this is good budgeting
      practice until the IHS completes its revision of the Health Facilities Construction Priority System. This will
      allow the facilities construction needs of Indian Country to be re-prioritized with current data and reflect
      the true health facility needs of Indian people.

    fiscal year 2006 slight increase for inflation and population growth is
                                   inadequate
        The President's fiscal year 2006 IHS budget request includes $46
    million for inflation and $33.4 million for population growth. IHS and
    Tribal health programs have not received funding for population growth
    since 1993 so this year's increase is a welcome recognition of the need
    to provide funds for this mandatory cost increase. Tribes have long
    testified that resources must increase to compensate for population
    growth just as they must increase for actual inflation costs. If one
    takes the American Indian population growth rate of 2.1 percent (the
    actual increase in 2004 user population) and multiplies this by the
    health services account it results in a suggested increase of $54.5
    million for fiscal year 2006. At a minimum, IHS and tribal health
    programs will require this amount to keep pace with population growth.
    The President's budget falls short by $21 million for funding
    population growth. There has been no additional funding to cover the
    population increase of approximately 17 percent between 1995 and 2005.
        Population growth is built into the funding mechanisms for the
    Medicare and Medicaid budgets. Medicare is only now beginning to absorb
    the retiring baby boomers and growth will increase expenditures from
    $325 billion in fiscal year 2006 to $520 billion in fiscal year
    2010.\7\ Medicaid expenditures are projected to increase from $186
    billion in fiscal year 2005 to $262 billion over the same period.
    Medicare and Medicaid are entitlement programs that automatically
    receive population growth increases. That is one reason why annual
    Medicaid and Medicare expenditures growth is estimated at 7 percent
    over the next five years. If more participate, funds increase
    accordingly. It is inequitable that health services for American
    Indians and Alaska Natives are not likewise increased when the Indian
    population increases. Unlike Medicaid and Medicare, where spending
    increases are automatic to accommodate growth of enrollees, for the
    Indian Health Service budget population growth adjustments can only be
    secured by approving appropriations increases.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Source.--The Budget and Economic Outlook: fiscal years 2006 to
    20015, Congressional Budget Office, January 2005.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  tribal recommendations for program increases
        Portland Tribes debated various program increases that they felt
    were essential to address current priority needs. Facilities funding
    for small ambulatory clinics continues to be a high priority for the
    Portland area. The balance of the increases are basic increases for
    high priority issues (line items) such as Mental Health, Alcohol and
    Substance Abuse, Public Health Nurses, Community Health
    Representatives, and Health Education. Many of these increases
    supported important components necessary to address long term care
    needs for the growing elder population in Indian communities. There was
    a spirited discussion on keeping the request within the bounds of
    political feasibility. Everyone who participated felt that the funding
    increases for the line items listed above were far short of what was
    needed. However, it was decided that they wanted to highlight these
    areas as key opportunities to make major improvements in health status.
    It was a very difficult decision not to add funding in every line item,
    but a decision was made to limit increases to what was felt might be
    politically feasible.

                     TABLE 5.--IHS BUDGET PROGRAM INCREASES
                            [In thousands of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CHS Unfunded Need, Deferred Services, and Denials of CHEF..       55,000
    Mental Health..............................................       18,000
    Alcohol and Substance Abuse................................       15,000
    Public Health Nursing......................................        5,000
    Health Education...........................................        5,000
    Community Health Representatives...........................        5,000
    Self Governance............................................        5,000
    Pharmacy...................................................       30,000
    Information Technology.....................................       20,000
    Sanitation Facilities Construction.........................       10,000
    Small Ambulatory Clinics...................................       25,000
    Joint Venture..............................................       15,000
    M & I......................................................        5,000
    Guaranteed Loan Program....................................       15,000
                                                                ------------
          Total................................................      228,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It was noted that this increase above current services raises the
    Portland Area request to a level that may not be politically feasible
    (from the basic current services amount of 12.8 percent to 18.8 percent
    with these program increases), but it was decided that highlighting
    these priorities was necessary to indicate to the Congress areas
    especially deserving of increases above current services levels.
                          staffing for new facilities
        Staffing the new facilities opening at the following locations--
    Pinon, AZ; Idabel, OK; Coweta, OK; Red Mesa, AZ; Sisseton, SD; and St.
    Paul, AK--will require $18.4 million in fiscal year 2006. The ``new
    staffing package'' becomes a recurring appropriation. The increase
    associated with staffing for new facilities is more than the amount of
    applied to other mandatories so its benefit to Indian Health Service
    programs calls into question the wisdom of building these facilities if
    funding is not available to maintain current programs.

                        TABLE 6.--STAFFING NEW FACILITIES
                            [In thousands of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Staffing
                              Facility                               Cost
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Pinon, AZ Health Center....................................        4,119
    Idabel, OK Health Center...................................          562
    Coweta, OK Health Center...................................        6,960
    Red Mesa, AZ Health Center.................................        3,171
    Sisseton, SD Health Center.................................        3,524
    St. Paul, AK Health Center.................................          144
                                                                ------------
          Total................................................       18,480
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The significance of staffing new facilities is that it removes from
    distribution funds necessary to maintain current services. Staffing
    packages for new facilities are like pay act costs in two respects: (1)
    They come ``off the top,'' i.e., they are distributed before other
    increases, and (2) They are recurring appropriations. Northwest Tribes
    frequently ask: Why did our health program receive a 1 percent increase
    in funding this year when we were told there was a 2 percent or 3
    percent increase for the Indian Health Service budget? In fiscal year
    2004, the IHS received a 2.1 percent increase; however Portland Area
    Tribes realized less than a 1 percent increase in their health care
    budgets. In fiscal year 2004, the new staffing was over 60 percent of
    the IHS budget increase. In fiscal year 2005, new staffing costs
    accounted for over 50 percent of the increase. As the graph
    illustrates, the reason for this gap between the annual approved
    increases for the IHS accounts and actual program level increases is
    the cost of staffing new facilities.

        Staffing costs are obviously legitimate costs that must be provided
    when a new facility is built. Unfortunately, the existing programs
    absorb the cost of mandatories for new facilities rather than an
    additional appropriation. As Table 7 (below) highlights, the staffing
    of new facilities has received 27.7 percent of all increases in the IHS
    health services account over the past 12 years. In fiscal year 2006,
    $18.5 million will go to staffing new facilities. This amount is down
    from last year, however is still quite significant. If scheduled new
    facilities construction proceeds as planned, it is estimated that this
    percentage will rise to over 50 percent of the overall IHS budget in
    fiscal year 2007 through 2010. NW tribes cannot support this level of
    funding for staffing when we do not have enough funding to maintain
    current services.

     TABLE 7.--PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL IHS INCREASE EXPENDED ON STAFFING FOR NEW
                                   FACILITIES
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Fiscal year                            Percent
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1995.......................................................         19.1
    1996.......................................................         28.3
    1997.......................................................         43.2
    1998.......................................................         28.7
    1999.......................................................         13.0
    2000.......................................................          8.0
    2001.......................................................          5.8
    2002.......................................................         14.2
    2003.......................................................         27.8
    2004.......................................................         64.0
    2005.......................................................         51.0
    2006.......................................................         29.4
                                                                ------------
          Average..............................................         27.7
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Once we subtract pay act costs ($29.3 million in fiscal year 2006)
    and the costs of staffing newly opened facilities ($18.49 million),
    there is simply no money left to maintain the current health care
    program. Since the President has requested only an overall $62.9
    million increase, there is a balance of $15.1 million left for the rest
    of the IHS budget. Since the actual pay act increase will probably be
    from 2 to 3 percent, the balance will be less than one-third the amount
    needed for federal and tribal employees pay increases.
                            health services account
    The Compounding Effect of Multi-year Funding Shortfalls
        Table 8 below demonstrates the loss of real resources in the Health
    Services Account due to increases that have been inadequate to pay for
    cost increases due to inflation (medical and general) and population
    growth. The inflation and population figures presented in Table 8 are
    based on the NPAIHB previous year's analysis and recommendations to
    fund current services. Table 5 illustrates the annual and cumulative
    impact of annual under-funding of mandatory cost increases. This
    information is depicted graphically in Figure 1 of this document.

                       TABLE 8.--INDIAN HEALTH SERVICES ACCOUNT FISCAL YEAR 1993-FISCAL YEAR 2006
                                                [In thousands of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Approved       Budget with
                                                                          health        inflation &    Real resource
                                  Year                                   services         growth           loss
                                                                          budget        adjustment
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1993............................................................       1,524,990       1,540,087          15,097
    1994............................................................       1,646,088       1,644,195          -1,893
    1995............................................................       1,707,092       1,744,221          37,129
    1996............................................................       1,745,309       1,847,113         101,804
    1997............................................................       1,807,269       1,945,326         138,057
    1998............................................................       1,841,074       2,060,512         219,438
    1999............................................................       1,950,322       2,274,992         324,670
    2000............................................................       2,074,173       2,411,496         337,323
    2001............................................................       2,265,663       2,610,497         344,834
    2002............................................................       2,389,614       2,630,009         240,395
    2003............................................................       2,475,916       2,644,996         169,080
    2004............................................................       2,530,364       2,661,614         131,250
    2005............................................................       2,596,492       2,804,211         207,719
    2006............................................................       2,732,298       2,923,559         191,261
                                                                                                     ---------------
          Total real resources lost fiscal years 1993-2005..........  ..............  ..............       2,456,165
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The loss of purchasing power over the past fourteen years is
    conservatively estimated at $2.46 billion. It is difficult to estimate
    how much collections from Medicaid (and to a lesser extent Medicare)
    have reduced these shortfalls. One reason for the difficulty is that
    collections estimates are understated in each year of the IHS budget
    justification because only IHS facilities' collections are reported.
    One thing is clear, and that is Medicaid collections have not grown in
    the Portland Area in the past three years due to the state fiscal
    crisis in Oregon and Washington. States nationwide are continuing to
    cut benefits and eligibility for the Medicaid program in an attempt to
    balance state budgets.
        The following section reviews the IHS budget at the ``sub-
    subactivity'' level for the health services account. The number in the
    parenthesis is the page number in the Congressional Justification for
    the Indian Health Service fiscal year 2006 budget. The reader will note
    that the percentage increase for each line item is well over the
    average proposed fiscal year 2006 increase for the Department of Health
    and Human Services.

              TABLE 9.--HOSPITALS AND CLINICS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006
                            [In thousands of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    President Request.......................................       1,289,418
    Increase/Decrease (5.4 percent).........................          70,123
    NPAIHB Current Services Estimate........................       1,379,677
    President's Proposed....................................       1,359,541
    Shortfall...............................................          20,136
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         hospitals and clinics (ihs 3)
        The Hospitals and Clinics line item would receive $1,289,418,000
    under the Administration's request. The Administration's request is
    $20.1 million short of the amount needed to maintain services. Pay act
    cost increases for this account total $20.5 million and staffing new
    facilities requires an additional $18.5. This account will also receive
    $18.2 million for population growth and $15.9 million for inflation,
    bringing the total current services for this line item to $73.1
    million. The Administration's increase of $62.9 million will not even
    cover the cost of the proposed current service increases.
        This line item funds hospitals and many services some might expect
    to find under administrative costs such as information technology. In
    some Areas, funds that should be under contract health care are
    actually found in the H & C line item. The Portland Area receives far
    less per capita than most areas from this line item, under 5 percent of
    all funding despite Portland's nearly 7 percent share of the IHS user
    population. There are logical reasons for this, most importantly, the
    lack of expensive hospitals in the Portland Area (one of two areas with
    no hospitals) and the high costs associated with service delivery in
    Alaska.
                              epidemiology centers
    Permanent Funding for the Northwest Tribal Epidemiology Center (IHS 10)
        IHS funds 8 Epidemiology Centers, seven tribal and one urban. One
    of these centers, the Northwest Tribal Epidemiology Center (The
    EpiCenter), is located in the Portland Area at the Northwest Portland
    Area Indian Health Board. The EpiCenter is providing epidemiological
    and programmatic assistance on a variety of health issues. It has taken
    the lead in helping Northwest Tribes work to achieve the Health Status
    Objectives specified in the Indian Health Care Improvement Act
    Amendments of 1992. The eight Epi-Centers include:
      --Alaska Native Epi-Center, Anchorage, AK
      --Great Lakes Inter-Tribal Epi-Center, Bemidji, MN
      --Inter-Tribal Council Epi-Center, Phoenix, AZ
      --Northern Plains Epi-Center, Rapid City, SD
      --NPAIHB Epi-Center, Portland, OR
      --Oklahoma Area Epi-Center, Oklahoma City, OK
      --United South and Eastern Tribal Epi-Center, Nashville, TN
      --Seattle Indian Health Board Epi-Center, Seattle, WA
        The Board would like tribal EpiCenters to be funded at a level that
    will enable them to be a fully functional epidemiological and
    surveillance centers. Recent increases have allowed the NPAIHB
    EpiCenter to be funded at a level that allows it to provide
    professional, high quality work for Indian health programs. Last year,
    the Board supported the President's proposed increase of $2.5 million
    for EpiCenters in order to fund two new centers and to raise the amount
    of funding for current EpiCenters. There is likely to be another
    EpiCenter that will be added in fiscal year 2006 and additional funding
    will be needed in order to sustain the current level of effort. There
    is some merit in having an EpiCenter in each area, but this goal must
    compete with other Indian Health Service priorities. The feasibility of
    having EpiCenters in each of the 12 IHS Areas must be seriously
    examined before expanding to all 12 areas.
                    the indian health care improvement fund
        The Indian Health Care Improvement Act Amendments of 1992
    authorized the Indian Health Improvement Fund plus additional
    initiatives to address the unmet health needs of Indian communities.
    The Level of Need Funded (LNF) methodology, now termed the Federal
    Employees Health Benefit Package Disparity Index (FDI), has been used
    to distribute funds appropriated to the fund. Tribes expect some
    appropriation to be included each year to raise tribes' funding level.
    In fiscal year 2005 $18 million will be distributed using the FDI
    formula.
                                     hipaa
        The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996
    (HIPAA) requires that IHS and tribal health programs comply with
    national standards for electronic health care transactions and protect
    the security and privacy of health data. The fiscal year 2003 budget
    appropriation included $850,000 to implement the new privacy standards.
    Of major importance in the HIPAA legislation is the issue of data and
    transaction standardization--a mandate very few healthcare providers
    can sidestep if they bill third parties for services provided to
    patients. There is no funding in fiscal year 2006 to comply with the
    on-going special requirements of HIPAA. This un-funded mandate deserves
    an on-going appropriation until it is fully implemented.

                            TABLE 10.--DENTAL HEALTH
                            [In thousands of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    President's Request........................................      119,489
    Increase/Decrease (9.6 percent)............................       10,466
    NPAIHB Current Services Estimate...........................        7,632
    President's Proposed.......................................       10,466
    Shortfall..................................................      (2,834)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            dental services (ihs 13)
        The President's increase of $10,466,000 represents a 9.6 percent
    increase for the Dental Health services account. While the amount is
    $2.8 million more than the NPAIHB's estimate to maintain current
    service, it will not cover the programming costs proposed by the
    President. The fiscal year 2006 request includes $2 million to cover
    pay cost increases and $5.8 million is for phasing-in of new dental
    staff at Pinon, AZ; Idabel, OK; Coweta, OK; Red Mesa, AZ; Sisseton, SD;
    and St. Paul, AK. Dental Services is also slated to receive increases
    of $1.1 million for inflation and $1.5 million for population growth.
    The increases for current services total $11.4 million, and are
    $900,000 more than the President's recommended increase of $10.4
    million.
        This is an increase that is very much appreciated by IHS and tribal
    dental programs especially since both Washington and Oregon, as have
    other states, have eliminated adult dental services from their Medicaid
    programs. This will mean additional users to the IHS system. Indian
    dental programs are unparalleled in their ability to provide efficient
    and effective health care services to the patients who need dental
    care. The Board has one of the seven Dental Support Centers that
    provide consultation services to area health programs.

                            TABLE 11.--MENTAL HEALTH
                            [In thousands of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    President's Request........................................       55,328
    Increase/Decrease (7.8 percent)............................        4,268
    NPAIHB Current Services Estimate...........................        3,854
    President's Proposed Increase..............................        4,268
    Shortfall..................................................        (414)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             mental health (ihs 16)
        This request of $59.3 million is a 7.8 percent increase over last
    year's line item and is adequate to cover the NPAIHB estimated costs of
    $58.9 million to maintain current services. The Mental Health line item
    also received a decent increase in fiscal year 2004. Tribes appreciate
    the attention to this very important area. Suicides occur more
    frequently (72 percent higher) and among younger people in the Indian
    population with the age group 15-24 having the highest rate. This is a
    shocking statistic. Consider that the highest rate for non-natives is
    for individuals over 74 years and one can conclude that a horrendous
    loss of productive years needs to be addressed in a concerted effort.
    Pay costs and new staffing packages will take 66 percent of the
    increase, leaving the balance to cover the costs of $1.6 million to
    cover inflation and population growth. None of the increase will
    provide for expanded services by current programs.

                      TABLE 12.--ALCOHOL & SUBSTANCE ABUSE
                            [In thousands of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    President's Request........................................      145,336
    Increase/Decrease (4.5 percent)............................        6,263
    NPAIHB Current Services Estimate...........................        9,735
    President's Proposed Increase..............................        6,263
    Shortfall..................................................        3,472
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      alcohol and substance abuse (ihs 21)
        Alcohol and substance abuse continues to be the highest priority
    identified by tribal leaders and health directors during the IHS budget
    formulation process. The fiscal year 2005 enacted level for this
    account is barely a 1 percent increase over fiscal year 2004. This
    year's proposed increase of 4.5 percent reflects tribal priorities
    during the IHS budget formulation process. However, it will fall short
    of maintaining current services by $3.4 million. More needs to be done
    to address the circle of violence, depression, intergenerational
    violence, and domestic abuse in tribal communities. The cost for
    treatment of alcohol and substance abuse is increasing at a rate that
    exceeds the availability of funds. The use of methamphetamine is on the
    rise throughout Indian Country and is causing tremendous cost to the
    Indian health care system. Studies show that to be effective Tribes
    need to pay for 180-day inpatient treatment costs and provide
    significant aftercare treatment. Currently, there are no programs in
    the Northwest to provide for this type of adult treatment. Dual
    diagnosis patients needing a combination of mental health and alcohol
    treatment services would benefit from a larger appropriation for these
    services.
        The proposed increase of $6.3 million will go to cover $2.2 million
    for pay costs, $2.1 million for inflation, and $1.9 is to cover the
    costs of population growth.

                       TABLE 13.--CONTRACT HEALTH SERVICES
                            [In thousands of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    President's Request........................................      525,021
    Increase/Decrease (5.4 percent)............................       26,953
    NPAIHB Current Services Estimate...........................       62,259
    President's Proposed Increase..............................       26,953
    Shortfall..................................................       35,306
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       contract health services (ihs 26)
        This year's requested CHS increase of $26.9 million is a reasonable
    percentage of the overall increase, but far short of need. The $35.3
    million shortfall means referrals for dental services and specialty
    care will be curtailed. It means tribes will once again fall into
    PRIORITY ONE in the winter instead of spring of the fiscal year. CHS
    funding is the most critical line item for Tribes in the Northwest. The
    Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board estimates $62.3 million is
    needed to maintain the current level of services purchased with
    Contract Health Service (CHS) dollars. The fiscal year 2006 request
    includes $18.9 million to fund inflation and $7 million for population
    growth. This is the first time since fiscal year 2001 that the CHS
    program has received any funding to cover these critical areas. In
    fiscal year 2001, President Clinton requested $40 million for the first
    time since 1992. The increase was sufficient to fund population growth
    and the medical inflation rate and for the first time Tribes saw the
    level of CHS denials begin to fall (see Figure No. 2). This year's
    request is far short ($35.3 million) of the amount needed to truly fund
    inflation and population growth. CHS funding for new facilities is
    estimated to be $1 million.
        Congress should note that there are no pay costs associated with
    the CHS program, yet the providers that tribes purchase specialty care
    services from are as deserving of pay cost increases as federal
    workers. In many cases these increases would go to small town
    practitioners and rural hospitals. CHS purchases of specialty care are
    a very efficient method of providing health care services that
    contributes to rural economies. CHS is a much more efficient method of
    providing care than building new hospitals.
        CHS represents about 18 percent of the total health services
    account. In the Northwest it represents over 20 percent of the Portland
    Area Office's budget. The consequence of twelve years of un-funded
    inflationary increases has been declining services for tribes who
    depend upon Contract Health Services to support inpatient and specialty
    care. IHS areas like the Portland Area (with no hospitals) are
    particularly hurt by the lack of sufficient increases to cover medical
    care inflation. There is only so much that can be done to restrict
    medical priorities. Rationing and erosion of service has been a
    constant problem, particularly for CHS programs. The Portland Area
    strongly supports distribution of CHS dollars with a formula that
    recognizes that some areas are strongly dependent on this funding
    source. The new formula for CHS distribution was not supported by
    Northwest tribes.

               TABLE 14.--LOST PURCHASING POWER 1993 TO 2005 FOR CONTRACT HEALTH SERVICES LINE ITEM (CHS)
                                                [In thousands of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Medical      Un-funded    Un-funded
                         Year                         Approved    inflation      medical     population   Total  un-
                                                       budget        need       inflation      growth       funded
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1992..........................................      308,589      ( \1\ )  ............  ...........  ...........
    1993..........................................      328,394      331,425        3,031         6,480        9,511
    1994..........................................      349,848      354,260        4,412         6,896       11,308
    1995..........................................      362,564      373,635       11,071         7,347       18,418
    1996..........................................      362,564      390,428       27,864         7,614       35,478
    1997..........................................      368,325      406,744       38,419         7,614       46,032
    1998..........................................      373,375      419,433       46,058         7,735       53,793
    1999..........................................      385,801      438,218       52,417         7,841       60,258
    2000..........................................      406,000      414,350        8,350         8,102       16,452
    2001..........................................      445,773      444,570       (1,203)        8,526       13,096
    2002..........................................      460,776      490,350       29,574         9,240       51,036
    2003..........................................      475,022      518,373       43,351         9,500       52,851
    2004..........................................      479,070      536,558       57,488         9,581       67,070
    2005..........................................      498,068      557,836       59,768         9,961       69,730
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------
          Thirteen Year Total.....................  ...........  ...........      380,601       106,438      505,032
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Base Year.

        Contract Health Services is the program most vulnerable to
    inflation pressures. Between fiscal year 1992 and fiscal year 2005, the
    NPAIHB estimates that over $1/2 billion have been lost to inflation in
    the CHS program nationally. Unfunded medical inflation alone exceeds
    $380 million, while unfunded population growth is $106 million--
    representing $505 million in lost purchasing power as depicted in the
    Table 14 above.

    TABLE 15.--BUDGET HISTORY OF CHS FUNDING FISCAL YEAR 1996 TO FISCAL YEAR
                                      2006
                             [Dollars in thousands]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Increase
                                           CHS          over      Percent of
                                         approved     previous     increase
                                                        year
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1996.............................     $362,564  ...........  ...........
    1997.............................      368,325       $5,761         1.56
    1998.............................      373,375        5,050         1.35
    1999.............................      385,801       12,426         3.22
    2000.............................      406,756       20,955         5.15
    2001.............................      445,773       39,017         8.75
    2002.............................      460,776       15,003         3.26
    2003.............................      468,130        7,354         1.57
    2004.............................      479,070       10,940         2.28
    2005.............................      498,068       18,998         3.81
    2006.............................      525,021       26,953         5.13
                                                                ------------
          Ten Year Total.............  ...........  ...........         3.40
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Table 15 charts the past 11 years funding for CHS. The increase has
    been about 3 percent each year while medical inflation rate experienced
    in the Northwest is approximately 10 percent over the past decade. CHS
    should receive medical inflation adjustments at least equal to the
    Medicaid program (projected to be 8.4 percent for through 2007 \8\)
    since both purchase care from private providers. Since the fiscal year
    2005 approved appropriation was $498 million, a fair inflation
    adjustment would total $62.3 million for fiscal year 2006. The
    President has requested an amount that is not sufficient to protect
    real resources that continue to be lost to medical inflation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2006 to 2015, p.
    57, Congressional Budget Office, January 2005.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Medicaid's enrollment growth rate is projected at 1.8 percent over
    the next 5 years and is less than the projected increase in the Indian
    population (2.1 percent); so population growth does not justify the
    higher rate of growth for Medicaid. Surely no one believes that the
    relatively small Indian Health Program is able to secure better rates
    from providers than the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The IHS should
    expedite the publication of regulations to implement Section 506 of the
    Medicare Modernization Act (MMA). This provision would require
    hospitals that accept Medicare payments to pass on those same rates for
    services provided for under the CHS program. The Board assisted in the
    development of these very beneficial regulations however, they have not
    been published by the IHS or CMS. In the meantime, Tribes continue to
    drawdown on their CHS budgets, and the Section 506 regulations would
    provide a significant cost savings that would allow for additional
    services to Indian people.
                   catastrophic health emergency fund (chef)
        The CHS budget includes a Catastrophic Health Emergency Fund (CHEF)
    of $18 million intended to protect the daily administration of local
    CHS programs from overwhelming expenditures for catastrophic health
    cases. This fund is a lifesaver for Indian health programs. Its purpose
    is to fund catastrophic health care cases with large expenses.
    Northwest Tribes urge the Congress to consider fully funding CHEF since
    these cases are all well-documented need and critical to the financial
    stability of the small programs that exist in the Portland Area and
    many other Areas of the Indian Health Service.
        The current fiscal year 2005 threshold is $23,800 before a case is
    considered for funding. The Catastrophic Health Emergency Fund is an
    important source of funds for programs that experience high cost cases.
    These cases place a tremendous financial and ethical burden on a
    Service Unit or a tribe if the case occurs near the end of the year
    after the Fund has been exhausted.
        In fiscal year 2004,\9\ CHEF claims totaling $13.3 million for 756
    cases went unpaid and were absorbed by local CHS budgets. The actual
    unfunded need is certainly greater than $13 million because the fund is
    usually depleted by the third quarter of the fiscal year. CHS deferred
    services include those cases within the CHS medical priority area,
    however, are deferred due to lack of funding. Portland Area Tribes
    strongly urge the Congress to fully fund CHEF since the impact of not
    funding it fully threatens Indian Health programs more than any other
    line activity in the budget. Based on fiscal year 2004 data (the most
    current year data are available) the CHEF need is easily $32 million.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ Fiscal year 2004 is the most current year that CHEF data area
    available since expenditures are not reported until the following
    fiscal year.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        For fiscal year 2004, the IHS estimates that there are 156,862
    deferred services totaling $144.7 million. This is an increase of 8,339
    cases over fiscal year 2003. In addition, there are another 23,368
    eligible cases that meet the eligibility requirements for CHS services,
    but are denied because the care is not within the CHS medical
    priorities (Priority One). Every year tribes simply do not submit
    claims since they know that in the last quarter claims are not likely
    to be approved.

                        TABLE 16.--PUBLIC HEALTH NURSING
                            [In thousands of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    President's Request.......................................       49,690
    Increase/Decrease (10.4 percent)..........................        4,675
    NPAIHB Current Services Estimate..........................        3,151
    President's Proposed Increase.............................        4,675
    Shortfall.................................................       (1,524)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         public health nursing (ihs 33)
        The President's request for Public Health Nurses (PHNs) is a 10.4
    percent increase though it is not enough maintain current services. The
    NPAIHB estimates it will take $3.1 million to maintain current
    services. The President proposes new staffing of $2.8 million (60
    percent of increase). This will leave only $1.9 million to cover the
    costs of maintaining current services.
        PHNs are at the center of many community based health care services
    including home visits to provide: disease surveillance, direct therapy;
    and group education comprise 40 percent of the PHNs time. The growing
    elderly population has resulted in a 15 percent increase in home visits
    by PHNs. It is clear that this growing need requires greater than
    average increases if we are to meet this demand. A significant amount
    of time is dedicated to maternal and child health promotion. The
    important work being done to lower infant mortality and Sudden Infant
    Death Syndrome cannot be maintained if funding falls below the rate of
    inflation. SIDS awareness campaigns have resulted in a lower rate of
    infant deaths, yet it is still the greatest cause of infant mortality
    with rates that are the highest of any group in the United States.

                           TABLE 17.--HEALTH EDUCATION
                            [In thousands of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    President's Request.......................................       13,787
    Increase/Decrease (10.9 percent)..........................        1,358
    NPAIHB Current Services Estimate..........................          870
    President's Proposed Increase.............................        1,358
    Shortfall.................................................         (488)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           health education (ihs 36)
        The President's request for Health Education is quite significant
    given the past year's increases for this account. In fiscal year 2006,
    the President has requested $13.8 million, an increase of 10.9 percent.
    It is more than double past year's requests. The amount needed to
    maintain current services is $870,000. After staffing new facilities,
    there is only $553,000 available for current services. The President
    has also requested $214,000 for pay costs, $164,000 for inflation and
    $175,000 for population growth.
        The Health Education program communicates the importance and on-
    going need for comprehensive clinical and community health education
    programs. It ensures education to patients, works with hospitals,
    clinics, and community education programs to integrate IHS patient
    education protocols and code systems.

                   TABLE 18.--COMMUNITY HEALTH REPRESENTATIVES
                            [In thousands of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    President's Request........................................       53,737
    Increase/Decrease (4.6 percent)............................        2,373
    NPAIHB Current Services Estimate...........................        3,595
    President's Proposed Increase..............................        2,373
    Shortfall..................................................        1,222
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   community health representatives (ihs 39)
        The President proposes spending $52.7 million for the Community
    Health Representatives (CHRs) Program (an increase of 4.6 percent over
    last year). No new staffing dollars are proposed for the CHR program.
    Increases for CHRs includes $863,000 for pay cost increases, $785,000
    for inflation, and $724,000 for population growth. Increased training
    for CHRs has made them effective partners on the health care team. CHRs
    are at the forefront of much of the preventive health that needs to be
    emphasized in Indian health programs. Unfortunately, the requested
    level of funding will result in cuts at the program level since it does
    not cover inflationary cost increases.

                             TABLE 19.--URBAN HEALTH
                            [In thousands of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    President's Request........................................       33,233
    Increase/Decrease (4.5 percent)............................        1,417
    NPAIHB Current Services Estimate...........................        3,977
    President's Proposed Increase..............................        1,417
    Shortfall..................................................        2,560
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             urban health (ihs 49)
        The 34 Urban Health Programs serve a diverse patient base with
    tribal affiliation from around the country. Most American Indians and
    Alaska Natives are urban Indians (an estimated 57 percent) with
    approximately 605,000 American Indians or Alaska Natives are eligible
    to use Title V Urban Indian Programs. In some cities, however, such as
    Phoenix, Anchorage, Albuquerque and Seattle, far more urban Indians
    receive their care from IHS and tribally operated programs than urban
    programs. There is no data to accurately describe the true need, but it
    is clearly underfunded in the Indian Health Service budget. The
    availability of care in urban settings relieves the caseload at IHS/
    tribal programs and saves many from difficult transportation
    challenges. Like the CHS program, medical inflation and past year
    shortfalls require at least a 12.5 percent increase just to maintain
    services. In fiscal year 2005 Urban Programs received only a 1 percent
    increase. This year's increase of $1.4 million will cover pay cost
    increases of $482,000, inflation $485,000, and population growth
    $449,000. This will leave a shortfall of $2.6 million that will cut
    into current services. This means that many patients will be forced to
    travel great distances back to reservations to secure care at their
    tribe or another Indian health programs.

                      TABLE 20.--INDIAN HEALTH PROFESSIONS
                            [In thousands of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    President's Request........................................       31,503
    Increase/Decrease (3.7 percent)............................        1,111
    NPAIHB Current Services Estimate...........................        1,216
    President's Proposed Increase..............................        1,111
    Shortfall..................................................          105
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       indian health professions (ihs 54)
        The Administration's request is $31.5 million, an increase of 3.7
    percent over fiscal year 2005 levels. Last year's final approved budget
    for this account (a cut of 1.3 percent) makes absolutely no sense when
    the IHS is experiencing critical shortages of physicians, nurses,
    dentists, pharmacists and optometrists and a growing concern of other
    professions essential to staffing health facilities. This year's
    increase includes $44,000 for pay cost increases and $1.1 million for
    inflation. The NPAIHB estimates the current service need to be $1.2
    million, with the President's request short by $105,000. The
    scholarship and loan repayment programs are vital to the IHS system
    developing its own human resource capital.

                          TABLE 21.--TRIBAL MANAGEMENT
                            [In thousands of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    President's Request........................................        2,430
    Increase/Decrease (3.7 percent)............................           87
    NPAIHB Current Services Estimate...........................           94
    President's Proposed Increase..............................           87
    Shortfall..................................................            7
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           tribal management (ihs 58)
        For the first time in two years, the President's request includes
    an increase for Tribal Management. The Tribal Management program is an
    essential component of the Self-Determination program that awards
    grants to Tribes to assist them to assume part of all of their IHS
    programs. The grants allow tribes to assess, evaluate, and develop
    their capacity to assume IHS programs. The President's request is
    adequate to maintain the current level of effort, however does not
    provide for any expansion of the current program. The President's
    increase of $87,000 will be used to cover the costs inflation.

                          TABLE 22.--DIRECT OPERATIONS
                            [In thousands of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    President's Request........................................       63,123
    Increase/Decrease (2.4 percent)............................        1,475
    NPAIHB Current Services Estimate...........................        2,466
    President's Proposed Increase..............................        1,475
    Shortfall..................................................          991
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           direct operations (ihs 60)
        Direct Operations includes the cost of management at IHS
    headquarters and the 12 Area Offices. This year the President request
    includes $63.1 million, an increase of 2.4 percent over last years
    spending level. The fiscal year 2005 final approved budget only
    included a 1.2 percent increase, so the Presidents request is more than
    double the amount received last year. The increase will cover $1.1
    million of pay costs and $357,000 for inflation--leaving a shortfall to
    cover current services of $991,000.

                           TABLE 23.--SELF-GOVERNANCE
                            [In thousands of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    President's Request........................................        5,752
    Increase/Decrease (2.9 percent)............................          166
    NPAIHB Current Services Estimate...........................          223
    President's Proposed Increase..............................          166
    Shortfall..................................................           57
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            self-governance (ihs 64)
        Two years ago, Congress reduced the Self Governance line item by
    $4.7 million, a loss of 43 percent from the previous year. The final
    enacted fiscal year 2005 budget did not include an increase for the
    Self-Governance programs. In fact, once last year's rescissions are
    applied, the Self-Governance programs once again lost funding by having
    its base budget eroded by $51,000.
        The fiscal year 2006 request of $5.752 million is a 2.9 percent
    increase, however, will not even cover past year's shortfalls,
    inflation, population growth, and the loss to last year's base budget.
    The Self-Governance office supports compacted tribes operating programs
    under the Tribal Self-Governance Amendments of 2000. This law, Public
    Law 106-260 established compacting as permanent, under the new Title V
    of Public Law 93-638. The Self-Governance process serves as a model
    program for federal government outsourcing, which builds Tribal
    infrastructure and provides quality services to Indian people. It is
    estimated that Tribes operate $1.8 billion, or 55 percent of the total
    IHS budget, and it is imperative that they receive the necessary
    resources to develop and build their administrative infrastructure and
    allow for new and expanded programs.
        The fiscal year 2006 requested increase will go to cover $18,000
    for federal pay cost increases and $148,000 for inflationary costs.
    This will leave an estimated $57 million to maintain the current
    program.

                        TABLE 24.--CONTRACT SUPPORT COSTS
                            [In thousands of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    President's Request........................................      268,683
    Increase/Decrease (1.9 percent)............................        5,000
    CSC Unmet Obligations Estimate.............................      112,000
    President's Proposed Increase..............................        5,000
    Shortfall..................................................      107,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        contract support costs (ihs 121)
        The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975
    authorizes Tribes to enter into contracts or self-governance compacts
    to manage federal programs previously administered by the IHS. The
    well-documented achievements of the Indian self-determination policies
    have consistently improved service delivery, increased service levels,
    and strengthened Tribal governments, institutions, and services for
    Indian people. Every Administration since 1975 has embraced this policy
    and Congress has repeatedly affirmed it through extensive amendments to
    strengthen the Self-Determination Act in 1988 and 1994. The President
    fails adequately request Contract Support Costs (CSC) funding to
    support the administrative functions of running Tribal health programs.
        In the fiscal year 2005 final appropriation, Congress failed to
    provide an increase for the second straight year and when the
    rescissions of fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005 are applied, the
    CSC line item has actually had its base funding eroded by $6.9 million
    over the past two years. The $264 million provided for CSC is not
    adequate to fund past year's shortfalls or provide necessary resources
    for Tribes to continue to manage health programs assumed from the
    Federal government. The damaging cuts to CSC are contrary to the
    Administration's principles of government outsourcing. The fiscal year
    2006 increase of $5 million will not even restore the CSC base funding
    lost over the last two years!
        For the first time in two years, the President request includes a
    small increase of $5 million for the CSC account. The increase will be
    directed for new and expanded Public Law 93-638 programs. Congress must
    appropriate an additional $107 million to eliminate the ongoing
    shortfall. The continuing shortfall threatens to pit tribe against
    tribe as mature contractors are asked to absorb all inflationary
    increases in order to fund new contractors.
                 information technology infrastructure (ihs 74)
        The Information Technology Infrastructure account supports the
    adoption of information technology in the Indian health care system.
    The activities supported by this program go to reduce medical errors
    and improve health care quality, and modernize the administrative
    functions of the IHS system. The Resource Patient Management System is
    the enterprise health information system and is supported by this
    account. In fiscal year 2006, the President proposes a $1.7 million
    decrease for this very important function. Many tribal leaders and
    health directors feel that this decrease is a direct result of the data
    set-aside funds from the Special Diabetes Program for Indians. It is
    felt that the residual function of maintaining the RPMS and other data
    systems is being offset by the data improvement funds from the SDPI.
    The information technology needs of Indian Country are too great and
    this offset should not continue in the future.
              medicaid, medicare and private collections (ihs 78)
        The fiscal year 2006 budget justification for the first time in
    many years, proposes increases of $8.4 million in Medicare and Medicaid
    collections. This estimate may not be entirely accurate given severe
    cutbacks in the Medicaid program in many states. While the IHS and
    Tribes have significantly increased their ability to collect third
    party reimbursements, the Medicare and Medicaid programs have entered a
    period of change.
        The Medicare Modernization Act (MMA) will be fully implemented in
    2006 and proposed changes will significantly impact the ability of
    Indian health systems to collect third party resources from this very
    important program. Increasing Medicare collections will be difficult
    since the MMA fails to adequately incorporate Indian health programs
    into the prescription drug program. It fails to protect the right of
    elderly and disabled Indian people to receive prescription drug
    coverage without charge from the federal government. The new program
    raises significant issues of access and cost-sharing which will impact
    how and where elderly and disabled Indians get coverage. The Medicare
    program also threatens to significantly reduce reimbursements to Indian
    health programs for prescription drugs provided by IHS and Tribally
    operated programs. The current Medicaid all-inclusive rate is $206 for
    outpatient visits.
        No one really knows how much is collected for Medicare and
    Medicaid, but at least the Administration does not inflate the
    estimates and then use the inflated estimates to justify lower
    increases in the IHS budget. The estimates are not worth restating
    here. One wonders why the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid cannot
    produce better figures since they are paying the bills. In addition,
    they are paying states 100 percent of the costs of American Indians and
    Alaska Natives.
        There are some indications that collections will not increase as
    much as estimated by the Administration because enrollment growth in
    Medicaid has stopped in Washington and is declining in Oregon over the
    past two years. In addition, CMS has recently denied Washington's
    request to exempt American Indians from co-payments at the point of
    service, with a similar issue pending in Oregon. The NPAIHB and the
    American Indian Health Commission are working with the state to
    challenge this change in CMS policy.
                 changes in medicare and medicaid rules needed
        The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid should work with states and
    tribes to insure that American Indians and Alaska Natives can choose
    Indian Health Programs as their providers. They should not be
    automatically assigned to managed care plans nor should they be
    required to pay co-payments or premiums. The Medicare program also
    threatens to significantly reduce reimbursements to Indian health
    programs for prescription drugs provided by IHS and Tribally operated
    programs. Beginning in 2006, seniors that get their pharmacy coverage
    under Medicaid (Dual-Eligibles) will be required to choose or be
    assigned to a private prescription drug plan and may no longer receive
    prescriptions from Indian programs. Tribal programs have become
    increasingly dependent on Medicaid reimbursements to help their under-
    funded programs. IHS funding covers only about 50 percent of the health
    needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives. The new law could
    significantly reduce the payments to the Indian programs by both
    encouraging the elderly and disabled to enroll in private prescription
    drug programs, which may or may not include IHS and Tribal pharmacies
    in their networks, and by reducing the rate of reimbursement. CMS
    should exempt American Indian people from the premiums for enrollment
    into the Part D program and waive the co-pay associated with filling
    prescriptions under the new Part D program.
                       special diabetes funding (ihs 81)
        Fiscal year 2004 was the first year of the $150 million per year
    authorized for diabetes by the 107th Congress. In response to
    Congressional direction, the IHS developed and implemented a
    competitive grant program entitled, the Targeted Demonstration Project.
    The competitive grant program provides $24 million to focus on primary
    prevention of Type 2 diabetes and reduction of cardiovascular risk in
    American Indian people. A careful evaluation of this expenditure of
    over $100 million for a research project should be conducted annually
    to ensure the wise use of limited funds.
        The Special Diabetes program will most surely result in program
    dollar savings in future years. Tribes welcome new resources for
    diabetes and hope to make these funds a recurring addition to the IHS
    budget until such time as they are not needed. These funds are a good
    investment. They are helping tribes nationwide to understand the
    magnitude of the burden of disease from diabetes and to develop
    interventions. They will likely save future spending on this disease.
    Improved health status depends on adequate appropriations. In some
    cases failing to maintain current services will result in the need for
    greater resources in the future. In addition to the human suffering it
    causes, diabetes is a financial drain on Indian health program
    resources. If prevention activities are successful, much suffering and
    expense will be avoided. Tribes are successfully developing programs to
    prevent and treat this serious disease that disproportionately impacts
    Indian people. The Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board's
    EpiCenter is assisting tribes in this effort and continues to report on
    progress made by Northwest Tribes. Northwest tribes have invested over
    $1 million of their own diabetes allocation in improving Diabetes data
    reporting and information generation since the start of the SDPI.
                       health facilities account (ihf 1)
    Maintenance and Improvement (M&I) (IHF 3)
        Over the past 12 years (fiscal year 1993-fiscal year 2005) there
    has been less than a 5 percent increase in M&I despite the fact that
    the inventory of space has increase appreciably (over 30 percent in the
    Portland Area). Many tribes have seen a decrease in their funding due
    to the lack of adequate increases to reflect the growth in new and
    expanded facilities. The current (2004) replacement value of facilities
    eligible for M&I is $2.25 billion. The capital assets of Indian health
    facilities must be protected from deteriorating due to lack of funding
    for routine maintenance.
        The IHS Backlog of Essential Maintenance and Repair (BEMAR) survey
    for October 2004 estimates that there is a chronic backlog of $482
    million in needed repairs to Indian health facilities. In fiscal year
    2002 $14,145,000 was available for program deficiencies identified by
    BEMAR. The Indian Health Service should continue to update this
    information to provide Congress with the basis for increased funding to
    address this need.
        The President's request for M&I is $49.9 million, an increase of
    $700,000 or 1.4 percent over last years enacted level. The NPAIHB
    estimates that it will take at least $1.9 million to adequately address
    the M&I needs of Indian health facilities. This leaves a shortfall of
    $1.3 million.
    Sanitation (IHF 8)
        Approximately 7.5 percent of all AI/AN homes lack safe water in the
    home compared to less than 1 percent average nationally. Unfortunately,
    the enacted fiscal year 2005 budget for Sanitation services was cut by
    $1.1 million even though the list of documented projects totaling $915
    million. The President's fiscal year 2006 request includes $93.5
    million for Sanitation Facilities, an increase of $1.75 million or 1.9
    percent over last year's enacted level. The NPAIHB estimates that it
    will take at least $3.7 million to adequately address the sanitation
    needs of Indian Country. This leaves a shortfall of $1.9 million.
    Health Facilities Construction (IHF 14)
        Northwest tribes reluctantly support the one-year pause in new
    facilities construction if the money saved is redirected to the health
    services account. As noted above, facilities, especially hospitals, are
    expensive to build and their staffing packages more costly still. The
    Administration and Congress funded $88.6 million in fiscal year 2005
    while allowing Contract Health Services to erode with funding 75
    percent below the level needed to maintain services.
        The cost of the Ft. Defiance Hospital through fiscal year 2004
    totaled $125 million--far above the initial estimate of $105 million.
    The latest projections for the Phoenix Indian Medical Center have
    jumped from $526 million to over $589 million, an increase of $53
    million in a little over one year. The Portland Area tribes are on
    record as opposing any new facilities construction projects until the
    IHS completes its revision of the Health Facilities Construction
    Priority System. The current priority list was developed in 1991 and
    virtually locks out Tribes from badly needed construction dollars
    unless you are one of the facilities on the current list. The current
    environment of delivering health care services has changed dramatically
    from large hospital based systems to smaller outpatient health clinics,
    and the current use of facilities health construction dollars may not
    be the most beneficial use of valuable resources.
    Alternative Methods of Acquiring Health Facilities
        If new facilities construction dollars are restored to the fiscal
    year 2006 budget, some of these funds should go to alternative funding
    mechanisms. Northwest Tribes have long encouraged more alternative
    methods to construct new facilities. These alternative methods of
    acquiring health facilities must be supported. There is such an
    enormous need that depending exclusively upon IHS appropriations for
    all health facility requirements is not realistic. The Indian Health
    Service and Tribes have developed a strategy that will greatly increase
    the number of new ambulatory health facilities constructed, but some
    IHS funding is required for this strategy of leveraging financing to
    work.
        The Indian Health Care Improvement Amendments (Section 818 of
    Public Law 102-573) authorized joint venture projects in which a tribe
    plans and constructs a health facility and IHS provides the equipment,
    staffing and operations costs. The Administration requests no funds for
    additional projects. $20 million would fund 2 to 3 projects per year.
        The Indian Health Care Improvement Act (Section 306 of Public Law
    102-573) authorized a grant program for the construction, expansion and
    modernization of small ambulatory care facilities. This is a program
    that has long been needed to assist tribes to secure quality health
    care in isolated rural areas. In the Northwest this could mean
    replacing old, worn out trailers that serve as the health clinics in
    tribal communities. Small modern clinic facilities assist tribes to
    attract health care professionals, provide a health focus for the
    community, and where tribes are agreeable and resources available, can
    provide health care services to underserved non-Indian individuals in
    the community. $25 million would support 4 to 10 projects a year. There
    is an excellent record of achievement that should be rewarded with
    increased appropriations.
        The Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board has also suggested
    that the Indian Health Service secure authority to make loan guarantees
    for tribes who are seeking outside financing for health facilities.
    This would create another opportunity for tribes to build needed
    facilities rather than waiting for the Indian Health Service to fulfill
    its obligation. A loan guarantee would substantially reduce the debt
    service associated with financing facilities. A $15 million fund
    (possibly funded with government bonds) could support construction of 7
    projects a year with tribes repaying their loans with Medicaid
    collections or other sources of revenue.
    Facilities and Environmental Health and Engineering Support (IHF-35)
        This line item consists of four subsidiary activities; facilities
    support, environmental health support, and the Office of Environmental
    Health and Engineering support. The fiscal year 2005 enacted level
    included $141.6 million for this account, and increase of 2.7 percent.
    The President's fiscal year 2006 request is $150.9 million, an increase
    of $9.2 million or 6.6 percent. The NPAIHB estimates that it will take
    $5.7 million to maintain the current levels of service.
    Equipment (IHF 55)
        The Administration requests $17.960 million for Equipment, an
    increase of $623,000 or 3.6 percent over last year's enacted level.
    Indian Health Service estimates an inventory of $320 million in
    equipment with an average estimated life expectancy of 6 years. New
    facilities, including facilities built with non-IHS funds would benefit
    from additional funding for the equipment line item. The equipment line
    item funds normal equipment replacement due to age and maintenance. A
    reasonable estimate is that Indian health programs will need an
    additional $18 million annually to cover needs for biomedical, facility
    and telecommunications equipment. This amount will only cover the cost
    of upgrades and will not cover the cost of equipment--even where that
    would be more cost effective in the long run.
      the fiscal year 2006 ihs budget in the context of the new budgetary
                                   realities
        It is worthwhile to consider the overall budgetary context in any
    analysis of the fiscal year 2006 Indian Health Service budget. When
    President Clinton left office there was a budget surplus that was
    anticipated to continue to grow to $6 trillion over ten years.
    Unfortunately, the recent recession combined with tax cuts and war
    spending associated with fighting terrorism and funding for homeland
    defense has completely reversed the expected revenue and spending
    picture. It is anticipated that deficit spending will continue over the
    next ten years.

                                  TABLE 25.--ANNUAL BUDGET SURPLUS/DEFICIT PROJECTIONS
                                                [In billions of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Fiscal year
                                             ------------------------------------------------------------    Total
                                                2005      2006      2007      2008      2009      2010
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CBO Baseline Projections................     (539)     (487)     (477)     (473)     (463)     (461)     (2,900)
    President's Budget Projections..........     (394)     (332)     (278)     (250)     (246)     (229)     (1,729)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source.--CBO--The Budget & Economic Outlook Fiscal Year 2006-Fiscal Year 2015, January 2005

        Table 25 above compares significant differences between the
    estimates of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and President (OMB)
    over the next five years. The current budget deficit is $412 billion.
    As the table illustrates, the CBO estimates a $539 billion deficit,
    while the President proposes a $394 in fiscal year 2006. Over the next
    five years, the President proposes to cut the deficit by 50 percent
    from $412 down to $229 billion.
    Budget Realities
        For fiscal year 2006, discretionary programs represent
    approximately one-third of the budget of the United States government.
    Debt interest will represent approximately 7 percent of the budget down
    from 11 percent last year. Mandatory spending for Social Security Act
    programs like Medicare, Medicaid and other mandatory programs such as
    veterans programs represent over 54 percent of the budget. Debt
    interest is projected to stay approximately the same over the next five
    growing to 11 percent in fiscal year 2010. The CBO projections do
    include a modest estimate of $32 billion for supplemental requests for
    the war efforts that continue to linger in Iraq. It is expected that
    this amount will be greater than that, and perhaps as much as $40
    billion in fiscal year 2006.
    Discretionary Spending
        President Bush has proposed $843 billion in discretionary spending
    authority for fiscal year 2006. The fiscal year 2005 spending amounts
    for discretionary included $840 billion in spending authority and $11.5
    billion for disaster relief enacted in October 2004. This means that
    discretionary spending will only grow by 1.7 percent or $14 billion
    from fiscal year 2005 to fiscal year 2006. Meanwhile, the Defense
    appropriations have grown by 4.4 percent.
        Last year, the CBO estimated the Iraq war could cost as much as $41
    billion, however the current supplemental appropriation is $82 billion.
    The CBO has estimated a $32 billion supplemental appropriation for Iraq
    in fiscal year 2006. Last year, the CBO estimated that the ongoing
    military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the continuing war on
    terrorism could cost $280 billion over ten years. These costs have
    exceeded the initial estimates of the war and will continue to have an
    impact on U.S. spending with a severe effect on discretionary spending
    over the next five years.
    Discretionary Spending for Indian Programs
        Federal spending on Indian programs is considered discretionary
    spending. This does not mean the U.S. Government has no obligation to
    fund Indian programs, but it does mean that an annual appropriation is
    required to fund these programs, including the Indian Health Service
    budget. This year's HHS budget only includes $67.1 million, or 10.5
    percent, of its total budget for discretionary programs. The IHS budget
    ($3.05 billion) represents less than 1 percent of the overall HHS
    budget ($642,188 billion) and 4.8 percent of the discretionary portion
    of the HHS budget. The President proposes to hold discretionary
    spending to 1 percent (less the rate of inflation). Given the costs of
    the war in Iraq, the Administration's proposal to cut the deficit in
    half in five years, and some of the reform efforts to curtail mandatory
    spending--the prospect for discretionary programs does not look good in
    fiscal year 2006.
    Appropriations Subcommittees
        The House has reorganized its appropriation subcommittee structure
    from 13 down to 10 subcommittees. The House Interior Subcommittee has
    responsibility for the IHS appropriation and has also picked up the
    responsibility of appropriations for the Environmental Protection
    Agency. It is not expected that the environmental issues will compete
    directly with Indian health care, therefore the added responsibility
    should not off-set the needs of Indian health programs. However, with
    the Senate continuing to have 12 appropriations committees, it is
    difficult to see how the Senate and House can work on appropriations
    bills with one body having 12 and the other having 10 committees. It is
    to be seen if the Senate will follow suit with the same reorganization
    structure of the House. If the Senate does not change, it will make it
    difficult to conference appropriation bills and legislation that
    impacts the different committees. The Senate and House Interior
    Appropriation Committees develop the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the
    Indian Health Service budgets. IHS funds are transferred to the
    Department of Health and Human Services (similar to FDA funds from
    Agriculture to HHS). The Interior Appropriations Committee appropriates
    only 2 percent percent of all discretionary spending or about 5 percent
    of all non-defense discretionary spending. The Bush Administration's
    fiscal year 2006 request for the Interior Appropriations Bill totals
    $19.8 billion in budget authority. This is a $200 million decrease from
    the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. If this ends up being the 302(b)
    allocation to the committee, the committee will be under severe
    constraints in allocating these small increases across the varied
    programs of the committee.
    The Indian Health Service Budget and Department of Health and Human
            Services
        The fiscal year 2006 Budget Authority of the Department of and
    Human Services totals approximately $642 billion. The final enacted
    fiscal year 2005 appropriation for the Indian Health Service budget
    totals $2.98 billion. This means the Indian Health Service represents
    less than one percent (0.53 percent) of all spending by the Department.
    By comparison, Medicare represents $340,412 (53.2 percent) of all
    spending and Medicaid $193 billion (30 percent) of total spending by
    the Department of Health and Human Services in fiscal year 2005. The
    Part D drug benefit of the Medicare Modernization Act will increase
    Medicare spending in fiscal year 2006 to over 50 percent of HHS's
    budget. Medicaid's spending is down from 31 percent last year to 30
    percent this year, a reflection of this Administration's attempt to
    control spending in mandatory programs and the shifting of some costs
    to Medicare.
        Although the IHS fiscal year 2006 increase compares favorably to
    other HHS agencies, Table 26 below shows the IHS, as the only agency
    whose only business is providing health care services, lags behind most
    agencies that do not suffer from the effects of medical inflation
    eroding their core programs.

                                                         TABLE 26.--FIVE HEALTH CARE AGENCIES OF THE HHS
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Fiscal year
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------   5-year
                                                                                                                                           2006     percent
                                                                         2001       2002       2003       2004       2005       2006     percent    increase
                                                                                                                                          change
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CDC.............................................................     $3,823     $4,449     $4,340     $4,440     $4,572     $4,017      -12.1        4.8
    NIH.............................................................     20,535     23,554     27,178     28,041     28,444     28,845        1.4       28.8
    HRSA............................................................      6,304      6,209      7,017      7,188      7,373      5,982      -18.9       -5.4
    IHS.............................................................      2,604      2,758      2,849      2,922      2,984      3,048        2.1       14.6
    SAMHSA..........................................................      2,966      3,136      3,158      3,235      3,269      3,215       -1.7        7.7
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source.--DHHS Budget in Brief Fiscal Year 2005.

    NIH Program Increases compared with IHS
        The chart below illustrates the National Institutes of Health (NIH)
    budget increases over the last seven years as compared to the increases
    received for the Indian Health Services. Over the last seven years, the
    NIH has received $11 billion in budget increases, while the IHS has
    only received $627 million--a difference of 94 percent.
        The Department's discretionary program spending is just 10.5
    percent ($67.1 billion in budget authority) of its total spending.
    Other discretionary programs in the Department include the National
    Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
    the Health Resources and Services Administration and the Substance
    Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
    The Agenda of the 109th Congress
        Republicans in the 109th Congress will continue to control both the
    House and the Senate, while at the same time having a Republican
    president. Despite nominal control of the government, it is once again
    unclear whether this Congress will pass a budget resolution since the
    Republicans do not have a veto-proof Senate. If there is a budget
    resolution it is likely there will be a reconciliation bill. Since such
    a bill only requires 51 votes for passage it is the likely vehicle for
    important agenda items of the Republican Party. If a reconciliation
    bill is introduced, it could mean certain cost savings measures will be
    taken by Congress that will adversely effect Indian health programs.
    Reconciliation directives instruct various committees to meet budget
    targets through spending and tax measures.
        The must-pass appropriation bills will be a key test of
    bipartisanship claims of President Bush. If he insists on his extremely
    low increase for non-defense spending (and he has House support for
    this), battles with the more moderate Senate could ensue. The
    Republicans in the Senate will have their own difficulties securing 60
    votes to pass Administration-sponsored legislation.
        The agenda for the 109th Congress will be focused on reacting to
    the Presidential priority of cutting the deficit in half over the next
    four years, wrestling with the challenge of reforming Social Security,
    and controlling spending in the Medicaid program. The Administration's
    tax cutting proposals are becoming more difficult to justify, but will
    do well in the current Congress. Finally an $83 billion supplemental
    for increase defense spending is likely.
    The Performance Assessment Rating Tool
        A feature of the President's Management Agenda, the Performance
    Assessment Rating Tool (PART) is being used to measure the success of
    federally funded programs to meet their goals and assess intended
    results. This year marks the third year that PART has been used to
    assess programs and make recommendations to improve performance. The
    Office of Management and Budget (OMB) uses these factors to make
    decisions about funding and budget increases. For the first time in
    three years, federally funded programs have seen the impact that PART
    will play in the appropriations process. In fiscal year 2006, there are
    154 programs that the President has proposed to cut or drop in the
    budget. Fourteen of these programs are in the Department of Health and
    Human Services. Three of the identified programs include Indian related
    programs (BIA School Construction Program, Native American Housing
    Block Grant Program, and the EPA Discretionary Proposal for Alaska
    Natives).
        Although the Indian health programs have scored quite well in the
    PART process, it is a wake up call to make sure that Indian health
    programs comply with the requirements of the PART process. This is the
    first year that significant cuts and reprogramming have occurred as a
    result of PART. This year, the administrative elements of 638 programs
    will be scored using PART and tribes and the IHS will need to work
    together to ensure the best rating possible.
    Conclusion: The Purpose of this Report
        This document and the Portland, Oregon budget workshop that was
    held March 9, 2005 represent an effort by the NPAIHB to provide tribes
    with an analysis of the Administration's proposed Indian Health Service
    budget and the pertinent legislation to assist them in their efforts to
    improve health care for their people. It is intended to identify issues
    that will impact or benefit all Northwest Tribes. While it is
    recognized that individual tribes will have their own particular issues
    and projects, it is hoped that tribes will also embrace the main budget
    and legislative issues identified in this document. Issues with broad
    support are most likely to achieve congressional action.
        Budget formulation should be a participatory process. One of the
    best ways to develop such participation is for Tribes and the Indian
    Health Service to agree on common principles and determine the cost of
    achieving those objectives. It is the connection between budget
    principles and funding that can bring Tribes and IHS together on the
    budget. The evaluation of this budget in Table 27 is based on these
    principles.
    Evaluation Based on Budget Principles: Table 27
        Table 27 grades the President's fiscal year 2006 IHS budget against
    criteria (or principles) that the Northwest Portland Area Indian Health
    Board has developed and applied to budget analyses over the past five
    years. It is the Northwest Tribes' attempt to make an inherently
    subjective process more objective. The Northwest Portland Area Indian
    Health Board stands ready to engage in an honest debate over each
    aspect of this evaluation to clarify our position in the debate over
    funding Indian health programs. As noted above, the President's
    proposed fiscal year 2006 increase for the Indian Health Service is
    greater than nearly every other discretionary program. Unfortunately,
    the obligation to fund health services is not considered discretionary
    by Northwest tribes. The President's grades reflect this view by
    Tribes. As Tribal and IHS health programs go on Priority One status in
    March of 2005 they cannot give the President high marks for meeting the
    health care needs of Indian people.

       TABLE 27.--GRADING THE PRESIDENT'S PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2006 INDIAN
                              HEALTH SERVICE BUDGET
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            President
                                        February 8, 2005
                                        fiscal year 2006   Senate     House
                                              grade
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Criteria or Budget
         Principle:
          1 Budget Information        C-                ........  ........
             Shared with Tribes in
             Consultation Sessions
             Prior to release date
             of the first Monday in
             February
          2 Appropriate adjustment    D                 ........  ........
             will be made to fully
             cover expected
             inflation
          3 Appropriate increases     C+                ........  ........
             will be included to
             address population
             growth
          4 Appropriate adjustments   B                 ........  ........
             will be made to fully
             fund tribal and federal
             employee compensation
          5 The Contract Health       D+                ........  ........
             Service Budget will be
             increased to fully fund
             the need for deferred
             services
          6 Collection estimates are  C-                ........  ........
             not represented as
             fulfilling the federal
             responsibility to fully
             fund the IHS budget
          7 Increases will be         F                 ........  ........
             provided to address the
             goals of the Indian
             Health Care Improvement
             Act
          8 Full funding will be      D+                ........  ........
             included to support
             staff associated with
             new construction
             projects
          9 The Catastrophic Health   F                 ........  ........
             Emergency (CHEF) Fund
             will be budgeted at a
             level to cover all
             qualifying cases
         10 Funding will be provided  F                 ........  ........
             to cover Contract
             Support Costs for
             tribes electing to
             compact or contract
             their health care
             services
         11 Adequately support        D-                ........  ........
             maintenance of IHS and
             tribal health
             facilities
         12 The public announcements  F                 ........  ........
             relating to the budget
             will honestly depict
             what is in the budget
         13 Provides adequate         F                 ........  ........
             funding to reduce
             health disparities
         14 Honor the federal trust   F                 ........  ........
             responsibility to
             provide health care
             services to American
             Indians and Alaska
             Natives
            Overall Grade             D                 ........  ........
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of Advocates for Health, Public Parks, and
                                   Recreation
        The undersigned organizations urge your support for a fiscal year
    2006 appropriation of $100 million from the Land and Water Conservation
    Fund for assistance to state and local governments, and $25 million for
    the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program. These federal matching
    grant programs contribute importantly to nationwide health and wellness
    strategies.
        The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention now recognizes that
    obesity is a full-scale epidemic, with related health care costs
    exceeding $117 billion a year. Children and youth especially benefit
    from regular physical activity and the development of healthy habits,
    including active recreation. About 15 percent of all children are
    overweight, a condition that increases the risk of high blood
    cholesterol, high blood pressure, and diabetes. By being physically
    active on a regular basis, often at public park and recreation sites,
    youth may be able to avoid or delay many health problems.
        Studies reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association
    (March 10, 2004) on the increasing rate of mortality attributable to
    physical inactivity and poor diet also suggest that investments in
    public park and recreation facilities that encourage active lifestyles
    are an imperative. The 365,000 deaths annually due to physical
    inactivity and poor diet is the ``largest increase among all causes of
    death,'' the JAMA report observes. The International City/County
    Management Association (ICMA) conducted a survey in 2004 to determine
    how communities could address the critical and growing issue of obesity
    at the community level. Nearly 89 percent of the respondents agreed
    that community park and recreation departments should take the lead in
    developing communities that are conducive to active living.
        A report by the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and
    Health Promotion reinforces our recommendations. The Center observed,
    ``(C)haracteristics of our communities such as the accessibility and
    location of parks, trails, sidewalks and recreation centers . . . may
    play an even greater (than social environments) role in promoting or
    discouraging an individual or family's level of physical activity.''
        Congressional support of investments in public access through
    recreation development and resource conservation holds high potential
    for perhaps stabilizing health care costs over the long term. For
    example, the four diseases that may be prevented by appropriate active
    lifestyles, including active recreation--heart disease, cancer, stroke,
    and diabetes--are life-threatening and costly to treat. The Centers for
    Disease Control and Prevention has observed that if physically inactive
    people were to become sufficiently active, we could potentially reduce
    health care costs by over $75 billion a year. Active recreation also
    can promote mental health by reducing feelings of anxiety and
    depression.
        With appropriate funds, thousands of public park and recreation
    facilities in American communities will be created, restored, and
    expanded, thus offering greater opportunity for active lifestyles. We
    urge your support for federal-state-local fiscal partnerships that will
    further these objectives.
        American Public Health Association; American Running Association;
    Americans for Our Heritage and Recreation; Association of State and
    Territorial Public Health Nutrition Directors; California Food Policy
    Advocates; Center for Science in the Public Interest; Directors of
    Health Promotion and Education; East Coast Greenway Alliance; Elyria
    City Health District; Healthy Streets Campaign and the Chicagoland
    Bicycle Federation; International Health, Racquet & Sportsclub
    Association; Louisiana Public Health Institute; MetroParks Tacoma;
    National Center for Bicycling & Walking; National Recreation and Park
    Association; New York State Nutrition Council; North American Society
    for Pediatric Exercise Medicine; Pedestrians Educating Drivers on
    Safety; Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association; Shape Up
    America!; Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association; Texas Public Health
    Association; United Fresh Fruit & Vegetable Association; U.S. Soccer
    Federation; U.S. Soccer Foundation; United States Tennis Association;
    U.S. Youth Soccer; and YMCA of the USA.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatomi Indians
                                  introduction
        The Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatomi Indians appreciates the
    opportunity to present testimony on the President's budget for fiscal
    year 2006 for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Indian Health
    Service (IHS). The Tribe is disappointed that the Administration has
    failed to acknowledge the unique needs facing Indian tribes. The
    President's fiscal year 2006 budget continues to include programs
    essential to Indian tribes in across-the-board budget cuts in the
    Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill without assessing the
    successes Indian tribes have had in taking greater control over the use
    of BIA- and IHS-funded programs. We agree with the statement of Senator
    John McCain who, while a fiscal conservative, stated that:

        ``I object to many of the decreases in funding that are proposed in
    the President's fiscal year 2006 Budget for Indian programs. The
    federal government has continually reneged on its trust and moral
    obligations to meet the educational, healthcare, and housing needs of
    Indians, and these needs far outweigh the imperceptible contribution
    that the proposed cuts will make to reducing the deficit.''

        The President's fiscal year 2006 Interior and Related Agencies'
    budget is an unfortunate shell game, redistributing flat or reduced
    appropriations for Indian programs among existing and newly created
    programs for Indian tribes, rather than realistically assessing the
    needs of Indian tribes, most of which are confronted with higher levels
    of unemployment and health issues than the general public. For example,
    increasing funding for the Office of Special Trustee by $78 million for
    the Interior Department's historic accounting of Individual Indian
    Money Accounts while reducing funding for other Indian programs
    essentially forces Indian tribes to underwrite the cost of a court-
    ordered mandate--to quantify more than a century of negligence and
    incompetence--with funds otherwise appropriated by Congress to benefit
    Indian tribes and their members. This is an action not worthy of a
    great Nation. We ask the Congress to restore federal appropriations for
    Indian tribes and to finance court-ordered mandates from separate
    funds.
        Without adequate federal investment in tribal governments, and the
    limited infrastructure which characterizes most rural Indian
    communities, Indian tribes will continue to struggle to meet the needs
    of their members. Cuts of $9.3 million in the BIA's Tribal Priority
    Allocation (TPA) budget, a program essential to Tribal government
    operations, hampers the ability of tribal governments to provide basic
    services to their members as well as to attract businesses and other
    economic development opportunities to their reservations. Coupled with
    significant cuts of $44 million in HUD's NAHASDA Indian Housing Block
    Grant (IHBG) program and reductions of $86 million in the Indian Health
    Service's facility construction program, the President's budget
    contributes to rather than reverses the debilitating cycle of
    unemployment, poor housing, health and societal ills that diminishes
    the futures of so many Native Americans today. Many of the programs
    targeted for reduction are pass-through programs which the federal
    agencies essentially block grant to Indian tribes, the local
    governments best able to prioritize limited resources to maximal
    effect.
        Cutting the BIA's TPA budget, which the BIA obligates to hundreds
    of Indian tribes, will force Indian tribal governments to lay off
    experienced personnel and curtail program operations at a time when
    demand is only increasing. This is a misuse of federal funds and has
    little effect on the deficit.
                            bureau of indian affairs
    Move the Huron Band Out of BIA's ``New Tribes'' Funding and Award
            Adequate BIA Resources Commensurate with Our True Needs
        The Tribe was restored to federal acknowledgment as a historic
    Indian tribe in 1995, yet the BIA continues to award the Tribe only
    ``new tribes'' funding, and has not adequately assessed our true needs
    and obligated appropriate funding. As a result, the Tribe has been
    deprived of hundreds of thousands of dollars each year. We request that
    the BIA Midwest Region be instructed to examine the needs of our Tribe
    and increase TPA funding based on the actual needs of our members and
    Tribal government rather than continue with only modest increases to
    the ``new Tribes'' funding we have been receiving since the late
    1990's.
    Restore Cuts to the BIA's Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA) Program
        As noted above, the BIA's Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA) budget
    of $760 million is divided up among hundreds of Indian tribes which
    assume Department of Interior programs serving or benefiting Indian
    tribes under authority of the Indian Self-Determination and Education
    Assistance Act. Public Law 93-638. This unique form of government
    contract is perhaps the only government contract where the entity
    contracting with the United States must subsidize the program it is
    carrying out on behalf of the United States. For-profit businesses
    usually make significant profits on government contracts, but sovereign
    Indian governments are given inadequate funds to carry out essential
    government programs for their members and are not provided the full
    level of funding required to meet the program's requirements.
        In December 1999, we submitted a fee-to-trust petition to the
    Interior Department to accept four parcels of land totaling 365 acres
    into trust. The application is still pending. Our primary economic
    initiative, to establish a tribal gaming facility on a 79 acre parcel
    in Calhoun County pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, has
    been delayed by legal challenges. We will persevere with that effort
    until we succeed. But in the interim, our needs and the needs of our
    members are not being met. The Tribe requests increases to the BIA's
    Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA) program to increase funds for such TPA
    programs as Aid to Tribal Government, Education, Law Enforcement,
    General Assistance and Real Estate/Rights Protection programs. We ask
    that Congress increase the TPA budget by 6.5 percent or $50 million
    above the fiscal year 2005 appropriations level.
    Increase Contract Support Cost Funds
        Under the Indian Self-Determination Act, the Secretary of the
    Interior and the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human
    Services, are required to provide Contract Support Costs
    (administrative overhead) on top of the base program funds obligated to
    an Indian tribe's Indian Self-Determination Act contract or Self-
    governance agreement. For a number of years now Congress has capped the
    amount of Contract Support Costs available to Indian tribes assuming
    BIA-funded programs. Historically, Contract Support Cost funding has
    not been adequate to provide 100 percent of the costs incurred by
    Indian tribes. The BIA usually awards tribes a fraction (e.g., 90
    percent) of the Contract Support Cost funds they require. The balance
    of the cost incurred by Indian tribes is either subsidized by the
    tribes or taken from the direct program award, thus diminishing
    services.
        We ask the Congress to restore the $2.0 million reduction proposed
    by the Administration and increase funding for Contract Support Costs
    from $134.6 to $150 million.
                             indian health service
        The Tribe operates two health clinics, one in Grand Rapids and one
    in Battle Creek, Michigan to serve the health needs of our 600 tribal
    members. The Tribe serves a seven county service area encompassing
    Allegan, Barry, Branch, Calhoun, Kalamazoo, Kent and Ottawa counties.
    With federal funds from the IHS, plus a grant from the Inter-Tribal
    Council of Michigan, we employ two nurses, two Community Health
    Representatives (CHRs), a diabetic coordinator, a full and part-time
    social worker, a child welfare specialist, and until recently a nurse
    practitioner. As our members age, our health care costs continue to
    rise. While we hope one day to have the resources to cover all of the
    health care needs of our members, at present we are reliant on IHS
    funds to meet the health needs of our members.
        The President's budget request for Contract Health Services is $525
    million, a 5 percent increase over the fiscal year 2005 level. Every
    health facility which does not offer a full complement of medical
    services must refer patients to better staffed or equipped clinics and
    hospitals. Tribes must use Contract Health Services funds to pay for
    such referrals. Medical inflation costs far exceed 5 percent and we
    request that Congress increase the appropriation for Contract Health
    Services by $52 million to $550 million for fiscal year 2006 so that
    Indian tribes may provide additional health services to more members
    and other eligible Native Americans. Our Tribe has an especially high
    incidence of cancer and diabetes. Additional funding will help us
    diagnose and treat more members so that they can continue to lead
    productive and longer lives.
        Thank you for permitting us the opportunity to submit comments on
    the President's fiscal year 2006 Interior and Related Agencies budget.

           LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Advocates for Health, Public Parks, and Recreation, prepared
      statement......................................................   342
    Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, prepared
      statement......................................................   306
    Allard, Senator Wayne, U.S. Senator from Colorado:
        Opening statement............................................    54
        Prepared statement...........................................    54
    Alliance to Save Energy, prepared statement......................   296
    American:
        Forest and Paper Association, prepared statement.............   265
        Geological Institute, prepared statement.....................   237
        Hiking Society, prepared statement...........................   149
        Horse:
            Defense Fund, prepared statement.........................   152
            Protection Association, prepared statement...............   152
        Humane Association, prepared statement.......................   152
        Indian Higher Education Consortium, prepared statement.......   153
        Institute of Biological Sciences, prepared statement.........   239
        Mustang and Burro Association, Inc., prepared statement......   152
        Society:
            For the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, prepared
              statements...........................................152, 156
            Of Civil Engineers, prepared statement...................   251
        Symphony Orchestra League, prepared statement................   259
        Wild Horse Preservation Campaign, prepared statement.........   152
    Americans for the Arts, prepared statement.......................   256
    Appalachian:
        Mountain Club, prepared statement............................   266
        Trail Conference Land Trust, prepared statement..............   268
    Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation,
      prepared statement.............................................   157
    Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials, prepared
      statement......................................................   228
    Awwa Research Foundation, prepared statement.....................   161

    Bosworth, Dale N., Chief, Forest Service, Department of
      Agriculture....................................................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................    10
        Summary statement............................................     8
    Burns, Senator Conrad, U.S. Senator from Montana:
        Opening statements........................................... 1, 53
        Questions submitted by.......................................36, 98

    Cass County, Minnesota, prepared statement.......................   162
    Center for Environmental Education and Information, prepared
      statement......................................................   152
    Cochran, Senator Thad, U.S. Senator from Mississippi, statement
      of.............................................................    72
    Colorado River Board of California, prepared statement...........   163
    Confederated Tribes of the:
        Grand Ronde Community of Oregon, prepared statement..........   164
        Siletz Indians of Oregon, prepared statement.................   309

    Defenders of Wildlife, prepared statement........................   168
    Dorgan, Senator Byron L., U.S. Senator from North Dakota:
        Opening statements........................................... 3, 56
        Questions submitted.........................................49, 137
    Doris Day Animal League, prepared statement......................   171

    Eastern Forest Partnership, prepared statement...................   270
    Ecological Society of America, prepared statement................   298
    Endangered Species Coalition, prepared statement.................   172

    Feinstein, Senator Dianne, U.S. Senator from California,
      statement of...................................................    72
    Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, prepared statement...   176
    Forest Guardians, prepared statement.............................   152
    Friends of:
        Balcones Canyonlands National Wildlife Refuge, prepared
          statement..................................................   174
        Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area, Inc.,
          prepared statement.........................................   175
        The Boundary Waters Wilderness, prepared statement...........   270
    Fund for Animals, prepared statement.............................   152

    Grand County Council, Grand County, Utah, letter from............   179
    Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, prepared
      statement......................................................   179

    Highlands Coalition, prepared statement..........................   186
    Hoosic River Watershed Association, prepared statement...........   188
    Humane Society of the United States, prepared statements.......152, 182

    Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts
      Development, prepared statement................................   189
    International:
        Institute of Tropical Forestry in Puerto Rico, prepared
          statement..................................................   192
        Society:
            For the Protection of Mustangs and Burros, prepared
              statement..............................................   152
            Of Tropical Foresters, prepared statement................   192
    Intertribal Timber Council, prepared statement...................   193
    Izaak Walton League of America, prepared statement...............   273

    Johnson, Senator Tim, U.S. Senator from South Dakota, questions
      submitted by...................................................   140

    Kashdan, Hank, Director, Program and Budget Analysis, Forest
      Service, Department of Agriculture.............................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     5
        Summary statement............................................     3
    Kennesaw Mountain Historical Association, prepared statement.....   241

    Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, prepared
      statement......................................................   196
    Leahy, Senator Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, opening
      statement......................................................    57
    Least Resistance Training Concepts, Inc., prepared statement.....   152

    Mesa County Commissioners, prepared statement....................   198
    Municipal Subdistrict, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy
      District, prepared statement...................................   185

    National Association of State:
        Energy Officials, prepared statement.........................   300
        Foresters, prepared statement................................   274
    National:
        Coalition for History, prepared statement....................   261
        Council for Science and the Environment, prepared statement..   241
        Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE) Local 1957, prepared
          statement..................................................   244
        Humanities Alliance, prepared statement......................   262
        Institutes for Water Resources, prepared statement...........   247
        Parks Conservation Association, prepared statement...........   199
        Recreation and Park Association, prepared statement..........   201
        Research Center for Coal and Energy, prepared statement......   303
        Wildlife:
            Federation, prepared statement...........................   276
            Refuge Association, prepared statement...................   280
    Native Plant Conservation Campaign, prepared statement...........   282
    Nevada, State of, letter from....................................   143
    Northern:
        Colorado Water Conservancy District, prepared statement......   207
        Forest Alliance, prepared statement..........................   284
    Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board, prepared statement..   311
    Norton, Hon. Gale A., Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
      Department of the Interior.....................................    53
        Prepared statement...........................................    63
        Summary statement............................................    57
    Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatomi Indians, prepared statement   343

    Outdoor Industry Association, prepared statement.................   286

    Partnership for the National Trails System, prepared statement...   207
    Penobscot Indian Nation, letter from.............................   144
    Public Service Company of New Mexico, prepared statement.........   250
    Puyallup Tribe of Indians, prepared statement....................   216

    Return to Freedom, prepared statement............................   152
    Rey, Hon. Mark E., Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
      Environment, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture.........     1
    Rivers and Trails Coalition, prepared statement..................   218

    Santa Clara Valley Water District, San Jose, California, prepared
      statement......................................................   219
    Sappier, James, Tribal Chief, Penobscot Nation, prepared
      statement......................................................   145
    Scarlett, P. Lynn, Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and
      Budget, Office of the Secretary, Department of the Interior....    53
    Shay, Sgt. Charles, prepared statement...........................   147
    Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation,
      prepared statement.............................................   220
    Society:
        For Animal Protective Legislation, prepared statements.....152, 224
        Of American Foresters, prepared statement....................   287
    Southwestern Water Conservation District, prepared statement.....   227
    State:
        And Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators,
          prepared statement.........................................   228
        Of Wyoming, Office of the Governor, prepared statement.......   230
    Stevens, Senator Ted, U.S. Senator from Alaska:
        Opening statement............................................    53
        Questions submitted by.......................................   135

    The:
        Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of
          Oregon, prepared statement.................................   166
        Nature Conservancy, prepared statement.......................   232
        Wilderness Society, prepared statements....................291, 293
    Town of Greenville, Maine, prepared statement....................   290
    Trezise, John D., Director of Budget, Office of the Secretary,
      Department of the Interior.....................................    53

    USGS Coalition, prepared statement...............................   253

    Vaquero Heritage Foundation, prepared statement..................   152
    Village of Wellington, Florida, prepared statement...............   231

    Wild Horse:
        And Burro:
            Coalition, prepared statement............................   152
            Freedom Alliance, prepared statement.....................   152
        Observers Association, prepared statement....................   152

    YMCA of Glendale, California, prepared statement.................   236

                                 SUBJECT INDEX

                                  ----------

                           DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                                 Forest Service

    Adaptive Management--Sierra Nevada Framework.....................    31
    Air Tankers......................................................    42
    Alaska:
        Fire Season--2005............................................    25
        Railroad.....................................................    25
    Appropriation Process............................................    34
    Back Country Airstrips...........................................    46
    Bark Beetle Damage--San Bernardino National Forest...............    33
    Community Fire Plans.............................................    31
    Conditions in Montana............................................    34
    Efficient Response to Wildfires..................................     6
    Energy...........................................................    21
    Financial Accountability.........................................    36
    Fire:
        Readiness Capability.........................................    41
        Suppression Costs............................................    43
    Firefighting Borrowing...........................................    51
    Forest:
        Health.......................................................    20
            Program Cuts.............................................    41
        Legacy.......................................................    48
        Service Operational Efficiency...............................     7
    Future Direction of the Forest Service...........................    10
    Grazing..........................................................    16
        Allotments...................................................    50
        Permits......................................................    38
    Green Mountain National Forest Land Acquisition..................    49
    Hazardous Fuels:
        Funding......................................................    40
        Reduction Funding............................................    27
    Healthy Forests:
        Initiative................................................... 6, 18
        Reserve Program..............................................18, 29
        Restoration Act..............................................    35
    Kake Land Exchange...............................................    24
    Leafy Spurge.....................................................    49
    Litigation Costs.................................................20, 21
    Maintenance Cuts.................................................    39
    Montana Timber Issues............................................    38
    Moving Forward--A New Century of Service.........................     6
    Need for Special Firefighting Allocation.........................    45
    New Fire Technologies............................................    46
    Northeastern Research Station Budget.............................    49
    Northern Forest Lands Council--Northeast State Foresters
      Association Reporting..........................................    48
    Noxious Weeds....................................................    17
    Off Highway Vehicle Rulemaking...................................    45
    Our New Planning Process is More Flexible, Efficient, and
      Responsive.....................................................    13
    Planning Rule....................................................22, 37
    Quincy Library Group.............................................    32
    Red Cedar Export Policy..........................................    23
    Research Guides Our Decisions and Delivers New Solutions.........    12
    Road Maintenance.................................................    32
    State and Volunteer Fire Assistance Cuts.........................    41
    Timber Sale Pipeline.............................................    24
    Title IV--Silvicultural Assessments and Accelerated Information
      Gathering......................................................    19
    We:
        Are:
            Implementing a Long-term Strategy to Reduce Wildfire
              Threats................................................    11
            Looking for New Ways to Reduce Wildland Fire Suppression
              Costs..................................................    12
        Can Reap Multiple Benefits from Preserving Open Space........    13
        Have:
            Made Great Strides in Performance and Financial
              Management Accountability..............................    15
            New Approaches to Tackle the Public's Growing Recreation
              Needs..................................................    14
        Need to Reverse the Trend of Deteriorating Facilities........    14
    Wildland Fire Outlook for This Year..............................    43

                           DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                            Office of the Secretary

    Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation..................................    62
    Actions..........................................................   135
    Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)...........................   107
        Lease Sales..................................................79, 82
    Blackfoot Challenge.............................................75, 108
    Budget Overview..................................................60, 64
    Bureau of Indian Affairs:
        Budget Reorganization........................................   125
        Detention Center Funding.....................................   127
        GAO Audit of BIA Irrigation..................................   125
        Indian Claims Settlement.....................................   127
        Replacement School Construction..............................   139
        School Replacement Funding...................................    78
        Tribal Priority Allocations..................................   127
        Tribally Controlled Community Colleges and Other Educational
          Facilities.................................................   126
    Bureau of Land Management........................................   135
        Construction.................................................   124
        Range Improvement Fund.......................................   122
        Rural Fire Assistance........................................   123
        Sage Brush/Sage Grass Initiative.............................   121
        Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act...................   121
        Wild Horse and Burro Program.................................   119
    CALFED...........................................................    94
    California Ecosystem Restoration Projects Relating to Central
      Valley Anadromous Fish Doubling................................    94
    Cobell Litigation................................................    57
    Conservation Easement Programs...................................    75
    Contract Support Costs...........................................    85
    Cooperative Conservation.........................................    61
    Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Units..............................   105
    Current Fiscal Year 2005 Projects................................    94
    Desert Protection Act............................................    92
    Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge.............................    90
    Energy Development...............................................60, 65
        Flag Guidance................................................   108
    ESA Consultation Budget..........................................   134
    Facility Condition Indices.......................................   106
    Financial and Business Management System.........................   100
    Fish and Wildlife:
        Migratory Bird Program.......................................   132
        Service......................................................   136
            Construction.............................................   131
            Court Order on Wolves....................................   118
            Fish Hatcheries..........................................    80
        Science Initiative...........................................   132
        State Wildlife Grants........................................   118
    Fisheries Program................................................   133
    Fleet Expenditures...............................................   104
    Habitat Restoration Top Priorities...............................    95
    Hazardous Fuels Reduction Program................................    96
    Headwaters Forest Reserve Resource Management Plan...............    96
    Healthy Forests Restoration Act..................................    85
    Historic Preservation and Heritage Tourism.......................    60
    Holt Collier Wildlife Refuge.....................................    83
    Icon Security--U.S. Park Police..................................   101
    Lake:
        Berryessa....................................................    96
        Champlain Fisheries..........................................    81
    Landowner Incentive Program......................................   131
    Leafy Spurge.....................................................   138
    Leslie Salt Ponds................................................    90
    Long Term Projects...............................................    95
    LWCF Funds Reprogramming.........................................    92
    Management Excellence............................................63, 71
    Mandatory Proposals..............................................    71
    Marijuana Propagation in National Parks..........................    97
    Migratory Bird Conservation Commission...........................    83
    Minerals Management Service:
        5-Year Plan..................................................   119
        Hurricane Impacts on Oil Production..........................   117
        Royalty in Kind Program......................................   115
        User Fees....................................................   118
    MNI Sose Water Rights............................................   139
    Natchez Trace Parkway............................................    82
    National:
        Park Service Partnerships....................................   109
        Wildlife Refuge System.......................................   138
    New England National Fish Hatchery Funding.......................    81
    Office of:
        Surface Mining--SMCRA Reauthorization........................   116
        The Special Trustee--Historical Accounting and Cobell
          Litigation.................................................   128
    Park Operations..................................................    97
    Preserve America.................................................    99
        Program......................................................    86
    Presidential Inaugural...........................................   105
    Program Terminations and Reductions..............................    70
    Proposed Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Easement Program......    76
    Range Improvement Fund...........................................    89
    Recreation:
        And Historic Preservation....................................    67
        Fee Program.................................................74, 101
    Relocation Costs.................................................   103
    Resource Protection..............................................    65
    Rural:
        And Community Fire Funding...................................    90
        Fire Assistance..............................................86, 87
    Safecom and Disaster Management..................................   104
    Science..........................................................    63
    Scientific Integrity.............................................   138
    Serving Communities..............................................    68
    Standing Rock Irrigation.........................................   137
    State Assistance (``Stateside'') Program.........................    98
    Stateside Grants Program.........................................    77
    Stewardship Contracting..........................................    63
    Tribal:
        College Funding..............................................    77
        Colleges.....................................................    76
        Priority Allocations.........................................   139
    Trust Management and Historical Accounting.......................    58
    Tsunami Warning System Funding...................................    84
    U.S. Geological Survey:
        Assistance to Refugees.......................................    91
        Landsat Satellite Mission/Funding............................   111
        Minerals Resources Reduction.................................   114
        Tsunami-Related Activities...................................   112
    User Fees........................................................    61
    Water Acquisition for Instream Flow Top Priorities...............    95
    Wild Horse and Burro Program.....................................    73
    Wildland Fire....................................................    62

                                       -