[Senate Hearing 107-461]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-461
FISCAL YEAR 2003 BUDGET REQUESTS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE, AND THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON THE FISCAL YEAR 2003 BUDGET REQUESTS FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE, AND THE DEPARTMENT
OF ENERGY
__________
FEBRUARY 12, 2002
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
79-816 WASHINGTON : 2002
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, Alaska
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
BOB GRAHAM, Florida DON NICKLES, Oklahoma
RON WYDEN, Oregon LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming
EVAN BAYH, Indiana RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California CONRAD BURNS, Montana
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York JON KYL, Arizona
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GORDON SMITH, Oregon
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
Brian P. Malnak, Republican Staff Director
James P. Beirne, Republican Chief Counsel
Colleen Deegan, Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from New Mexico................ 1
Cantwell, Hon. Maria, U.S. Senator from Washington............... 2
Carnes, Bruce, Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy..... 27
Griles, J. Steven, Deputy Secretary, Department of the Interior,
accompanied by P. Lynn Scarlett, Assistant Secretary for
Policy, Management and Budget.................................. 7
Murkowski, Hon. Frank H., U.S. Senator from Alaska............... 4
Rey, Mark, Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment,
Department of Agriculture...................................... 22
Scarlett, P. Lynn, Assistant Secretary--Policy, Management and
Budget, Department of the Interior............................. 13
APPENDIX
Responses to additional questions................................ 51
FISCAL YEAR 2003 BUDGET REQUESTS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE, AND THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room
SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
chairman, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
The Chairman. Why do we not go ahead with the hearing? I
believe Senator Murkowski is on his way, and we will start
since we have a very short time period here. As I understand
it, we have got three votes scheduled on the Senate floor at
10:40.
This morning the committee will review the budget proposals
of the Energy Department, the Interior Department, as well as
the Forest Service.
We have limited time. I am sorry Secretary Abraham and
Secretary Norton were unable to be here. I understand there are
also time constraints on some of our witnesses.
This year the Department of Energy received a 2.9 percent
increase over last year's appropriated amount, or $21.9
billion. Defense related programs received a 5.7 percent
increase, while the civilian programs would be increased less
than 1 percent, .7 percent.
So, there is a legitimate question as to what is happening,
what this indicates for the civilian activities within the
Department, in particular what is happening to State energy
grant programs, to energy research and development programs, to
other programs that invest in future energy supply and
conservation technologies, and the Department's Office of
Science, which involves our Nation's investment in future
engineers and scientists for energy-related fields.
The Department of the Interior and Forest Service budgets.
I appreciate that there are always difficult choices to be made
among competing programs in both of those budgets. I am
troubled, at almost every possible opportunity, the
administration proposal involves deep cuts in programs that
assist communities, assists them in creating sustainable
futures for themselves. The administration's budget eliminates
the Forest Service economic action programs. Those are programs
that have had bipartisan support and are very popular in the
rural communities in my State.
The administration also proposes a significant cut in
funding for the Payment in Lieu of Taxes program, the PILT
program. This provides badly needed funds to local government
units, particularly in the West where there are a lot of
Federal lands, to help offset the loss of tax revenues as a
result of Federal ownership of those lands.
Also, I note that the administration has not requested any
additional funds for the Youth Conservation Corps, which I
believe is a very valuable program to train young people in
public land stewardship.
I am concerned also about the administration's budget in
the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This is the second
consecutive year that the administration is proposing to fund
several programs by using Land and Water Conservation funds.
The proposals are to use those funds even though the programs
to be funded are not authorized to receive those funds and even
though several of those programs are not authorized at all. As
a result, the administration I believe would leave too little
money for the important purposes that the Land and Water
Conservation fund was created for, that is, open space,
recreation, and Federal land acquisition.
Based on the early indications again in my State and the
Southwest, it is very possible that we will have another bad
fire season. I am somewhat puzzled as to why the Forest Service
budget proposes to reduce fire preparedness by $39 million from
last year's level. I hope we can discuss in further detail
later in the hearing how we can be assured that there will be
adequate resources to deal with the fire situation we may face
in much of the West.
Finally, there are a number of pressing issues related to
Indian trust fund reform I want to speak to Secretary Griles
about, and I know he is on top of those issues. I understand
the Department is working under a court order that has required
most of its computer systems to be disconnected. In my State
again, this has caused some substantial impacts on many people
who depend upon those BIA payments.
Because of the limited time that we have available, I will
be submitting many of the questions that I have prepared in
writing to be answered for the record. As I indicated, we will
have several votes starting at 10:40.
Let me call on Senator Murkowski for his opening comments.
[A prepared statement from Senator Cantwell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Maria Cantwell, U.S. Senator
From Washington
Thank you, Chairman Bingaman, for holding this hearing on the
President's budget requests for the Departments of Energy, the Interior
and the Forest Service. The budgets of the Forest Service and
Department of the Interior pose a number of important questions about
this Administration's commitment to our nation's rural communities--
particularly those attempting to diversify their traditionally
resource-based economies--as well as its commitment to environmental
stewardship.
However, I'd like to focus most of my opening remarks this morning
on another topic of critical importance for the residents of Washington
state: clean-up at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation.
As many of my colleagues are aware, Hanford stores 54 million
gallons of dangerous high-level radioactive waste in 177 massive
underground storage tanks, 149 of which are 30 years past their design
life, and about 67 of which have leaked at least one million gallons of
waste into the soil--a mere 7 miles from our region's lifeline, the
Columbia River.
The amount of waste at Hanford is greater than on any other
Department of Energy site. Aside from the materials contained in the
tanks, officials estimated that when Hanford was an active nuclear
weapons plant--providing vital support to this nation during World War
II and the Cold War--about 450 billion gallons of radioactively
contaminated water was dumped directly into the ground. There are now
wells located along the Columbia River shoreline that register
Strontium 90 levels that are 1,600 times the Federal Drinking Water
Standard.
These are just a few of the issues we face in my state, home to the
nation's most toxic nuclear clean-up site. A timely clean-up at Hanford
is essential to the quality of our state's water and environment, as
well as our public safety. That is why the TriParty Agreement exists--a
legally-binding document and consent order that requires DOE to clean
up Hanford, in compliance with state and federal environmental laws.
This Administration must understand that to fall behind in Hanford
clean-up is an unacceptable risk to the people of Washington. This a
message I have repeatedly sent to Secretary Abraham. During his
confirmation hearing, the Secretary assured me that he would ``take the
obligations under the TriParty agreement very seriously,'' and further,
that he recognizes ``the need to meet commitments that have been
made.''
But despite these assurances made in January, when the
Administration's budget was released last April, funding for Hanford
clean-up was slashed--falling about $400 million short of what was
needed to meet the milestones contained in the TriParty Agreement--and
Secretary Abraham announced he would initiate a top-to-bottom review of
the Environmental Management program.
Rejecting these misguided budget cutbacks across the Environmental
Management program, Congress spoke with a unified voice in restoring
the funds necessary for the federal government to meet its clean-up
obligations. In fact, it was a bipartisan effort that involved a number
of my colleagues on this Committee.
Now, the top-to-bottom review is complete and we are here today to
review the President's Fiscal Year 2003 budget request. While the
Administration boasts that it has fully funded the program,
commensurate with last year's appropriated level, the fact is that only
$5.9 billion of the $6.7 billion needed to meet federal obligations is
guaranteed to the sites that are home to our nation's nuclear waste.
This leaves Hanford about $262 million short of the funding needed
to meet obligations contained in the TriParty Agreement. Among those
programs that the President's budget would cut at Hanford:
stabilization of 22 leaky, single shell tanks and the transfer of waste
to safer double-shelled tanks by 2004; the design, construction and
commissioning of the vitrification plant needed to process the tank
waste; and the design and installation of a waste retrieval system that
will move waste from the tanks to the vit plant when it is set to begin
operation, by 2007.
As many of my colleagues are aware, the Administration has said
there may be room to restore funding to these programs--so critical to
maintain the gathering momentum behind Hanford clean-up. The
President's budget includes in its request an additional $800 million
for the purpose of clean-up reform--to initiate ``alternative
approaches'' to clean up, engaging states in a renegotiation of their
priorities.
Make no mistake: I wholeheartedly support the concept of a more
efficient and cost effective clean-up. DOE's stated purpose--to more
effectively manage the risk at these sites--makes a good deal of sense.
After all, Secretary Abraham himself has labeled Hanford clean-up one
of the EM program's ``urgent challenges.''
However, this Administration and DOE must realize--first and
foremost--that forcing us to compete with other sites for the money
necessary to comply with the TriParty Agreement does not only violate
the agreement itself, it breaks the federal government's moral contract
with the people of Washington state to clean up this dangerous waste.
It is the federal government's obligation to live up to the TriParty
Agreement, while the people of Washington are not obligated--in fact,
we refuse--to sacrifice environmental quality in order to ensure that
we secure the money needed to continue our progress at Hanford in the
short term.
In fact, I--along with many in the Washington state delegation and
TriCities community--are bewildered by budget cuts to programs that
Hanford managers and state regulators are already working to
accelerate. For example, the DOE budget says the agency wants to
accelerate the removal of spent nuclear fuel from the so-called K-
basins near the Columbia River. Many of the preparations for this
project have just been completed and the removal efforts have recently
reached full speed. The question, then, is what does DOE want before it
restores the $62.7 million in funds cut from this program? Certainly,
we cannot accelerate these activities with less money.
Mr. Carnes, as you are probably aware, my friend and colleague from
the State of Washington, Sen. Murray, last week asked OMB Director
Mitch Daniels about these funding cuts. When pressed, he said that
Secretary Abraham should explain ``his plan.'' The people of Washington
and their elected representatives deserve answers.
We need to know just what projects DOE is targeting and how these
accelerations will fit within the existing TriParty Agreement. Our
regulators must be allowed to ensure they will not lessen the
environmental quality of the cleanup. The people of Washington need to
know how and when DOE intends to approve these plans, and what criteria
the agency will use in doing so. And we need to know whether OMB is
serious in its reported commitment for multiple years' worth of full
funding if and when DOE reaches agreement with states and regulators on
speeding up the clean-up process.
Mr. Carnes, I hope that you are prepared to answer some of these
questions for us today. But, Chairman Bingaman, I believe this is an
extremely important area for this Committee to further explore. With
the issuance of DOE's top-to-bottom review, I believe now is an
opportune time to hold an oversight hearing on the Environmental
Management program's new direction. Despite what is certain to be a
hectic schedule, I hope we can hold such a hearing in the next month or
two, before the Senate will be forced to make important funding
decisions during the budget and appropriations processes.
Again, thank you for holding this important hearing. I look forward
to hearing the testimony of today's panelists.
STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR
FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Good morning, Senator Bingaman.
The Chairman. Good morning.
Senator Murkowski. And good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
I am pleased to see some familiar faces here, a few that I have
not seen since confirmation, but glad to see them this morning
because this is where we really get down to the meat of things.
We are going to start right in with a little reference that
suggests that while I am pleased to have your budget, I am not
pleased with your budget.
We address priorities and many of them are as a consequence
of what happened on September 11. But I think it is fair to say
a war is no time to skimp on energy, defense, and resource
spending--development--that is what funds our economy and keeps
our Nation free.
I am pleased to note that both the Interior and Energy
budget requests recognize the role of a sound energy policy in
contributing to national security.
The Department of the Interior is not often thought of as
an energy agency. However, Interior manages lands, subsurface
rights, and offshore areas that produce approximately 28
percent of the Nation's energy. Secretary Norton's budget
request seeks to implement portions of the national energy
policy that will expand and diversify our Nation's energy
supplies.
And Secretary Abraham in his budget request, when talking
about the Department's overarching mission of national
security, notes what I have been saying for some time: a strong
America requires a secure and reliable source of energy.
Let me refer to the Department of Energy specifically. The
budget request is $21.9 billion, an increase of $582 million
over the last year's spending level. The budget reflects the
new reality and the new threats that we face. We saw an
economic threat to our well-being last year in the form of
constrained energy supplies and higher energy prices. As a
result, the U.S. economy has been identified as hanging on the
brink of a recession. We have seen thousands of hard-working
Americans lose their jobs, and DOE's programs create the new
energy technologies--fossil, nuclear, renewable, efficiency--
that get Americans back to work and get our economy going
again. DOE's budget request addresses threats to our
infrastructure through increased funding for protection.
I am especially pleased to see a considerable increase in
funding for nuclear waste programs. It is important to keep
this program on track and continue the progress we have been
making. In fact, the President is due to make his
recommendations on site suitability to the Congress any day
now. And I am sure we will hear from Senator Reid very soon.
There are areas of the budget requests, however, that I am
not so pleased with. For example, I support the new ``Nuclear
Power 2010'' initiative, the goal of which is to have a new
plant on line by the year 2010. It is rather exciting. I think
it is very responsive to the concern we have to develop
alternatives that are emissions-free.
However, in looking at the budget, there is no increase in
Nuclear Energy. In fact, it is a decrease of over $43 million.
To me this is unacceptable. I cannot understand how you can, on
the one hand, promote nuclear power and then cut the technology
funding to the level that you have.
I am also concerned about cuts to the fossil energy R&D
programs. Our Nation is going to continue to rely on fossil
fuels for the next several decades, even as we develop new
energy resources.
I am also taking a look at funding in the State of Alaska.
You might say, well, that is rather selfish in the sense that I
represent the State and obviously am sensitive to it. But when
you consider Alaska is the sixth largest producer of energy in
the United States, all forms of energy, that we are the largest
producer of crude oil, and out of the $21.9 billion budget
which you have got, only $2.4 million will go to Alaska. That
is .01 percent. Yet, I would remind you we produce 20 percent
of the crude oil produced in the United States.
Last year in Congress we authorized the creation of a
Department of Energy office in Alaska to seek new partnerships
to develop new energy sources. Last year that was funded at $5
million. The Department has failed to fund this office at this
time. I am going to put you on notice, Mr. Carnes, that we will
have some more conversations about this. The State of Alaska
contributes considerably to the energy security of the Nation,
and the DOE needs to recognize this in the budget priorities.
I was just comparing apples and oranges, and they do not
compare, but in the budget for the State of Alaska, as I have
indicated, there is about $2.4 million. In the State of New
Mexico, it is $3.63 billion. Of course, we do not have the
labs. Nevertheless, I think it is fair to look at the
comparison of dollars, your considerable expenditures to
maintain the contribution those labs make. I am not being
negative in any manner for them. I am just suggesting that for
a State that produces as much energy and has the potential of
producing as much energy as we have, I think the numbers are
way out of whack.
According to the EIA statistics, as I indicated, Alaska is
the sixth largest energy producing State in the Nation, just
behind Texas. I also would note that we produce more energy per
capita than virtually all the other States. So, we are going to
have time, Mr. Carnes, as I indicated, to discuss this.
I will go to the Department of the Interior very briefly. I
believe the Department of the Interior's budget request is a
relatively well-balanced approach to conservation of our
Federal lands and responsible management of our natural
resources. The Interior budget highlights responsible
development of energy resources on Federal lands, thus
contributing to reducing our dependence on foreign sources of
energy.
I am pleased to see the increase of $3 million to be used
to accelerate leasing, exploration, and development on the
North Slope.
I would also note that there is a revenue estimate in your
budget of revenues from the proposed lease sale of ANWR at
about $1.2 billion. I think that estimate is a little under
what I would suggest would be a reality. Also, I believe that
that estimate is from a single sale, and I doubt very much it
would be limited to a single sale. So, I think you could
anticipate substantially more on multiple sales.
This increase can be used to speed up exploration and
development in both the Naval Petroleum Reserve-Alaska and, as
I indicated, ANWR. Development in both these areas is critical
because they are America's best prospect for increasing
domestic oil production in the North American continent.
Now, while BLM's budget was increased for energy related
activities, I was not happy to see that the budget reduced
Payment in Lieu of Taxes by $45 million. We seem to have the
budget reducing PILT, and we put it back in, and this year is
no exception. PILT is important for local governments
throughout the West as the Federal Government's appetite for
Federal land continues to increase.
In this budget alone, BLM is asking for more than $40
million for land purchases to add to its land base. I have a
hard time with that. I do not know why BLM could not acquire
the land through trades rather than authorization and
appropriation. It would seem to me we have got a pretty heavy
load of land already, and further land, if it is necessary,
could be acquired by trades rather than an outright
appropriation.
I am also concerned about why the Department continues to
fund CALFED in the absence of reauthorization. I know how
strongly the California delegation feels about this program,
and I am not here to criticize the program. What we have not
done is done an authorization for it. So, I see that $15
million is provided this year. As I recall from last year, the
conference committee recommended no funding in fiscal year
2002. The Clinton administration would not fund this program.
There was no authorization. So, there is some shifting of
monies going on to accommodate what is really an unauthorized
program. I would prefer to see proper authorization rather than
this sleight of hand that we keep coming up with.
As for the National Park Service, I am pleased to see that
you will continue to address the maintenance backlog of our
National Park System, something the Bush administration
committed to last year.
I have also been concerned about wildfire threats to our
Federal land and certainly was worried about the forest fires
last spring and summer. Therefore, I was glad to see the
administration has continued its commitment to fire
suppression.
Additionally, I was pleased to see funds in the budget for
the construction of fire barracks and so forth in the West.
The Forest Service budget request. I commend the
administration for making a clear effort to control costs and
coming to us with what is essentially a flat budget for the
Forest Service. There are, however, a few items that cause me
some concern with respect again to Alaska. The most startling
is that there is the proposal to allow parties to purchase
timber sales with no requirement that the sales be harvested.
Perhaps the Honorable Mark Rey can enlighten me on that a
little bit.
Over the past 6 to 8 years, the Forest Service's failure to
offer a sufficient volume of economic timber sales to
purchasers in the Tongass has resulted in a virtual closing of
the timber industry and the loss of more than 3,000 jobs. Even
with congressional support, the Forest Service only offered 68
million board feet out of a target of 190 million board feet
last year.
In the context of the current budget, I would hope the
present administration is taking steps to correct this
deficiency and get the timber sales program back on its feet
before it is too late for the remaining sawmills that are left
in Alaska, which are about four. I think it is correct to point
out that in New York they cut more timber for firewood than we
cut commercially in the State of Alaska.
Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Why do we not go ahead with the witnesses. If you will each
take no more than 6 minutes and just give us the main points
that you think we need to be aware of, starting with Deputy
Secretary Steven Griles with the Department of the Interior. I
gather you are accompanied by Lynn Scarlett, who is the
Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget. So,
please go right ahead, Steve.
STATEMENT OF J. STEVEN GRILES, DEPUTY SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ACCOMPANIED BY P. LYNN SCARLETT,
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR POLICY, MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Mr. Griles. Mr. Chairman, thank you. This is my first time
since I was confirmed by the Senate, and I want to say to you
it is a pleasure to be with you.
Let me just say from a personal viewpoint, I want to thank
your committee staff director for the majority and the minority
and the counsel for the majority and the minority for getting
the rest of our people confirmed. We finally have everybody
confirmed. Most have been sworn in. We still have one who will
be sworn in next week. So, thank you for getting those people
down to us.
Before we move into the details of the budget, Mr.
Chairman, let me just offer a few personal observations.
The Department of the Interior has a huge impact on the
lives of Americans. We manage one out of every five acres of
land in this country. These lands include some of the most
beautiful and pristine places on earth. We are entrusted with
some of the most patriotic symbols of our nationhood, including
the Statue of Liberty and Independence Hall. We provide
approximately one-third of the Nation's domestic energy. We
supply water that has made the arid West bloom. We serve
visitors from around the world and take delight in finding
recreation through nearly one-half billion visits to our lands
every year.
We have more than 200,000 volunteers that assist us. The
volunteer work force outnumbers our own employees almost three
to one.
We collected last year $11 billion in revenues from the
lands and waters we manage, and that is more than $1 million
more than was appropriated by Congress.
We also shared $1 billion with the States, our partners, in
the onshore petroleum leasing program.
When the President directed we build our budget, it was
based on several principles, and I would like to just mention
those briefly to you. First, a new environmentalism through
cooperative conservation partnerships. Second, improved
management of Indian trust assets. Mr. Chairman, I want to come
back specifically to that in a second. Third, improved
management of public lands and waters. Fourth, advanced
development of domestic energy. Fifth, improved classrooms and
classroom performance of Indian students. And, finally, overall
management for excellence through citizen governance.
Since September 11, Interior's employees have responded to
the call for increased diligence and preparation in view of the
changed world we face in the wake of those events. We put
security measures in place in our most important national
assets, our people, and our visitors. We have increased Park
Police patrols in Washington and in New York and upgraded Park
Police security equipment. We have increased guard services and
protection for other important national assets such as the
Statue of Liberty and the Liberty Bell. We have instituted
around-the-clock security at key Bureau of Reclamation
facilities, including the Hoover, Glen Canyon, Shasta, and
Grand Cooley Dams.
Our budget request is $10.3 billion in current
appropriations. There is an additional $270 million for
government-wide accounting adjustments for retirement and
health benefits.
But let me just talk for a second, Mr. Chairman, regarding
the particular question you asked about trust. This is an area
that the Secretary and I have spent a great deal of time on
since I joined Interior in July. In the trust asset programs at
the Department of the Interior, we have over 11 million acres
held in trust for individual Indians and nearly 45 million
acres held in trust for tribal governments. These lands produce
income from about 100,000 active leases. We have currently
about 225,000 open individual accounts and 1,400 tribal
accounts.
We have a difficult and I will tell you a very complex
challenge in front of us. These trust assets, going back to the
1870's, were divided up into allotments for individual Indians
in the 1870's, in 80-acre allotments. Many of these allotments
today, Mr. Chairman, are owned in percentages that go out to 34
and 36 decimal points. When the Pentium 2 processor came out,
sir, it only went to 24 decimal points, I have been told. The
Department of the Interior is trying to manage lands that have
such a small interest. It is very difficult to manage that, and
we need your help. We need this committee's involvement, as
well as the Committee on Indian Affairs, in how we move
forward.
As to the computer system that is shut down, about 40
percent of the computers in the Department of the Interior are
up and running. But I am happy to tell you today, Mr. Chairman,
that last night I signed a letter to the Senate and House
appropriators informing them that we were going to take
estimated amounts of receipts to begin to pay the individual
Indians a percentage of the monies that we know are in their
individual accounts. Because the court has not allowed us to
turn on the Minerals Management Service accounting system, we
cannot know exactly how much each individual Indian is owed.
So, we are going to use an estimate based on the previous 3
months, and we are going to make payments to them.
We cannot continue to allow the individual Indians not to
get monies. There are bankruptcies that are occurring. They are
not getting proper care, and it is important that we find a
solution. I am proud to say that Neal McCaleb, the Assistant
Secretary, has struggled very hard to find a solution, and
Friday night he came up with this idea, and we implemented it
yesterday. The checks should be flowing in the next couple of
days to those individual Indians accounts.
The other area which is very important to Interior, as
Senator Murkowski said, is energy. The Secretary and I have
spent much time advancing the President's energy plan. Interior
manages all the production from Federal lands, onshore and
offshore. ANWR, of course, is a centerpiece of the President's
policy, the coastal plan of the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge, in terms of opening up oil and gas development. Only a
small fraction of the 19 million acres of the refuge would be
opened, and then with restrictions that no more than 2,000
surface acres can be covered by production and support
facilities. In 1998, USGS estimated that there were over 10.4
billion barrels of recoverable oil there.
The other aspect of our energy plan is renewables. Last
November, we hosted with DOE a conference on renewables, an
opportunity, we called it, to expand renewable energy on public
lands. We brought together more than 200 individuals and
government officials, renewable energy companies, and
environmental leaders, to try to find a better way to focus on
increasing wind, solar, and geothermal energy from our public
lands. Interior currently produces 40 percent of the geothermal
energy in this country from public lands.
In closing, let me just comment on one other issue that has
continued to be an issue with us at Interior, and that is
Klamath. We have faced a difficult situation this past year in
the Klamath Basin. For the first time ever, the Department was
forced to make no water available from Upper Klamath Lake to
supply the farmers of the Klamath Project. This action
shattered the lives of many of the farming community of the
Klamath Basin.
Recently, the National Academy of Sciences released a draft
report that concludes that there was no scientific foundation
for maintaining higher water levels in the Upper Klamath Lake
for the endangered sucker fish or for higher minimum flows in
the Klamath River for the coho salmon.
Secretary Norton has directed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Director and the Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner to
evaluate these findings and report back to her by close of
business on Friday to what we should do concerning how to deal
with these issues that now are before us based on the National
Academy of Sciences report.
The Federal Government cannot make decisions like those
made this past year with regard to the Klamath Basin, decisions
that affect the lives of so many good Americans, without a good
scientific basis for those decisions. It is important that we
have the best science. We must use the best science, and that
is what we are striving for in the future at Interior.
Mr. Chairman, I would turn it over to Lynn Scarlett who is
here.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Griles follows:]
Prepared Statement of J. Steven Griles, Deputy Secretary,
Department of the Interior
I am pleased to be here today with Lynn Scarlett, the Department's
Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget, to talk about
the fiscal year 2003 budget for the Department of the Interior.
The President's proposed $10.6 billion funding for the Department
of the Interior in fiscal year 2003 reflects his commitment to
restoring natural areas, rebuilding parks and refuges, improving
American Indian education and trust reform, and unleashing a citizen-
centered, incentive-driven conservation ethic. The proposal is the
largest Interior budget ever presented by a President. The budget
includes $663 million for National Park Service maintenance, to meet
the President's commitment to reduce the NPS maintenance backlog, and a
$56.5 million increase for the operation and maintenance of the
National Wildlife Refuge System. It also includes increases totaling
$83.6 million for trust reform activities in the Office of the Special
Trustee and the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Our proposed FY 2003 budget doubles BLM's renewable energy budget.
It also includes a $10.2 million increase for BLM energy-related
activities, including Alaska North Slope oil and gas development
outside of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), to expedite the
permitting and rights-of-way processes, increase the number of oil and
gas lease sales, work to remove unnecessary barriers to both renewable
and non-renewable energy production, and increase environmental
inspections.
We are proud of this budget, and believe it represents a balanced
approach to conservation and providing the energy needs of the nation.
Overall, the President's 2003 budget increases spending for
conservation activities in the Department. There are several exciting
new conservation programs in this year's budget that Lynn Scarlett will
touch on in her testimony today.
Since being confirmed last July, I have served the Secretary as her
Chief Operating Officer at Interior. In that capacity, I have been
involved with a number of pressing issues facing the Department that I
would like to share with you today. Both the Secretary and I have spent
more time over the last six months on the challenges related to the
management of Indian trust assets than on any other issue before the
Department. Secretary Norton is unable to appear before you today
because she is preparing to appear in court tomorrow in the ongoing
Cobell v. Norton litigation.
Last week, Secretary Norton testified before the House Resources
Committee on this very complex and difficult issue. Trust asset
management involves approximately 11 million acres held in trust or in
restricted status for individual Indians and nearly 45 million acres
held in trust for Tribes, a combined area the size of Maine,
Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island,
Delaware, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. This land produces
income from more than 100,000 active leases for 350,000 individual
Indian owners and 315 Tribal owners. Leasing and sales revenues of
approximately $300 million per year are distributed to more than
225,000 open Individual Indian Money (IIM) accounts and revenue of
approximately $800 million per year is distributed to the 1,400 Tribal
accounts.
Secretary Norton laid out in her testimony the most pressing
problems now facing us in this area. They are the lack of integration
and centralization of trust management, the lack of a good strategic
plan for remedying problems in trust management, the changing standard
of trust management, the problem of fractionated heirship of individual
Indian trust land, and our computer problems, both those related to
software we had hoped would assist us in keeping track of trust
activities, and our general Departmental information technology
security issues related to Indian trust data. As you know, most of the
Department's computer systems have been disconnected from the Internet
because of Indian trust data security concerns. These are difficult
issues. We have made strides over the past year in a number of areas,
but there remains much to be done. Indian trust asset management now
consumes much of the time and attention of the senior management team
at Interior.
Assistant Secretary Scarlett's testimony points out that, under
Secretary Norton's leadership, another goal very important to the
Department right now is advancing the President's energy policy. I have
also been spending a good part of my time on that issue. The need for a
national energy policy becomes clear when you look at the numbers.
According to the Energy Information Agency, over the next 20 years,
U.S. natural gas consumption is projected to grow by more than 50
percent, while production, if it grows at the rate of the last 10
years, will grow by only 14 percent. Similarly, over the next 20 years,
U.S. oil consumption is projected to grow by over 6 million barrels per
day, while production, if it follows the pattern of the last 10 years,
is expected to decline by 1.5 million barrels per day. U.S. energy
production is not keeping up with our growing consumption, creating a
rapidly increasing gap between domestic supply and demand.
As this Committee well knows, energy reserves contained in the
lands and offshore areas managed by the Department of the Interior are
an important source of potential energy production. The Department of
the Interior manages energy production on all Federal lands, both
onshore and the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). These Federal lands
provide nearly 30 percent of annual national energy production.
Estimates suggest that these lands contain approximately 68 percent of
all undiscovered U.S. oil resources and 74 percent of undiscovered
natural gas resources. The Department also owns and operates hydropower
facilities in the 17 western states. These facilities produce about 16
percent of all the hydropower in the United States.
The President's policy calls for increasing domestic energy
production, seeks to improve the aging energy infrastructure network by
creating a new high tech energy delivery network, and promotes energy
conservation. It is important to point out that more than 50 percent of
the President's plan focuses on energy efficiency, encouraging the
development of fuel efficient vehicles and encouraging consumer
conservation. The President's policy proposes new tax incentives to
help increase the contribution that alternative and renewable energy
can make to our nation's energy supply.
The President directed the Secretary of the Interior to work with
Congress on legislation authorizing the leasing of oil and gas in that
portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) defined as the
Coastal Plain in section 1002 of the Alaska National Interests Lands
Conservation Act. The President's Policy emphasizes that Congress
should require the use of the best available technology and require
that energy production activities have no significant adverse impact to
the environment in the ANWR 1002 area.
It is important to remember that the President is proposing to open
a small fraction of the 19 million acres in ANWR for oil exploration.
This is a fact that often gets overlooked. In addition, the House-
passed energy bill includes a requirement that no more than 2,000
surface acres of the Coastal Plain of ANWR may be covered by production
and support activities. To put this in context, the Bureau of Land
Management has granted rights-of-way for wind farms on almost 3,200
acres of public land outside of Palm Springs, California. The
Administration believes that oil and gas development can successfully
coexist with wildlife in Alaska's Arctic region.
As most of you know by now, ANWR is located in the northeast corner
of Alaska. The Refuge is about the size of South Carolina; however, the
portion of the Refuge known as the 1002 Area is only about 6 percent of
the total Refuge. The 1002 Area was excluded from wilderness
designation and Congress specified that it be studied further through a
comprehensive inventory of its fish and wildlife resources, and the
potential for oil and gas production. Estimates of substantial
resources in the 1002 Area based on nearby drilling results and seismic
data have made it one of the most promising prospects for oil and
natural gas in the United States.
In 1998, a USGS assessment of petroleum resources of the entire
1002 Area estimated the mean value of expected volume of technically
recoverable oil beneath the 1002 area to be 10.4 billion barrels, with
a 95 percent chance of 5.7 billion barrels and a 5 percent chance of
16.0 billion barrels. For comparison, the U.S. currently consumes about
7 billion barrels per year. Of this, the U.S. imports about 4 billion
barrels and produces about 3 billion barrels. Congressional action
would also open up Native-owned lands.
The Refuge provides a variety of arctic habitats supporting fish
and wildlife species. The wildlife most associated with the 1002 Area
is the Porcupine caribou herd, named after its wintering grounds along
the Porcupine River of northwest Canada. Currently numbering nearly
130,000 caribou, the herd migrates each year across the Brooks Range to
arrive in early summer on the North Slope's coastal plain in the 1002
Area and eastward into Canada.
Our support for enactment of authority to lease oil and gas
resources in ANWR is a prime example of the Department's dual
commitment to energy development and environmental conservation. The
House-passed energy bill includes ANWR provisions that contain the most
stringent environmental protection provisions ever placed on a domestic
oil and gas program. We recognize that the ecological resources of the
Refuge are unique and precious, and that we must respect and conserve
this wealth for future generations of Americans. Because of advances in
technology and in our enhanced understanding of the ecology, we believe
we can develop ANWR's resources with very little long-term effect on
its environment.
Secretary Norton and I have been actively carrying out many other
parts of the President's energy policy. On November 28, 2001, Secretary
Norton and the Department of Energy co-hosted a conference entitled
``Opportunities to Expand Renewable Energy on Public Lands.'' The
conference was a work session that brought together approximately 200
government officials, renewable energy industry and environmental
leaders, and other citizens to focus on the best ways to increase wind,
solar and geothermal production on public lands.
The Secretary made the following statement to the conference
attendees:
Our shared mission is both simple and noble. We must explore
ways to better capture the sun's light, the sky's winds, the
land's bounty, and the earth's heat to provide energy security
for America's families. Today we seek the best ideas for
reducing delays and bottlenecks in producing renewable energy.
This is part of the Interior Department's commitment to
consult, cooperate and communicate-all in the service of
conservation.
Interior produces approximately 40 percent of the nation's
geothermal energy. Interior also uses renewable energy at Interior
facilities. Interior has more than 600 solar-powered facilities, 40
solar hot water systems, 30 wind turbines, 15 geothermal heating and
cooling systems, and 6 wind farms. Each year the department uses
200,000 gallons of biofuels in vehicle and marine fleets and has 1,200
alternative fuel vehicles.
We have other pressing issues before us that I know are of great
concern to this Committee. Last April, for the first time ever, the
Department announced that no water would be available from Upper
Klamath Lake to supply the farmers of the Klamath Project. This was due
to many factors, including an extreme drought, the requirements of the
Endangered Species Act, and the rights of Tribes and other water users
to the scarce water resources in the region. Reclamation's Klamath
Project serves approximately 1,400 farms totaling some 210,000 acres.
Farmers there grow a large variety of crops including barley, oats,
wheat, potatoes, sugar beets and forage. According to Bureau of
Reclamation data for the year 2000, approximately 110,000 acres were
planted in forage; 57,000 acres in cereal crops (including barley,
oats, and wheat); 16,000 acres in vegetables (including potatoes);
7,000 acres in miscellaneous field crops (including sugar beets); 298
acres in seed crops; and 227 acres in nursery crops.
This action taken by the Department greatly affected the lives of
many in the farming community of the Klamath Basin. Late last July, the
Department did release about 70,000 to 75,000 acre feet of water Upper
Klamath Lake to assist farmers in the Klamath Basin Project in
desperate need. We took this action to provide farmers water for their
livestock, to provide some critical recharge for some wells, and
perhaps save pastures, alfalfa and hay, or even row crops that had lost
their well water supply. The Department was able to release that water
because the Bureau of Reclamation determined that Upper Klamath Lake
was at a higher level than projected.
We have continually stated that we are committed to working with
all interested parties in order to find solutions that avoid a repeat
of this situation this year and in the future. Recently, the National
Academy of Sciences released a draft scientific evaluation of the
biological opinions on endangered and threatened fishes in the Klamath
River Basin. The draft report concludes that there is no substantial
scientific foundation at this time for maintaining higher water levels
in Upper Klamath Lake for the endangered sucker populations or higher
minimum flows in the Klamath River main stem for the threatened coho
population. The draft report also found no substantial scientific
evidence to support changes in the operating practices that have
produced the levels in Upper Klamath Lake and the main-stem flows over
the past 10 years.
On February 3, Secretary Norton directed the Directors of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Reclamation to evaluate the
NAS findings and to report back to her by the end of this week. I am
sure all of you would agree that the Federal government should not make
decisions of this magnitude, that affect the lives of so many
Americans, without a good sound scientific basis for those decisions.
Not only do we risk needlessly hurting our fellow citizens, but we
erode the confidence of the populace in general in our future decisions
and actions.
I'd like to close with emphasizing to you again the commitment the
Department has to working with you and with your constituents on the
local issues of concern involving the Department of the Interior that
face them every day. Budget initiatives like our Cooperative
Conservation Initiative will fund on-the-ground stewardship projects
across the Nation and stimulate innovative approaches to conservation.
Our budget includes the Landowner Incentive programs that provide
financial assistance to States and Tribes so that They can work with
private landowners to facilitate private wildlife conservation efforts.
Our Private Stewardship grants program directly assists landowners and
groups engaged in voluntary conservation efforts for the benefit of
federally listed, proposed, candidate, or other imperiled species.
We remain aware of the fact that the decisions we make at Interior
can have dramatic impacts on American families, and we are determined
to do whatever we can to take those impacts into consideration as we
carry out our responsibilities under the law.
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to appear before the
Committee today. Assistant Secretary Scarlett's testimony provides a
more in-depth view of the Department's FY 2003 budget.
The Chairman. Ms. Scarlett, did you have a statement?
Ms. Scarlett. I have a brief comment to supplement Steve's.
The Chairman. Go right ahead.
STATEMENT OF P. LYNN SCARLETT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY--POLICY,
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Ms. Scarlett. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Senator Murkowski,
members of the committee, I am delighted to join Steve here
today and highlight a few of our budget elements.
I would like, in particular, to talk a little bit about our
conservation initiatives that Steve touched upon. As Steve
noted, our budget request increases spending for conservation
activities, providing new opportunities, in particular, for
partnerships in conservation.
Of particular note, is our Cooperative Conservation
Initiative, which reflects the President's framework for a new
environmentalism. The Cooperative Conservation Initiative will
fund on-the-ground stewardship projects across the Nation and
we believe stimulate cooperative approaches to conservation. It
will leverage Federal funding and work in partnership with
States, tribes, local communities, and individual citizens in
ways that we think are consistent with the Land and Water
Conservation Fund. The Department proposes $100 million to
promote these partnerships in conservation.
Our budget also continues two presidential initiatives
begun last year, the Landowner Incentive program and Private
Stewardship program. These programs also promote working with
partners on conservation issues. We appreciated your support
last year for these programs. The budget includes $60 million
for these two programs, a $10 million increase.
The budget continues strong funding to meet the President's
commitment to clean up the maintenance backlog in parks. Our
park budget includes $633 million for this effort. In 2003, the
Park Service will also improve facility management capability
and accountability so that we engage in facilities maintenance
in the most efficient way.
To improve our natural resource management in parks, our
budget includes an increase of $18 million for the Natural
Resource Challenge.
I would also like to mention our endeavors in the wildlife
refuges. In 1903 you may know that President Teddy Roosevelt
established the first national wildlife refuge at Pelican
Island, Florida. This means that the 100th anniversary of those
wildlife refuges will occur next year. Our budget, therefore,
commemorates this 100th anniversary event by requesting a $56.5
million increase for the refuge system. This is an 18 percent
boost in spending and represents the largest dollar increase
ever requested in the history of the national wildlife refuge
system.
Recognizing that another committee has jurisdiction over
Indian Affairs, I would like to, nonetheless, highlight the
budget request that focuses on educational needs of American
Indians and Alaska Natives. Our budget continues a high level
of funding for Indian school repair and replacement and
includes an increase of $19 million for school operations.
Though I have described a number of initiatives contained
in this budget, our overall budget level is essentially the
same as the current year's funding. Consequently, we have had
to make a number of very difficult program choices and
tradeoffs as we have prepared the budget for your
consideration. We are working diligently to improve the
quality, effectiveness, and efficiency of our services so that
we can deliver better services with those same dollars.
I look forward to working with you and discussing the
budget and thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Scarlett follows:]
Prepared Statement of P. Lynn Scarlett, Assistant Secretary--Policy,
Management and Budget, Department of the Interior
I am pleased to be here today before the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources to present the fiscal year 2003 budget for the
Department of the Interior. I appreciate the opportunity to highlight a
number of important initiatives and to answer questions that you might
have.
Before I move onto the details of the budget request, I'd like to
offer some observations as to the breadth of the Department's
responsibilities and the impact of our programs on the lives of
Americans.
We manage more than one of every five acres of land in this
Nation. These lands include some of the most beautiful and
pristine places on earth. We are entrusted with some of the
most patriotic symbols of our Nationhood, including the Statue
of Liberty in New York and Independence Hall, the home of the
Liberty Bell in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
We provide approximately one-third of the Nation's domestic
energy. We supply the water that has made the arid West bloom,
providing water to over 31 million people.
We serve visitors from around the world who take delight and
find recreation through nearly half-a-billion visits to our
lands each year.
Over 200,000 volunteers assist us, a volunteer workforce
that outnumbers our own employees by nearly three to one.
In the most recently completed fiscal year, we collected $11
billion in revenue from the lands and waters we manage. This is
$1 billion more than we had appropriated to us. We also shared
$1 billion of that with the States, our partners in the onshore
petroleum-leasing program.
With Secretary Norton's leadership we are putting these
responsibilities in balance and we commit to:
build a new environmentalism through cooperative
conservation partnerships;
improve our management of public lands and waters;
advance the President's National energy policy;
improve the lives of Native Americans; and
manage for excellence through citizen-centered governance.
Secretary Norton has established an approach to citizen-centered
government at the Department that is organized around her Four C's:
conservation through consultation, cooperation, and communication.
Empowerment of citizens to bring about this approach is the touchstone
of all that we do on the land, and this approach is reflected in the
budget that we present to you today.
As we began the process last June to build this budget, we were
guided by President Bush's vision of a shared approach to conservation,
and his commitments to restore our national parks, improve both the
classrooms and the classroom performance of Indian students; and meet
our environmental responsibilities in a manner that best reflects the
innovative nature of our nation.
Our budget priorities were reshaped by the events of September
11th. Interior's employees have responded to the call to increase our
vigilance and our preparedness for the changed world we face.
The Secretary is committed to managing well the resources entrusted
to us in this budget. We are working diligently to improve the quality,
effectiveness, and efficiency of the services we deliver and to enhance
the accountability and transparency of the work we do with the
resources of the American people. We have developed a plan for citizen-
centered governance that builds on the President's management agenda,
and our plan has been well received by both the Office of Management
and Budget and the President's Management Council. It will ensure that
we bring innovation, competitiveness, and accountability to all that we
do.
budget overview
The Department of the Interior's 2003 budget request is $10.6
billion in current appropriations, including $270.5 million for a
government-wide legislative proposal to shift to agencies the full cost
of the CSRS pension system and the Federal employee health benefits
program for current employees. Permanent funding that becomes available
as a result of existing legislation without further action by the
Congress will provide an additional $2.6 billion, for a total 2003
Department budget of $13.2 billion.
Excluding the pension and health benefits legislative proposal, the
2003 current appropriations request is $10.3 billion, a net decrease of
$12.7 million from the amounts provided in the 2002 Interior and
Related Agencies and Energy and Water Development Appropriations Acts.
For 2003, programs funded in the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act are increased by $20.5 million over the 2002 Act.
The 2003 request is $320.6 million above the 2002 President's budget
request. Programs funded in the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act in 2003 are decreased by $33.1 million below the
2002 Act. The 2003 request is $61.4 million above the 2002 President's
budget request.
The 2003 budget proposal maintains a robust funding level compared
to historic levels for the Department. The proposal is over 21 percent
higher than the 2000 appropriation level of $8.6 billion.
The budget request proposes funding increases for priority programs
and initiatives, while discontinuing or reducing funding for lower
priority projects funded in 2002. In addition, the 2003 budget reflects
the Department's commitment to operate programs more effectively and
efficiently, by proposing to absorb $57.4 million in uncontrollable
fixed cost increases and a $20.6 million reduction in travel and
transportation costs.
cooperative conservation initiative
If there is one item in this budget that deserves special
attention, it is our Cooperative Conservation Initiative. It fully
reflects the President's framework for a ``new environmentalism.'' The
Cooperative Conservation Initiative will fund on-the-ground stewardship
projects across the Nation and stimulate innovative approaches to
conservation. It will allow us to leverage Federal funding and to work
in partnership with States, local governments, Tribes, and private
citizens to give all stakeholders a greater role in how to protect the
Nation's great natural resources. It is a collaborative approach to tap
the ingenuity, imagination, and innovative spirit of our people. It is
an approach that is landscape-based, citizen-centered, and incentive-
driven. In short, it is a new way of meeting our environmental
responsibilities in partnership with our fellow Americans. The
Department proposes $100.0 million to promote partnerships in
conservation.
The program will fund restoration, protection, and enhancement of
natural areas through established programs and new pilot programs that
feature creative approaches to conservation. These projects will be in
keeping with the President's commitment to a shared responsibility for
conservation. One-half of the initiative, $50.0 million, will be
managed through the Land and Water Conservation Fund State Assistance
program and will benefit State lands as well as adjacent lands. The
balance of the initiative will be used for cost shared projects funded
in the operating accounts of the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and
Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service and will benefit
Federal and adjacent lands. Benefits to State and Federal lands will
complement the private lands conservation activities conducted with
private stewardship funding.
landowner partnerships
The budget for the Fish and Wildlife Service also promotes working
with partners on conservation issues by proposing to continue two
Presidential initiatives, the Landowner Incentive and Private
Stewardship programs. The budget request includes $50.0 million, an
increase of $10.0 million over the 2002 level for grants to States for
landowner incentives that protect and restore habitats on private lands
that benefit species at risk. A model for this program is the
Shortgrass/Black-tailed Prairie Dog Habitat incentive program, a new
program piloted in Colorado in 2002. This program will provide
financial assistance to landowners in four soil conservation districts
to protect black-tailed prairie dogs, their habitat, and associated
shortgrass prairie.
The budget includes $10.0 million for the Private Stewardship
grants program to directly assist landowners and groups engaged in
voluntary conservation efforts for the benefit of federally listed,
proposed, or candidate species. Technical and financial assistance to
landowners will help them avoid harming imperiled species while
improving habitat for native species.
other conservation tools
The 2003 budget proposes $194.6 million for three other
conservation programs managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service,
including: $91.0 million for the Cooperative Endangered Species
Conservation Fund; $43.6 million for the North American Wetlands
Conservation Fund; and $60.0 million for State and Tribal Wildlife
grants. These programs that we propose to fund through the Land and
Water Conservation Fund in 2003 magnify the benefits of Federal funding
with matching efforts for conservation.
In 2003, State Assistance and Federal land acquisition programs
funded through the Land and Water Conservation Fund build upon the
President's vision of cooperative conservation. The budget includes
$200.0 million for the State Assistance program, an increase of $56.0
million over the 2002 level. A portion of this, $50.0 million, will be
used for the Cooperative Conservation Initiative to fund competitively
awarded grants. The balance of $150.0 million will fund grants to
States for approved conservation and outdoor recreation plans,
allocated based on a national formula established by law.
An additional $204.1 million is requested for Federal land
acquisition programs, including $44.7 million for the Bureau of Land
Management, $70.4 million for the Fish and Wildlife Service, $86.1
million for the National Park Service, and $3.0 million for acquisition
of lands in support of the Shivwits Indian Water Settlement Act of
1999. The request emphasizes the use of innovative alternatives to fee
title purchase, such as conservation easements and land exchanges to
make the most efficient use of this funding, promote cooperative
alliances, and leave lands on State tax roles. In the Upper Snake/South
Fork Snake River project in Idaho, the Bureau of Land Management is
working with eight cooperators including Ducks Unlimited, The Nature
Conservancy, and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribe to protect river corridors
and habitat that supports bald eagles and cutthroat trout through
conservation easements.
Together with the Forest Service's budget request, the 2003 budget
will provide $909.2 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund
programs, or $911.1 million including the adjustment for pension and
employee health benefits that is proposed.
managing the park maintenance backlog
President Bush pledged to address the backlog of maintenance and
repair in the national park system. Secretary Norton shares the
President's commitment to maintaining park facilities to safeguard the
visiting public and park employees, to preserve park resources for
future generations, and to improve visitors' experiences. The 2003
budget includes $663.0 million for facility maintenance and
construction, including required planning and compliance work. Within
this total there is an increase of $25.0 million for cyclic maintenance
to ensure that routine maintenance work is completed in a timely
manner. The budget proposes an increase in facility repair and
rehabilitation of $17.6 million, which will focus on moving the
National Park Service toward performance-based management of its
facilities.
Within the increase for repair and rehabilitation, $8.4 million
will address the deferred maintenance and critical resource protection
backlog. This increase will have resource protection benefits. In 2002,
approximately one-fifth of the repair and rehabilitation program was
devoted to resource protection. A comparable amount will be dedicated
to this effort in 2003.
In addition to the request for annual appropriations, a significant
amount of recreational demonstration fee receipts will be devoted to
deferred maintenance projects. This program is now authorized through
2004. The 2003 budget proposes that the program be permanently
authorized. This program allows Federal land managers to retain
receipts to meet management goals and is an important tool in improving
the quality of programs such as facility maintenance and visitor
services. The Department expects to receive $146.1 million through the
program in 2003. The Administration expects to propose authorizing
language shortly and asks that the Committee take action on the
proposal this year.
natural resource challenge
There are 385 National Park units that protect and preserve unique
and important natural resources. The Natural Resource Challenge--a
Presidential and Secretarial priority program, fosters the protection
of these natural resources. An increase of $18.0 million is requested
for the fourth year of the NPS Natural Resource Challenge. This program
will continue to strengthen natural resource management throughout the
park system by protecting native species and habitats; monitoring the
health of natural resources within the parks; eradicating exotic
species; and sharing information about natural resources with the
public.
Collaborative efforts with the U.S. Geological Survey and
universities assist the parks in the assessment of natural resources
and help to identify and alleviate potential threats to resources. Much
of this increase, $9.0 million will be accomplished through a
partnership with the U.S. Geological Survey.
everglades
A recently signed agreement between President Bush and Governor
Bush of Florida ensures that water will be available for the natural
system in the Everglades, restoring the natural ecological systems. The
2003 budget proposes a total of $96.0 million, including $8.9 million
that will support Department-wide efforts to implement the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. The Department will continue
to work cooperatively with the Army Corps of Engineers to complete the
modified water delivery project at Everglades National Park. The budget
includes $13.3 million for the project, a reduction of $21.9 million
from the 2002 levels, as a result of progress made toward completion of
the project.
An additional $20.0 million, an increase of $5.0 million over the
2002 level, is requested to fund matching grants to the State of
Florida that will be used to purchase important properties within the
Everglades system. Reflecting the Secretary's efforts to better
integrate science into land management, the budget proposes to
consolidate funding for Everglades science in the U.S. Geological
Survey. The 2003 Survey budget includes an increase of $4.0 million for
the Critical Ecosystem Studies Initiative (CESI), funds that were
previously appropriated to the National Park Service, for planning,
monitoring, assessing, and providing ongoing science support essential
to the adaptive management of the Everglades restoration project.
preparing for the national wildlife refuge centennial
In 1903, President Teddy Roosevelt established the first National
Wildlife Refuge at Pelican Island, Florida. Today Pelican Island
National Wildlife Refuge is part of a 538-unit system that spans 95
million acres. This is a unique and diverse network of lands and water
that provide habitat for migratory birds and other wildlife, sanctuary
for endangered species, and nursery areas for fish. Refuges also
provide opportunities for wildlife viewing, hunting, fishing, and
environmental education for 39 million visitors a year.
Our budget commemorates the 100th anniversary of the refuge system
by requesting a $56.5 million increase for the national wildlife refuge
system. This 18 percent increase in spending represents the largest
dollar increase ever requested in the history of the National Wildlife
Refuge system. Overall refuge operations funding will increase by $25.8
million. A $30.7 million increase for maintenance will address critical
health, safety, and resource protection needs, as well as fund high
priority activities that enhance visitor experiences. This historically
high level of funding for operation and maintenance of the national
wildlife refuge system includes $5.0 million for the Cooperative
Conservation Initiative.
endangered species conservation
The 2003 budget continues a partnership approach to endangered
species conservation, including funding for grant programs that assist
State and local communities in their conservation efforts to benefit
federally listed, proposed, candidate, and other imperiled species. The
budget includes $91.0 million for the Cooperative Endangered Species
Conservation Fund to assist States in acquiring lands essential for the
recovery of species and to support development and implementation of
habitat conservation plans. The budget proposed for Fish and Wildlife
Service endangered species operations includes increases of $5.9
million for conservation of candidate and listed species and to assist
in meeting demands for inter-agency consultation, technical assistance,
and assistance with habitat conservation planning.
harnessing our natural resources
The Department's programs are key to addressing important energy
supply issues and fostering a dynamic economy, while preserving and
enhancing environmental quality. Energy projects on federally managed
lands and offshore areas supply approximately one-third of the Nation's
energy production. In support of the President's National Energy
Policy, the budget includes increases of $28.6 million for energy
related activities in four bureaus. Increases in the Bureau of Land
Management and Minerals Management Service will allow these agencies to
eliminate delays and be more responsive to increasing demands for
energy while increasing environmental oversight. In addition, funds
will support investments in management systems that will allow these
bureaus and stakeholders to more efficiently conduct business and
improve compliance oversight.
The budget proposes an increase of $10.2 million for Bureau of Land
Management energy-related activities, including $1.6 million to expand
rights-of-way processing, $1.0 million to conduct a study of oil and
gas resources on public lands, $1.5 million to provide oversight of oil
and gas operations, and $1.0 million to expedite permitting and
increase responsiveness to stakeholders needs for post-lease actions.
The increase for rights-of-way will allow the Bureau to process 6,900
cases in 2003, an increase of 900 or 15 percent over the 2002 level.
The President and the Secretary are committed to increasing
domestic energy supplies, including oil and gas on Federal lands from a
variety of sources in an environmentally acceptable manner. including
oil and gas on Federal lands. The energy resources of the northeast
corner and the rest of Alaska's North Slope are national assets that
can contribute to the Nation's energy security. The 2003 budget
includes an increase of $3.0 million for activities on the North Slope.
The increase will support planning for 2004 sales in the National
Petroleum Reserve-Alaska and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Congressional authorization will be required for a lease sale to be
conducted in the Arctic Refuge. The budget assumes a lease sale in 2004
that will generate $2.4 billion in anticipated bonus bids. Of this
amount, the Federal government's $1.2 billion share will be dedicated
to research and development projects on solar power, wind energy,
biomass power and fuels, geothermal energy, and other alternative
energy technologies.
In November 2001, Secretary Norton and Secretary of Energy Spencer
Abraham convened a renewable energy conference. This conference served
as a catalyst for the Department's renewable energy programs. The 2003
budget more than doubles funding for renewable energy programs in the
Bureau of Land Management. To expand opportunities for geothermal,
hydropower, and wind energy production, the Bureau is requesting an
increase of $750,000.
Increases totaling $2.7 million are requested by the U.S.
Geological Survey, including $500,000 to produce updated information on
available geothermal resources. The Bureau of Indian Affairs is
requesting an increase of $1.7 million in its budget for energy
programs to work in partnership with Indian organizations and Tribes.
land use planning
The 2003 budget proposes an increase of $14.0 million for Bureau of
Land Management land use planning. The land use planning process is the
Bureau's primary tool for consensus building by involving the public in
development of land management plans. This increase will allow the
Bureau to accelerate development of 37 plans and initiate development
of 12 plans. Land use plans guide land use and resource management
decisions, and allow for public involvement in developing program goals
for recreation, habitat conservation, energy and mineral extraction,
livestock grazing, timber harvest, fire management, and community
rights-of-way access.
The budget for the Minerals Management Service proposes a program
increase of $5.0 million in order to meet increased workload brought
about by the demand for Gulf of Mexico outer continental shelf program
services. These additional funds will ensure that leasing and
regulatory programs in the Gulf of Mexico keep pace with public demand
for energy, industry requests for processing permits, and the need to
review plans and conduct inspections. The 2003 budget includes an
increase of $8.7 million to design and implement innovative business
processes and advances in electronic technology and provide web-based,
paperless transactions in the offshore program. The Bureau will also
invest $6.0 million to develop management systems that support taking
Federal royalties on oil production in-kind, rather than in-value.
The U.S. Geological Survey's budget includes an increase of $1.2
million to conduct estimates of undiscovered oil and natural gas
resources on Federal lands in the continental United States, as
required by the Energy Act of 2000. An additional $1.0 million is
requested to produce digital base maps in Alaska focused on potential
lease areas of the National Petroleum Reserve--Alaska, and $500,000 is
requested to update the national geothermal resource assessment last
published in 1979.
wildland fire management
A joint Interior, U.S. Forest Service National Fire Plan guides
collaborative efforts to improve the effectiveness of the wildland fire
program to better protect communities and the environment from wildfire
devastation. The plan is guiding joint efforts to control fires when
they are small, manage large-scale fires, reduce hazardous fuel loads,
rehabilitate burned areas, and assist rural fire departments to protect
their communities.
In 2001, the Department made significant progress in implementing
the plan's recommendations and established an unprecedented level of
cooperation with the Forest Service. The Department conducted an
aggressive hiring program to staff essential firefighting positions;
purchased necessary equipment; contracted aircraft; and repaired fire
facilities. Additional funding was allocated to the agencies and
awarded to rural and volunteer fire departments. Hazardous fuels
treatment projects were selected and conducted, including projects
treating approximately 164,000 acres in the wildland-urban interface.
In 2002, the Department and the Forest Service are working closely
on a number of collaborative efforts including: the development of
joint workload and performance measures to determine progress in
meeting wildland fire management goals; an independent review of
wildfire suppression costs and strategies; development of an
implementation plan for the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy; and other
activities.
The budget continues robust funding for the Department's Wildland
Fire Management program, requesting $675.5 million for fire readiness
and response, wildland firefighting, assistance to rural communities,
and a comprehensive program to reduce fuels in the wildland urban
interface. This budget carries forward the initiatives begun in 2001
and continued in 2002 to reduce the buildup of hazardous fuels,
especially in the wildland-urban interface, and fully funds suppression
based on the ten-year average.
bureau of reclamation
The Bureau of Reclamation is the largest supplier and manager of
water in the 17 western States, delivering water to one of every five
western framers and irrigating 10 million acres that produce 60 percent
of the vegetables grown in the United States. The Bureau is also the
largest producer of hydroelectric power in the West, providing
electricity to 14 million people. The 2003 budget includes $81.0
million for the Safety of Dams program, an increase of $11.0 million to
continue modification work on dams and ensure the safety of the public
downstream while providing continued water and power benefits. The 2003
budget includes $33.0 million for the second year of the Animas-LaPlata
project, an increase of $17.0 million over the 2002 level. The budget
also includes a request of $15.0 million for the California Bay-Delta
restoration project.
homeland security
In the wake of the events of September 11, we responded with
assistance to the rescue and recovery efforts. We also put in place
security measures to protect our most important national assets, our
visitors, and our employees. We increased park police patrols in
Washington, D.C., and New York and upgraded park policy security
equipment; increased guard service and protection for important
national icons such as the Liberty Bell and St. Louis Arch; and
instituted around-the-clock security at key Reclamation facilities such
as Hoover, Glen Canyon, Shasta, and Grand Coulee Dams. The 2003 budget
request includes $88.8 million to continue enhanced security measures
at approximately the same level funded in 2002. Our 2003 request
includes detail on these security measures, including $23.7 million for
the Park Service to begin construction of enhanced security systems at
the Washington Monument and the Lincoln and Jefferson Memorials.
office of insular affairs
The Office of Insular Affairs assists Territories and Freely
Associated States by providing financial and technical assistance. The
2003 budget proposal for Insular Affairs continues to provide mandatory
funding to Guam and the CNMI for impact of Compact assistance. A total
of $4.6 million in mandatory Covenant grant funding will be allocated
to Guam and $840,000 will be provided to CNMI for this purpose in 2003.
An increase of $750,000 is requested to provide enhanced oversight of
Compact of Free Association financial assistance. Renewed financial
assistance for two of the three Freely Associated States is currently
being negotiated; improved oversight and accountability are key goals.
trust programs
Recognizing that another committee has jurisdiction over Indian
Affairs, I'd like to highlight two aspects of the budget request that
focus on the needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives: trust
programs and education. Managing Indian trust funds and trust resources
is a solemn obligation of the Federal government, and one of the
Department's greatest challenges. Since taking office in January 2001,
Secretary Norton has moved on several fronts to help improve Indian
trust management. In July 2001, the Secretary established the Office of
Historical Trust Accounting to provide focused efforts to produce a
historical accounting for individual Indian allottees. In November
2001, the Secretary announced the outline of a proposal to reorganize
and consolidate Indian trust management functions into a separate
organization. The goal of the proposal is to improve management of
trust assets by creating clear lines of authority for trust reform and
trust operations. The Department is engaged in consultation with Tribes
and individuals on the reorganization proposal. We will continue
discussions with Congress concerning the results of the ongoing
consultation and the proposed reorganization.
Our budget request contains a major boost in spending for Indian
trust reform and trust related programs, a nearly $84 million increase,
the largest increase in the history of trust reform. These additional
funds are necessary to address the long overdue changes that the
Secretary is committed to making in the Indian trust program.
The $48.8 million increase requested for the Office of the Special
Trustee is a 44 percent increase above the 2002 level. The Special
Trustee allocates funds to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for trust
reform efforts they carry out, to the Office of Hearings and Appeals
for adjudication of probates involving ownership of Indian lands, and
to the Office of Historical Trust Accounting. The 2003 request will
allow continuation of trust operations improvements already
implemented, such as the trust fund accounting system, allow the Bureau
and Office of Hearings and Appeals to make progress on reducing probate
backlogs, improve risk management activities and oversight of trust and
trust-related activities, and undertake other trust reform initiatives.
The Special Trustee's budget includes $8.0 million for the Indian
Land Consolidation program. This program prevents further fractionation
of Indian trust allotments by consolidating highly fractionated
interests through purchase from willing sellers. The decreased
fractionation aids trust reform by decreasing the number of trust asset
management transactions, decreasing the number of interests subject to
probate, and returning land to the control of the Tribes.
The budget for the Bureau of Indian Affairs includes $34.8 million
in increases to improve its performance of trust services programs.
This includes $20.3 million in trust services and natural resource
programs and $14.5 million for other areas including tribal courts,
social services and information resources management.
indian education
The Secretary is committed to the President's promise to improve
education in America and ``leave no child behind.'' The Bureau of
Indian Affairs has a special, historic responsibility for educating
Indian children. The Bureau manages 185 elementary and secondary
schools in Indian Country that provide educational services to 48,000
students. Many schools are located in isolated, remote, rural
communities, posing challenges and requiring greater operational costs
than those typically facing public school districts.
The President's education plan promotes flexibility and local
control of schools. The Department's 2003 budget request encourages
Tribes to assume management of their schools or enter into private
partnerships to manage the schools. This privatization effort is the
centerpiece of the Administration's initiative to improve the
performance of the lowest-performing schools. The request includes $8.0
million to address costs inherent in the out-sourcing of schools, such
as administrative cost grants and displacement of teachers. An
additional $2.0 million for student transportation and $1.9 million for
facilities will be available to improve operational problems that might
be a disincentive for Tribes wishing to assume school management. The
2003 budget also includes a $5.8 million increase for teacher pay.
In his State of the Union Address, the President underscored the
importance of early childhood development programs. The budget includes
an increase of $3.0 million to expand the successful early childhood
education program, Family and Child Education program. This increase
will allow the Bureau to expand the program to over one-quarter of the
146 schools that serve elementary students. This program promotes
greater involvement by parents in the early, critical stages of their
children's education, and results in improved adult literacy, and
improved parenting skills that help improve children's readiness for
school.
The 2003 budget for education construction continues the
President's initiative to repair and replace unsafe schools. Funding in
2003 is maintained at the 2002 level, $292.7 million, which will fund
six replacement school projects and address repair and rehabilitation
projects in the backlog. The goal is to fulfill the President's promise
to eliminate the school repair and maintenance backlog in 2006.
uncontrollable and travel costs
The Department's budget includes $86.9 million in fixed cost
increases; an additional $57.4 million in fixed costs will be absorbed
by focusing resources on the highest priorities as well as increased
administrative and program efficiencies. The budget also assumes
Department-wide savings of $20.6 million in travel and transportation
costs, in anticipation of reduced expenses in 2003 due to increased
teleconferencing, greater use of central meeting locations, and
reductions in employee relocations.
management excellence
The Secretary's management strategy is an integral component of the
2003 budget, implementing the President's five government-wide
initiatives for strategic management of human capital, competitive
sourcing, improved financial performance, expanded electronic
government, and budget and performance integration. The Department is
undertaking efforts that will improve citizen service through
achievable results in 2003, including the following examples:
The Department is developing comprehensive workforce plans
to guide staffing, training, and succession management and to
better manage a workforce that is facing a loss of experience.
Workforce plans will help to assure that positions are staffed
with appropriate skills and that programs are in place for
employee retention and reward.
To improve service delivery and effective use of resources,
the Department is reviewing the potential to restructure
process-oriented aspects of human resources operations,
information technology support, and acquisition management and
contract management.
Interior will meet 2002 and 2003 targets to review
commercial activities performed by Federal employees, for a
determination as to whether activities should be performed in-
house or by the private sector, as required by the Federal
Activities Inventory Reform Act.
Interior is developing a new strategic plan for 2003 that
will be released in spring 2002. In order to improve the
linkage of budget and performance results, the Department is
using the Bureau of Land Management's activity based costing
system as a benchmark for the development of comparable systems
in other bureaus. Through activity based costing, managers can
better understand program costs and citizens can get answers to
questions such as, ``How much does it cost to run a visitor's
center.''
The Bureau of Land Management will improve citizen service
by expanding ``Service First,'' working with the U.S. Forest
Service to provide efficient, streamlined interagency
cooperation in public lands management. The Department is also
exploring opportunities for expanding this program to include
other Interior agencies.
The National Park Service will continue management reforms
to assess resource and facility conditions, measure performance
in improving conditions, and target funds at top priority
needs.
conclusion
In conclusion, the 2003 budget provides strong support for
Interior's programs and for the approximately 70,000 employees that
carry out our mission. Further, it provides expanded opportunities to
partner with others and supports the President's vision of a shared
approach to conservation and the Secretary's Four C's.
I recently visited the John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge in
Pennsylvania with the Secretary. There we observed first-hand the power
of partnerships. Dating back to the 1950's, the citizens of
Philadelphia have been the driving force behind establishment and
expansion of the refuge, creation of an environmental education center,
and restoration of wildlife and habitats. This community turned out to
welcome us and celebrate their excitement at the results we have
achieved with our partnership efforts. In the midst of some of
Philadelphia's most developed areas, we witnessed the ability of local
citizens to bring about real change. Our Cooperative Conservation
Initiative will use government resources to remove barriers to citizen
participation and give citizens a greater role in conservation. In
addition, the Department will reap the benefits of the collaborative
process and the innovation and creativity of the States, Tribes, local
communities, and citizens that partner with us.
This concludes my overview of the 2003 budget proposal for the
Department of the Interior and my written statement. I will be happy to
answer any questions that you may have.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Let me go ahead with testimony from Mark Rey, who is the
Under Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and
Environment in the Department of Agriculture, a very familiar
face around this committee. We are glad to have you here as a
witness. Go right ahead.
STATEMENT OF MARK REY, UNDER SECRETARY FOR NATURAL RESOURCES
AND ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rey. Thank you. Chairman Bingaman, Senator Murkowski,
thank you for the opportunity to discuss the President's fiscal
year 2003 budget for the Forest Service. I am pleased to be
here today with Forest Service Associate Chief Sally Collins on
my left. This being my first appearance before this committee
since my confirmation, let me say it is a great honor to be
back. However, I am confident that I will come to find it
significantly more comfortable when I was on your side of the
dais.
Chief Dale Bosworth was unable to be here today. He had a
prior commitment to represent the Forest Service at the Winter
Olympics. He wanted me to tell you how greatly he regrets not
being here. Since he told me that by phone, I was unable to
determine whether he was smiling.
[Laughter.]
Senator Murkowski. I do not know if we will accept that as
a reasonable excuse or not.
[Laughter.]
Senator Murkowski. I mean, you and I are here.
Mr. Rey. He used the reverse Nuremberg defense. He is going
to claim that he was bound by his superiors.
Recognizing that the time of the committee is limited, I
will summarize and request that my full testimony be entered
into the record.
The fiscal year 2003 President's budget request for the
Forest Service for all appropriations totals $4.9 billion. The
budget underscores the Forest Service as a science-based
organization by placing emphasis first on protecting the
public, employees, property, and resources; second, providing
benefits to communities; third, improving forest and rangeland
health; and fourth, meeting the growing demands for goods,
services, and amenities by the public.
Chief Bosworth and I intend to focus a great deal of
attention on reestablishing a bias in favor of accomplishing
the work of the agency. What is commonly referred to as
gridlock or analysis paralysis is directly affecting the
ability of the agency to protect communities from catastrophic
wildfires, provide the communities with a sustainable flow of
goods and services, and directly serve the public that uses and
enjoys the national forests.
The President's budget and USDA's efforts reflect a
tangible first step in this direction. The budget includes a
continuation of stewardship contracting, expedited
consultations for endangered species reviews, and several
legislative proposals that I hope we can pursue together.
The agency will continue to concentrate on the restoration
of ecosystems to fire-adapted conditions. Our primary focus
will be on reducing the number of communities at extreme risk
of loss from wildland fire and increasing the proportion of
forestland restored to conditions where fire regimes are within
an historic range.
The Forest Service and the Department of the Interior are
in the second year of implementing the National Fire Plan, a
plan to which this committee contributed a great deal.
Significant headway was made in fiscal year 2001 to enhance
tracking and reporting mechanisms to provide accountability as
accomplishments are made in firefighting, rehabilitation and
restoration, hazardous fuels reduction, community assistance,
and research. Together with the Department of the Interior, the
President's budget requests over $2.1 billion for National Fire
Plan programs to protect communities from wildland fire and
restore fire-adapted ecosystems.
The Forest Service also plays a key role in developing and
maintaining benefits to communities by providing natural
resource based opportunities within desired sustainable levels
for a variety of uses, values, products, and services. To this
end, the fiscal year 2003 budget provides an increase of $10
million within the forest stewardship program for a small
diameter and underutilized wood biomass emphasis to foster
enhanced management and use of these resources. Funds are also
included for research on the use of small diameter trees for
biobased products and bioenergy. Legislation is proposed to
provide for local preference for procurement across all Forest
Service programs.
These are a few of the highlights of the budget, and in
concluding my testimony, I would be happy to answer any
questions that you might have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark Rey, Under Secretary for Natural Resources
and Environment, Department of Agriculture
Chairman Bingaman, Senator Murkowski, Senator Craig, Senator Wyden,
and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss
the President's Fiscal Year 2003 Budget for the Forest Service. I am
pleased to be here today with Forest Service Associate Chief, Sally
Collins. This being my first appearance before this Committee since my
confirmation, let me say that it is a great privilege to be here today.
Let me add it was significantly more comfortable sitting up there than
coming down here to answer your questions.
Chief Dale Bosworth was unable to be here today. He had a prior
commitment to which he had to adhere, that being to represent the
Forest Service at the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. He wanted me
to tell you that he greatly regrets not being here today. Since he told
me that by phone, I was unable to determine if he said that with a
smile or not.
overview
In my brief testimony today, I would like to discuss how the FY
2003 President's Budget will allow Forest Service programs to make
tangible contributions towards sustainable resource management and
discuss some of the significant issues on which we look forward to
working with the Committee and the Congress over the next few months.
The FY 2003 President's Budget request for the Forest Service for
all appropriations totals almost $4.9 billion. Along with the
Administration's emphasis on efficiency and streamlining, the budget
underscores the Forest Service as a science-based organization by
placing emphasis on: (1) protecting the public, employees, property,
and resources; (2) providing benefits to communities; (3) improving
forest and rangeland health; and (4) meeting the growing recreation
demands for goods, services, and amenities by the public. To ensure
that the public gets the most value for their tax dollars, the Forest
Service will become more efficiencient and streamline to increase
funding at the field level; continue to improve agency accountability;
and address the issue of ``gridlock'' that is preventing the prompt
execution of projects on the ground. The Budget includes full funding
of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and reflects increases
related to the National Energy Policy, and continues the
Administration's commitment to the National Fire Plan.
public and employee safety
Before focusing on any specific program areas, I want to emphasize
that the safety of agency employees and the public is one of the
highest priorities for the Forest Service. In particular, the agency
must take all action possible to prevent tragedies such as the
Thirtymile incident last summer where four firefighters died. The
Forest Service will ensure that proposed changes in management,
policies, training, and operations are made to improve safety for the
public and all employees, especially with respect to firefighter
safety. The agency must also work to reduce risks to life, property,
and ecosystems from high-intensity wildland fires within and adjacent
to communities.
gridlock and analysis paralysis
Chief Bosworth and I intend to focus a great deal of attention on
reestablishing a bias for accomplishing the work of the agency. What is
commonly referred to as ``gridlock'' or ``analysis paralysis'' is
directly affecting the ability of the agency to protect communities
from catastrophic wildfire, provide communities a sustainable flow of
forest products, and directly serve the public that uses and enjoys
national forest lands.
The President's Budget and USDA's efforts reflect a tangible first
step in reducing the gridlock associated with much of natural resource
management today. It includes continuation of stewardship contracting,
expedited consultations for endangered species, and the legislative
proposals I will touch on shortly. I renew my offer to work with you to
find a way to make Forest Service land management decisions in an
effective, efficient, and timely manner.
national fire plan--protecting property and resources
The agency will concentrate on the restoration of ecosystems to
fire adapted conditions. Rural residents and communities will be
equipped with a variety of tools to reduce the likelihood of loss from
wildland fire. The primary focus will be on reducing the number of
communities at extreme risk of loss from wildland fire and increasing
the proportion of forestland restored to conditions where fire regimes
are within a historical range. This effort will be accomplished in
cooperation with the Department of the Interior (DOI) and other
partners and concentrate on restoring ecosystems to fire-tolerant
conditions and protecting communities.
The Forest Service Preparedness Program, in cooperation with DOI's
program and those of many State and local fire departments, will
provide the resources and planning needed to protect communities and
ecosystems from wildland fire. The Hazardous Fuel Program, in
conjunction with DOI's program, will collaborate with State and local
communities to focus treatments in areas of greatest need of community
protection and ecosystem restoration. The FY 2003 Budget requests $235
million for the Hazardous Fuels program, and increase in the program of
about $17 million. Seventy percent of these funds are targeted for the
wildland-urban interface. Funding for rehabilitation and restoration,
along with Burned Area Emergency, will protect communities and
watersheds from post-fire damage, and help burned areas recover from
fire damage. The Forest Service Research and Development Staff, along
with the DOI-Forest Service Joint Fire Science Program, are focusing
efforts on fuels reduction opportunities, including: (1) prioritizing
areas for treatment; (2) determining impacts of treatments on wildlife,
fish, and riparian areas; and (3) developing new uses for forest
undergrowth and small diameter trees. The Budget provides resources to
State and local communities to establish a truly comprehensive wildland
fire management policy across all ownership boundaries. It provides the
resources to increase the firefighting capability and planning of State
and local fire agencies, and to reduce hazardous fuel on non-Federal
land. Finally, the fireplain easements program will enable the Forest
Service to work with States to identify alternatives in areas where
potential fire suppression expenditures exceed the estimated value of
private property.
The USDA Forest Service and the Department of the Interior are in
the second year of implementing the National Fire Plan. Significant
headway was made in FY 2001 to enhance tracking and reporting
mechanisms to provide accountability as accomplishments are made in
firefighting, rehabilitation and restoration, hazardous fuels
reduction, community assistance and research.
Together with the Department of the Interior, the President's
Budget requests over $2.1 billion for National Fire Plan programs to
protect communities from wildland fire and restore fire adapted
ecosystems.
benefits to communities
The Forest Service plays a key role in developing and maintaining
benefits to communities by providing natural resource-based
opportunities within desired sustainable levels for a variety of uses,
values, products, and services. The type of opportunities the agency
will engage in will be based on local needs and interests while
remaining consistent with the agency's mission and priorities. This can
include revitalizing and maintaining local economies through promoting
partnerships in recreation and tourism; increased and sustainable
availability of a variety of forest products and increased local
contracting opportunities in implementing forest management projects;
reducing risks to communities from severe wildland fires through
hazardous fuel reduction and fire prevention activities and education;
and providing a transportation system that facilitates local travel.
The FY 2003 Budget provides an increase of $10 million within the
Forest Stewardship program for a small diameter and underutilized wood
biomass emphasis to foster enhanced management and use of these
resources on private lands. Funds are also included for research on the
use of small diameter trees for biobased products and bioenergy.
forest and rangeland health
Keeping watersheds in good condition and restoring them where
necessary are fundamental to the stewardship of the land and natural
resources. The agency will focus efforts and move ahead on watershed
restoration consistent with the agency's national goal to improve and
protect watershed conditions to provide the water quality and quantity
necessary to support ecological functions and beneficial water uses.
Invasive insects, diseases and plants threaten the integrity and
viability of forest and rangeland ecosystems and cause billions of
dollars of damage annually from losses due to tree mortality, impaired
rangeland conditions, and increased susceptibility to high-intensity
wildland fires. The Forest Service will work to protect the Nation's
forests and grasslands from invasive insect, pathogen and plant species
in active partnership with Federal and State agencies, Tribal
governments, and municipal and nonprofit organizations. The President's
Budget requests over $83.6 million to do so.
In each of these areas, research is the key to sustaining our
forest and rangeland productivity and health while addressing natural
resource needs.
The Budget also includes $15 million to transfer to the Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
to help expedite Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultation.
The $15 million is roughly enough to have one FWS or NMFS person per
forest available to respond to the on-going agency projects. This will
promote both available personnel to review project proposals under ESA
Section 7, as well as ensuring increased familiarity and understanding
on the part of the FWS and NMFS staff as a consequence of their
continuing involvement with the USDA projects.
recreation
Recreation is the fastest growing use on the national forests and
grasslands and how most Americans come into contact with the Forest
Service. The agency's recreation framework is being implemented through
five primary activities: (1) operating developed sites; (2) managing
general forest areas; (3) protecting cultural resources and wilderness;
(4) providing interpretation and education; and (5) administering
recreation special use authorizations. The agency will focus on a
measurable improvement in customer satisfaction and an increase in
documented contributions to community economies, primarily through
strategic business delivery partnerships. The Budget calls for $264
million for recreation in FY 2003.
The Forest Service is operating the Recreation Fee Demonstration
Program to test the collection, retention, and reinvestment of new
recreation admission and user fees. Proposed legislation would make
permanent the current demonstration program and would authorize the
Forest Service to retain and use recreation fees collected under the
program.
funds to the ground--accomplishing the work of the forest service
President Bush has called for a government that focuses on
priorities and does them well. The President's Management Agenda
contains five government-wide and nine agency-specific goals to improve
federal management and deliver results that matter to the American
people.
The Forest Service fully embraces the goals of the President's
Management Agenda. The agency is committed to increasing available
funds at the field level, shrinking non-discretionary cost centers at
all levels of the organization, and reinstituting a firm bias for
accomplishing the on-the-ground work of the Forest Service. To this
end, the agency: (1) has established targets for increased contracting
in key on-the-ground program areas; (2) is finalizing a workforce
restructuring plan that will reduce and realign headquarters and
regional personnel to increase resources at field locations; (3) has
completed an exhaustive review of the headquarters budget; and (4)
Established FY 2005 targets to reduce indirect expenses by one-half its
FY 2002 level (to approximately 10% of total). This will increase funds
available for challenge cost-share from 2% to 4% of the operating
program. In order to maximize fund availability at the field level, the
Forest Service has implemented firm funding ceilings for the Washington
Office, and intends to reduce overall Washington Office funding to no
more than 7.6 percent of the total agency budget by the end of FY 2003.
Additionally, firm principles for management of the agency budget have
been established that eliminate the ``national commitments'' method of
holding funds off the top for later reallocation.
accountability
The Forest Service recognizes it cannot provide credible natural
resource management without effective financial and performance
management. The agency continues its emphasis on improving the quality
of its financial systems and performance reporting processes. A key
aspect of improved performance accountability involves providing field
units with the opportunity to influence the budgets they receive. The
Forest Service formulated input to the FY 2003 President's Budget using
a new budget formulation process that provided local units the
opportunity to develop budget requests at the local level.
The Forest Service has operated a fully compliant financial system
for more than two years, and continues to implement actions that
improve financial accountability. The Department is working closely
with the Forest Service to promote agency efforts to provide high
quality accounting information. In addition, the Department of
Agriculture and the Forest Service continue to move forward in efforts
to obtain a ``clean audit opinion.'' Essential to this goal are
effective cash reconciliation and property management programs. The
Forest Service has improved the agency's accountability by directly
linking the accuracy of accounting records to reconciliation processes
and by committing an agency-wide team effort to ensure property records
are adequate to document the approximately $4 billion inventory of
assets.
legislative proposals
Several legislative proposals of the Administration will include
making the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program permanent; revising fee
schedules for ski resorts; increasing competitive bidding on timber
sales; and ``charter forests,'' which will take innovative approaches
to natural resources management. I look forward to working with the
Committee to develop these proposals on a bi-partisan basis.
conclusion
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the President's FY 2003 Budget
demonstrates the commitment of the Forest Service to accountability
through results. The Budget includes funding priorities for the
National Fire Plan and wildland fire management; research as the basis
of scientifically sound resource decision-making; forest health; land
acquisition; recreation; and minerals management, especially projects
related to the National Energy Policy. The President's Management
Agenda and Forest Service initiatives will examine opportunities for
restructuring the Forest Service by reducing personnel at the national
and regional level and redirecting them to the forest level. In
addition, financial initiatives will focus on reducing indirect costs
and streamlining accounting practices to reduce expenditures.
Competitive outsourcing of commercial activities will continue to
increase.
This concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any
questions that you may have.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. I appreciate that
testimony.
Let us go right to the Chief Financial Officer of the
Department of Energy, Mr. Carnes. Why don't you go right ahead.
Thank you for being here.
STATEMENT OF BRUCE CARNES, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, DEPARTMENT
OF ENERGY
Mr. Carnes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator
Murkowski, members of the committee. I appreciate the
opportunity to discuss the Energy Department's 2003 budget
submission.
Our budget totals $21.9 billion, an increase of nearly $600
million from last year. And if you discount the effect of the
fiscal year 2002 supplemental of $370 million, the year-to-year
increase is nearly $1 billion over 2002, or about 5 percent.
This is the largest amount ever requested for the Department.
It is both a bigger budget and a budget that emphasizes
performance and focused funding priorities.
Secretary Abraham has made it clear DOE has one mission,
national security, which includes advancing our Nation's energy
security. He has directed that programmatic priorities be
realigned to tie to this overarching mission.
To ensure program activities adhere to our mission, Deputy
Secretary Blake is conducting a strategic management review of
all program activities, including those of the national
laboratories. Program offices submit their highest priority
objectives and related performance measures annually to the
Deputy Secretary. This information is tracked and used to
identify issues that may impede the achievement of mission
objectives.
The Deputy Secretary is also completing benchmarking for
our science labs to ensure that they operate efficiently and
evaluate whether current DOE requirements add value and are
consistent with those of other Federal agencies. This budget
marks the beginning of this realignment of DOE's program
activities.
The budget also begins to integrate performance measurement
into funding requests. This year, as part of an overall
government-wide pilot, R&D criteria were set to evaluate
funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy applied
research activities. After further refinement, this approach
will be used to evaluate R&D throughout DOE and the Government.
The Department is also implementing 5-year planning for all
of its program activities which will be reflected in our next
year's submission. With regard to the details of this budget,
the largest increase is in national security programs. At $8
billion, the National Nuclear Security Administration program
request is 5.7 percent over last year's. Funding reflects
recommendations of the nuclear posture review with regard to
our stockpile stewardship program and significantly increases
defense nonproliferation programs in line with the National
Security Council review.
The $2.4 billion request for energy programs focuses
Federal investment on future energy solutions as recommended by
the President's National Energy Policy, and it targets R&D
resources where our investment can make a difference.
The fiscal year 2003 budget emphasizes the next generation
of energy technologies, particularly hydrogen, high-temperature
superconductivity, and clean coal. We continue to provide
benefits through the weatherization assistance program and
maintain a diversity of energy options that includes bringing
new nuclear powerplants on-line by 2010.
At $3.3 billion, the science budget maintains core
scientific facilities and major construction projects,
increases operating time for the users of our facilities, and
targets emerging areas of exploration such as nanotechnology
and microbial science.
The $6.7 billion request for environmental management
reflects a dramatic new way to meet our cleanup objectives
resulting from Secretary Abraham's top-to-bottom program
review.
The civilian nuclear waste management budget supports
license application activities if the Yucca Mountain site is
recommended and approved as a long-term nuclear waste
repository.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my summary comments, and I
would be happy to take any of your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Carnes follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bruce Carnes, Chief Financial Officer,
Department of Energy
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to be here
today to discuss the FY 2003 budget submission for the Department of
Energy (DOE). On September 11th our Nation changed as did our national
security challenges. The Department of Energy's $21.9 billion budget
responds to that change in our focus as an agency and in the way we do
business. This budget meets these challenges through investment in our
national defense and in an important component of that, our Nation's
energy security.
refocusing our missions and national priorities
Shortly after the September 11th attacks, Secretary Abraham,
speaking to Department of Energy managers, laid out new priorities for
the agency. These priorities center on our main overarching mission--
national security.
Secretary Abraham outlined a plan to review DOE's programs to bring
our national security priorities back into focus. They include:
certifying the safety and reliability of the nuclear
stockpile;
ensuring that R&D and production plans support the
Administration's nuclear strategy;
resolving the threat of weapons of mass destruction;
providing safe, efficient and effective nuclear propulsion
for the Navy;
implementing the President's National Energy Policy;
directing R&D budgets to innovative new ideas while ensuring
application of mature technologies;
exploring new energy sources with dramatic environmental
benefits; and
supporting Homeland Defense through a focus on the threat of
weapons of mass destruction posed by terrorist groups or nation
states.
National security concerns clearly drive the programs of the
National Nuclear Security Administration and Other Defense programs but
it is also a key component of our energy, science and environmental
programs. Energy security is national security. Failure to meet
increasing energy demand with increased energy supplies, and
vulnerability to disruptions from natural or malevolent causes could
threaten our Nation's economic prosperity, alter the way we live our
lives, and threaten our national security. Our science research serves
national security in an important way--furthering cutting edge
knowledge to continue U.S. technological strength and offer
breakthrough solutions that achieve national objectives such as energy
independence and climate change mitigation.
As part of the plan outlined by the Secretary, the Department's
Energy and Science programs will establish their highest research
priorities to focus on our overarching mission. Energy programs will;
direct research and development of new ideas that need encouragement;
ensure greater application of mature energy technologies; and implement
the President's National Energy Policy to increase domestic production,
revolutionize our approach to energy efficiency, and identify a wider
array of energy sources and types.
In FY 2003, the Department's nearly $2.4 billion request for energy
programs is driven by the President's National Energy Policy. Since the
announcement of the policy we have:
Ensured that our Strategic Petroleum Reserve protection is
maintained in support of national energy security--the
President directed Secretary Abraham to add 108 million barrels
of crude oil to the stockpile. The Department has implemented a
royalty-in-kind proposal to fill the reserve to its maximum
capacity quickly and without draining appropriated funds;
Set into motion a $300 million project (non-federal funds)
to work with the private sector to upgrade California's Path 15
and alleviate California's major electric transmission
bottleneck. To accomplish this, Pacific Gas and Electric will
work with 6 other parties and the Western Power Administration;
and
Continued the President's ten-year commitment to increase
funding for the Weatherization Assistance Program to assist
low-income families in reducing the cost for heating and
cooling their homes.
Proposed an increase of $700 million in the Bonneville Power
Administration's permanent borrowing authority to make needed
investments in transmission and other infrastructure in the
Pacific Northwest.
Science programs will emphasize the most significant national
priorities--to find new sources of energy, meet the threat of weapons
of mass destruction, and make an essential contribution to the Nation's
technological leadership, itself the foundation for national security
in the 21st Century. The Department is requesting $3.3 billion for
Science programs in FY 2003. The relevance of our science programs to
national security was clear in the Department's response to the
September 11th attacks. Federal authorities used a decontamination
formulation developed at Sandia National Laboratories to help rid
Capitol Hill buildings of anthrax. In addition, local officials
throughout the country were helped by sharing a high-tech mapping
program with demographic and traffic information designed jointly by
Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories to protect against
terrorism in U.S. cities by simulating terrorist attacks and assessing
emergency preparedness.
The Department's Environmental Management program will implement a
recently completed top-to-bottom review to better ensure the cleanup of
the Cold War legacies, and that future defense requirements, the
security, health, and safety of individual Americans remains protected.
On the basis of this review, the Department is requesting $6.7 billion
for the Environmental Management program in FY 2003. This budget will
have a new $800 million Cleanup Reform account out of which those
States working with DOE can receive additional funds for alternate
cleanup strategies that lead to greater risk reduction at their sites.
Also key to achieving our cleanup objective is the Secretary's recent
announcement of his intent to recommend the Yucca Mountain site for our
Nation's permanent geological repository. Such a recommendation will
bring us one step closer to permanently securing the nuclear materials
currently stored throughout the country.
We also discharge our National Security mission as the stewards of
the Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile. The Department is requesting
just over $8 billion for the National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA), a $433 million increase over the FY 2002 level, signaling a
major boost in support for security programs. The Department, through
the (NNSA), invests in advanced scientific and manufacturing
capabilities to ensure the long-term capability to assess weapons
status, extend weapon life, and certify that the stockpile remains
safe, secure and reliable without nuclear testing. The Department has a
long and successful history in combating proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction. Through strong support for nonproliferation programs
this budget implements recent bilateral agreements with Russia to
address the proliferation of weapons-grade material and supports the
innovation needed to ensure homeland security. The budget continues to
supply safe and reliable nuclear propulsion plants to the U.S. Navy,
thus helping project U.S. military presence around the world.
changing the way we do business
And more than our mission has changed.
Secretary Abraham also laid out his vision and expectations of the
DOE workforce. DOE must become a place where employees of other
Departments wish they worked, and an agency every Cabinet member wish
they led. Programs would be managed against measurable performance
objectives and managers would have clear accountability. Every manager
was asked:
to ensure the safety of our employees and the communities
surrounding our facilities;
instill a respect for and adhere to the highest standards of
security; and
build a culture where merit determines hiring and promotion
and diversity is viewed as keys to recruiting and retaining the
best people.
But the challenge is greater. The Department is also addressing
long-standing criticisms of DOE management and moving toward the
Administration's model as set forth in the President's Management
Agenda. With an emphasis on measurable performance objectives and
accountability, the Secretary is holding DOE managers responsible for
making these changes. We have set priorities, disciplined our focus and
will measure everything we do by reference to our missions and
priorities.
implementing the president's management agenda
The President has called for an active but limited government, one
that empowers States, cities, and citizens, ensures results through
accountability, and promotes innovation through competition. The
Administration has targeted areas for improvement throughout the
federal government. Our work to fully implement these initiatives will
continue through FY 2004 and beyond, but we have a path forward and are
making changes now.
Human Capital
In order to eliminate unnecessary layers of management, direct
personnel to high-priority missions, address skill imbalances, and
achieve a 5-10 percent savings in management expenses through
comprehensive, creative management reform, DOE will accelerate
workforce planning and work with the Office of Personnel Management to
conduct complex-wide organizational surveys to analyze and evaluate DOE
field and headquarters redundancies, fragmentation and duplication of
effort.
Competitive Sourcing
We are initiating formal competitive sourcing reviews under the
provisions of Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76 on
approximately 1,000 positions. In addition, line managers are planning
other reviews that may lead to formal studies. The longer-term goal is
to conduct reviews on 50 percent of the Department's inventory of
federal positions that are not inherently governmental.
Improved Financial Management
We will continue to build on the Department's unqualified audit
opinion on the consolidated financial statements and work to integrate
better financial, budget, and program information in order to provide
costs information related to performance. Key to the success of this
Initiative is the completion of the Financial Management module of the
Department's Corporate Management Information System (CMIP).
E-Government
To make better use of computer information systems to improve
management, promote efficient use of resources, and make our systems
provide more people friendly information, the Department will
strengthen its Information Technology investment portfolio by linking
investment control processes, using enterprise architecture, and
improving security policies and capital planning.
Budget and Performance Integration
We have strengthened the Department's ability to measure
performance by establishing the Program Analysis and Evaluation Office
and developing a five-year planning, programming, budgeting and
evaluation process. Building on the integration of performance metrics
into our FY 2003 budget submission, we are improving the performance
measures contained in our FY 2003 budget request and will continue to
improve performance measures and their integration into the FY 2004
budget. These improvements will provide clear, quantifiable outcomes to
support budget requests.
Applied Research and Development (R&D) Investment Criteria
The President's management initiative on applied R&D calls for
improved criteria to better focus programs on linkages to Presidential
priorities, market justification, cost-sharing targets and performance
outcomes. Our first phase of improvement is reflected in the budget for
the Fossil Energy, Nuclear Energy and Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy programs. In FY 2004, all applied R&D activities in the
Department will make use of these improved criteria.
reporting on progress
Management changes at DOE go beyond the objectives of the
President's Management Agenda. To clarify roles, responsibilities and
accountability, Secretary Abraham has also revamped the Department's
management structure.
In October 2001, two new administrative elements were established
within the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to clarify
lines of authority and accountability--Facilities and Operations for
oversight of security, environment, safety, health, technical and
management support for construction projects, and centralized support
for all field-based activities and Management and Administration to
manage finance, planning, administration, human resources, procurement,
and information technology. NNSA is also taking action to streamline
and clarify the chain of command and simplify the headquarters-field
management structure.
The Secretary has strengthened the role of the Under Secretary for
Energy, Science and Environment and given him direct line management
responsibilities for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; Science,
Environmental Management; Civilian Radioactive Waste Management;
Environment, Safety, and Health; Fossil Energy; Nuclear Energy; and
Worker and Community Transition.
We have also launched a number of initiatives to address previously
identified but long-standing problems in programmatic areas. We have:
Brought in outside experts to improve and streamline the
Department's safety and security while bolstering our own
safeguards and security, the Congress provided us with $368.7
million in FY 2002 supplemental funding to enhance post
September 11th security;
Engaged in a top-to-bottom review of the entire
Environmental Management program, identifying systemic
weaknesses and proposing a new way to do business in the
program; and
Completed benchmarking activities for our science
laboratories to ensure that they are operating efficiently and
whether current DOE requirements add value and are consistent
with other federal agencies.
The Department has made cross-cutting changes to strengthen
accountability by:
Modifying the performance evaluation system for the
Department's Senior Executives, making them more accountable
for ensuring program success. These modifications will flow
down to General Schedule employee levels during FY 2002;
Issuing ``Program and Project Management for the Acquisition
of Capital Assets,'' (DOE Order 413.3) a major comprehensive
resource to address all aspects of major project and program
management and improve accountability for project and capital
asset management;
Implementing the Project Management Career Development
Program to enhance employee technical skills as recommended by
the National Research Council;
Expanding the ``Chief Operating Officer's Watch List'' to
monitor all significant major construction projects. This
useful tool provides high visibility and increased management
attention to projects that exhibit early warning signs of
trouble. In addition, we are placing much greater emphasis on
acquisition planning, incorporating better measurements of
performance, conducting earlier independent reviews, ensuring
appropriate senior management oversight and providing real-time
feedback to influence better outcomes; and
Initiating a process by which the Department's Program
Secretarial Officers submit their highest priority objectives
and related performance measures on an annual basis to the
Deputy Secretary. This information will be tracked throughout
the year and will be used to identify issues that may impede
the achievement of these mission objectives.
We have streamlined and consolidated operations including:
Consolidating the Office of Assistant Secretary for
International Affairs with the Office of Policy to create a new
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy and International
Affairs;
Strengthening the Office of Independent Oversight and
Performance Assurance by adding environment, safety, health and
security oversight to its responsibilities, and having that
office report directly to the Deputy Secretary;
Separating the Office of the Chief Information Officer from
the Office of Security and Emergency Operations and elevating
it to report directly to the Secretary; and,
Merging the Offices of the Chief Financial Officer and
Management and Administration to create the Office of
Management, Budget and Evaluation.
We are also improving our financial management. The newly
consolidated Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation (OMBE) added a
new function, Program Analysis and Evaluation, to bring rigorous
analysis and long-term budgeting of program plans and funding
proposals. These improvements will benefit the Department.
OMBE will serve as a linchpin to improve the integration of the
Department's strategic planning, budgeting and project management
activities through the creation of a multi-year planning, programming,
budgeting and evaluation capability. The National Nuclear Security
Administration Act required the NNSA to submit a Five-Year Nuclear
Security Program to the Congress in FY 2002. The Department is
expanding this effort to conduct long-term planning for the entire
Department of Energy in FY 2004.
In summary, this budget responds to a changing Nation. We will use
every resource at our disposal to better support our National Security
mission, ensure the Nation's energy supply, implement the President's
initiatives, and realize Secretary Abrahams' vision for the Department.
Mr. Chairman, this ends my opening statement. I would be pleased to
respond to your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Let me advise folks what our plan is here. I will ask a few
questions, Senator Murkowski will and Senator Cantwell, if time
permits. Then we will recess. We have got three votes starting
on the floor. And then as I understand it, Senator Cantwell,
you wish to return and ask a few additional questions at that
point. Is that correct?
Senator Cantwell. Yes.
The Chairman. We will do that, and I know that, Mr. Griles,
you need to be at another appointment. If the rest of you could
return at that point, that would be great.
Let me start with Mr. Griles and ask you about this letter
you say you sent last night to the Appropriations Committee. Is
this a reprogramming request?
Mr. Griles. It is a letter that indicates we are going to
take current balances and make the expenditures out of there to
pay the individual Indians. It is not a reprogramming request
per se. It is to let the subcommittees know that we are going
to go forward and use estimates. It is our expectation,
Senator, once the court allows us to turn on the Minerals
Management Service computers, that there is more than
sufficient funds in those individual accounts that we can
replace that which we are going to use. So, we do not think it
is going to require a reprogramming of monies. If it is, we
have told the committees in the letter that we will keep them
constantly informed as soon as the computers come back on and
we know what the actual accounts for these are.
The Chairman. I am just trying to get a clear notion. You
sent the letters. Are you having to wait for some action by
these subcommittees, or are you able to go ahead and send the
checks right away?
Mr. Griles. We are going to cut the checks as soon as the
system can.
The Chairman. So, you are not waiting on anything.
Mr. Griles. No, sir.
The Chairman. You are moving to send checks as quickly as
you can do so.
Mr. Griles. I have waited long enough for the court to say
yes to our proposal. They have not. We have to pay these
individuals, and we are going to take this and use this process
to pay these individuals, Senator.
The Chairman. Okay.
Mr. Carnes, let me ask you about a change that I detect in
the budgets for all Departments I believe. And certainly I
think it is reflected in the three Departments that are
represented here today, and that relates to the costs involved
with health and benefits for Federal employees.
Always before, that has been considered a mandatory item in
funding, and I think the expectation has been that that would
continue. This year the administration has chosen to list that
as a discretionary item and to lump it in the budgets so that,
in fact, every Department's budget is reduced by the amount
that is attributable to what was otherwise funded elsewhere as
a mandatory item. Am I understanding this correctly?
Mr. Carnes. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Can you give me the justification? I have
heard something about how this helps your ability to account
for these dollars. I do not understand why they cannot be
accounted for and still be mandatory.
Mr. Carnes. I probably would need to defer to OMB for the
details of why this classifies as discretionary versus
mandatory, if I am right about that. But let me just say that I
think philosophically what we have done is to line up--in the
case of Energy, let me just make the point that it is about $70
million for us. Philosophically what this does is to line up
the costs of operating our programs with, in fact, the programs
themselves. This cost has been, in a sense, a cost of doing the
business of our programs, as everybody else's programs, and has
been lined up elsewhere previously, I believe in OPM. And now
it has been distributed out to the agencies.
The Chairman. So, in the case of the Department of Energy,
this represents $70 million of additional expense which has
never previously appeared in your budget.
Mr. Carnes. That is correct.
The Chairman. And the figure, I believe, for the Department
of the Interior is what? $250 million?
Ms. Scarlett. It is approximately that amount. What this is
essentially is post-retirement health benefits and other
pension benefits that have historically been in the OPM, the
Office of Personnel Management. So, for our purposes, that sum
that used to be funded out of OPM is now funded in our budget
and is in fact budget neutral as it relates to total expenses.
Mr. Carnes. If I could, it was a transfer from the OPM
account over to each of the Departments.
The Chairman. But it is more than a transfer from one
account to another account. It is a transfer from mandatory
spending to discretionary spending as well, as I understand it.
Am I right about that?
Ms. Scarlett. Yes.
Mr. Carnes. Yes.
The Chairman. I think that is the kind of an issue that you
may hear more about as the budget process continues.
Mr. Rey, let me ask you about the economic action programs.
You propose in this budget no funds for the economic action
programs. The funding level in the current year is $35.6
million. This is a set of programs that Senator Murkowski,
Senator Wyden, Senator Craig, and I have been strongly
supporting. What is the justification for zeroing out these
programs?
Mr. Rey. In prior years' budgets, assistance to communities
through the economic action programs came exclusively from the
State and private forestry account of the Forest Service's
budget. The strategy in this budget cycle is to integrate
community assistance throughout the Forest Service budget and
to make community assistance more integral to the entirety of
the Forest Service's mission. So, while we have zeroed out the
economic assistance program, we have increased community
assistance initiatives in other areas of the Forest Service's
budget. For instance, in the forest stewardship program,
technical assistance support was increased by $16.1 million
with, as I indicated in my testimony, a $10 million increase
for small diameter materials. We also added $5 million in
forest research to support biobased products and bioenergy.
Additionally, the President's management initiatives call
for significant increases in contracting that will benefit
local businesses. For instance, 20 percent of our fire
readiness programs will be contracted as opposed to done
internally in fiscal year 2003.
Additionally, the recently enacted payments to States
legislation will be providing an additional $25 million that
will be directly available for work as agreed to between local
resource advisory committees and the Forest Service.
I think there are some other initiatives as well scattered
throughout the Forest Service budget. Perhaps the most useful
use of our time today is for me to summarize all those for you
in one document. But I think once you look at all of those in
total, what you find is the $30 million reduction in the
economic assistance program has been more than offset in
economic assistance activities integrated in programs
throughout the Forest Service's budget.
The Chairman. I note my time is expired. Let me defer to
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rey, I am curious to know. I believe in your budget
there is a reference to the Forest Service facility in Sitka
which was designed primarily to find new commercial utilization
of the primary forests, spruce, hemlock, cedar, and so forth.
There are six or seven people over there. Have they been able
to do anything substantive?
Mr. Rey. They have done a fair amount with research
associated with using the species unique to Alaska, old growth,
tight grain hemlock.
Senator Murkowski. I mean, is there any commercial
activity? Have we created any jobs as a consequence?
Mr. Rey. No. I think they are still at the research stage
of that. It is going to take another year or so before you see
some of that operationalized although I think Gateway Forest
Products, if it continues to be up and running, will benefit
from some of the research work they have done so far.
Senator Murkowski. Well, I am just a little impatient with
them, as you know.
Mr. Rey. I have come to know that, yes.
Senator Murkowski. How much time do they need until we find
out whether the contribution is meaningful? Because we can use
the money someplace else if they are not going to come up with
anything.
Mr. Rey. I think if you ask the folks at Gateway and some
of the other industry people in Southeast, they will tell you
they are already getting some benefits from it. I think we will
see more operational activities.
Senator Murkowski. I am going to ask them, and I will bet
you are wrong.
Mr. Rey. I think you will find they are more enthusiastic.
At least the last time I was there they were.
Senator Murkowski. I think I was there----
Mr. Rey. More recently than me?
Senator Murkowski. More recently than you.
Well, my point is in an obvious one. You are trying to cut
the budget and trying to prioritize. So, let us do it and look
at these things and find out if they are doing what they are
supposed to do.
Mr. Carnes, I am curious to know. You mentioned several
times a commitment to technology and advanced technology
relative to energy matters, yet you zeroed out money for DOE's
Arctic lab. Zeroing out that effort at the University to
develop new technologies for heavy oil recovery, viscous oil,
ice dynamics, etc. I mean, this is where the action is and you
folks zero out this one significant effort because, as you
know, the energy wealth of North America is coming from the
Arctic. And we are the only State with Arctic in it and you
zero out the program.
Mr. Carnes. Yes, sir. That mark, as well as other marks, in
our budget and in the budgets of, I suspect, every other
Department in the Government are characterized by an
elimination of earmarks, if I have got my projects right here.
There is nothing that offends us about that particular project
except the general view that, to the degree that we can, we
want to have competition for our funds. So, it was simply a
general matter relating to the earmark issue.
Senator Murkowski. Okay. Well, it is an explanation but I
do not consider it an adequate one because, on the one hand,
you are talking about advancing technology; on the other, the
one area where you establish it initially, and then the first
year you cut it out, as opposed to the Sitka arrangement which
has been going on for a few years and we have not seen anything
yet. Anyway, we will get back to that.
Mr. Carnes. Sir, I absolutely understand your point.
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Griles, it is beyond me. You have
had two Secretaries of the Interior in a row that have been
held in contempt of court because of the inability of the BIA
to manage that trust fund for the tribal groups. At what point
do you face reality that the BIA is incapable of that function?
And to have your computers down as a consequence of, I guess,
the Cobell litigation ordered by the Department of the
Interior, your whole Department is down because of the concern
the court has over the adequate protection of the Indian trust
funds.
When do you face up to realities and contract that? Trust
departments do this all the time as a matter of course. They
put their reputation on the line in their ability to manage the
trust and disburse appropriately and provide notification and
so forth. You have gone through two Secretaries of the Interior
and you are still faced with this dilemma which ties up your
whole Department.
Mr. Griles. Well, first, Senator, if I may respond, this
Secretary has not been held in contempt.
Senator Murkowski. Well, she has been charged with
contempt.
Mr. Griles. There is an allegation by the plaintiffs.
It is my sincere hope and desire--in my court appearance on
Wednesday and Thursday of last week, which I spoke to the judge
at length--that he will not find that a necessary cause of
action that he believes he needs to take.
As I said to the chairman, we are dealing with the IIM
account holders. The individual money account holders of the
individual allottees, whose interests have, since 1887 in some
instances, been divided seven times by seven. We have gotten
down to where some accounts have .00034 of an interest. We need
a legislative effort to deal with that.
Senator Murkowski. Have you asked for legislation?
Mr. Griles. Yes, we have, sir. And we are going to be
coming back. Legislation has been enacted by Congress and was
found unconstitutional. So, we have got to come back with a
better solution.
But your instincts are right, Senator. This is a very, very
tough issue. We will be looking at outside sources as well as
to get advice and help on how best to manage this. Individual
trust accounts at banks charge fees. We do not charge fees.
Senator Murkowski. Well, no, but you have costs.
Mr. Griles. Right.
Senator Murkowski. What difference does it make? You have
the authority to contract out.
Mr. Griles. Correct.
Senator Murkowski. I do not know how many times you have to
bounce your head against a wall before you figure out that this
is not something that the BIA is capable of doing in a
responsive manner and get on with it and make the decisions.
There are those that say it deprives the BIA of responsibility,
but if they are not doing their job and you cannot get a handle
on it, it would seem appropriate to face up to it.
My time is up. But I have been on this committee for 20
some years, and I have heard this continually, the inability of
the BIA to function in managing those accounts. I do not have a
beef with anybody. The tribes deserve reasonable accounting. If
you look for accountability in the BIA, good luck.
Mr. Griles. Mr. Chairman, if I may respond to the comment.
The Secretary proposed a reorganization of the Department's
trust management assets, which would set up a new Assistant
Secretary position that would have all the trust asset
management functions under it, separate and apart from the
Bureau of Indian Affairs. That has been uniformly, I think,
rejected by most large Indian organizations and a lot of tribal
governments.
But we are looking at how to best deal with that issue. We
have not asked for additional legislation at this time on the
IIM accounts. We are looking at how best to do that, and we
will look to work with you in how to do that. To turn it over
to the banks I think, Senator, would probably take legislation
also.
Senator Murkowski. You are not talking about banks. You are
talking about trust departments that have that capability.
Mr. Griles. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Senator Cantwell.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Chairman Bingaman.
I would like to focus my comments this morning on the
cleanup of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in my questions to
you, Mr. Carnes. But first, I would like to just recap a few
things.
The administration's budget calls for a $262 million cut in
the Hanford cleanup funding at a time when the amount of
radioactive waste at Hanford is greater than on any other site
of the DOE's site list. Today Hanford stores about 54 million
gallons of dangerous, high-level radioactive waste in 177
massive underground storage tanks, 149 of which are 30 years
old, past their designed life, and 67 of which have leaked at
least 1 million gallons of waste into the soil, a mere 7 miles
from our region's lifeline, the Columbia River. There are wells
located along the Columbia River shoreline that register
strontium 90, which is a chemical, which are 1,600 times the
Federal drinking water standard.
The cleanup has always been the main focus and the focus of
the triparty agreement, which is a legally binding document, a
consent order that binds DOE to the Hanford cleanup and is in
compliance with State and Federal environmental laws.
So, my question this morning is to fall behind in the
Hanford cleanup is not only a violation of that triparty
agreement, it is unacceptable to the people of Washington, to
the region of the Northwest, and to the country.
Nonetheless, the administration now proposes a 20 percent
cut of nearly $262 million in the funding for Hanford cleanup.
As many of my colleagues are aware, the administration has an
unusual way of looking at how to restore these funds. I can
tell you I do not think there are people in America or people
in Congress who want CFO's coming here talking about unique and
risky ways of doing budgeting and accounting.
I would like to add to the record, Mr. Chairman, an article
that appeared in the Tri-City Herald this last Saturday which
says, ``the concept simultaneously intrigued, spooked, and
puzzled Hanford Advisory Board members and Hanford regulators.
That is because Hanford could get lots of extra cleanup money
or it could find its 2003 budget heavily slashed.''
[The information referred to follows:]
HANFORD NEWS
HAB Hears DOE's New Cleanup Approach
Hanford's federal leaders say they have a long list of projects
that could speed up under the Department of Energy's new budget-and-
cleanup approach.
The site is in a good position to grab a major chunk of $800
million to $1.1 billion that DOE says it will distribute to cleanup
projects nationwide that show plans to accelerate their work, Keith
Klein, DOE's Hanford manager, and Harry Boston, manager of DOE's Office
of River Protection, told the Hanford Advisory Board on Friday.
``These (accelerated plans) are things we've already been doing. We
just have to tie it up, wrap it in a ribbon and present it to the
powers-that-be back there (in Washington, D.C.),'' Klein said.
These plans range from finding new ways to deal with some
radioactive tank wastes to earlier removal of plutonium from the
Plutonium Finishing Plant.
DOE officials and HAB members chewed over DOE's new master plan to
speed nuclear cleanup nationwide along with DOE's new approach to
paying for that cleanup. DOE unveiled its fiscal 2003 budget request to
Congress and its new master plan Monday.
The hazy bottom line: Hanford can get anything from $1.46 billion
to almost $2 billion in fiscal 2003. The site needs at least $1.765
billion--maybe more--to meet its legal cleanup obligations in 2003.
Friday some new details emerged, such as the existence of a
potential additional $300 million for nationwide 2003 nuclear cleanup.
But many details remain fuzzy, such as if Hanford's HAMMER training
complex will be funded at all.
``We're about 10 seconds ahead of you'' in learning how DOE's
Washington, D.C., headquarters plans to implement its new cleanup
approach, Boston and Klein told the board at separate times.
DOE's master plan calls for Hanford and other DOE sites to speed up
their cleanup efforts dramatically. The concept specifically targets
Hanford's K Basins, PFP and tank farms.
HAB members like that idea.
But DOE also will fund cleanup differently, creating an $800
million to $1.1 billion incentive fund. That money will go to sites
with accelerated cleanup plans that meet DOE headquarters' approval.
After DOE approves those plans this year it has the commitment of
the federal Office of Management and Budget--the president's budget-
writing agency--that those plans will be fully funded through 2008,
said DOE's cleanup czar, Jessie Roberson, who participated briefly in
Friday's meeting by phone.
The concept simultaneously intrigued, spooked and puzzled HAB
members and Hanford's regulators. That's because Hanford could get lots
of extra cleanup money, or it could find its 2003 budget heavily
slashed.
And no one knows yet when and how DOE's headquarters will judge
cleanup plans and distribute the incentive money.
``I'm intrigued by the carrot of the multi-year commitment (of
funds). But we don't understand the process and the timing issues,''
said HAB member Leon Swenson, representing the public.
Several HAB members wondered about timing. That's because DOE has
not said when it will approve the plans and funds. And some DOE
proposals must jump through complex legal and legislative hoops before
they can be implemented.
This is DOE's 2003 budget to Congress.
DOE wants $6.7 billion for nationwide cleanup in 2003, the same
amount Congress appropriated for 2002.
That request is divided in two parts. One is $5.9 billion to be
divided among DOE's sites in the traditional way. Then there is $800
million for sites with approved acceleration plans. Klein said DOE will
ask Congress for an extra $300 million if $800 million is insufficient.
For Hanford that translates to a minimum $1.46 billion budget--$262
million less than 2002 and at least $305 million short of meeting the
site's legal obligations for 2003.
The Office of River Protection, which manages the site's tank
farms, will get a minimum $903 million, compared with $1.027 billion
approved in 2002. Maintaining the tanks safely faces the biggest
potential cut.
DOE's Richland office, which supervises everything else at Hanford,
faces a budget cut from $695 million in 2002 to minimum $557 million in
2003.
Next step: Hanford has to apply for some of the $800 million to
$1.1 billion to do what it wants to do.
``We're being held hostage if we don't play the new game. . . . It
scares me silly,'' said HAB member Paige Knight, representing Oregon's
Hanford Watch.
HAB members questioned DOE's approach to fund the removal of 2,300
tons of spent nuclear fuel from the K Basins.
DOE's budget request trims the K Basins from $153 million in 2002
to $90 million in 2003 when the agency also wants to speed up that
project. Klein said DOE's headquarters wants a firm grasp on the
project before allocating extra money to it.
HAB members noted that most of the K Basins' preparations are done
and that the removal efforts have just reached full speed.
Consequently, they wondered what DOE wants before it restores the
trimmed K Basins money.
The HAB's Hanford workers' representatives also protested the
HAMMER training complex's budget going from $5.8 million in 2002 to
zero in 2003. They also fretted about other training being apparent in
the 2003 budget request. Klein said DOE is looking into how HAMMER and
other training will be funded.
Since Hanford, its regulators and public have worked the past
several months on how to speed up cleanup, Boston and Klein believe
Hanford will capture a major chunk of the incentive fund. Here are some
accelerated projects that Klein and Boston hope to pitch to Washington,
D.C.:
Finish the PFP's cleanup in 2009 or 2010, instead of 2016,
by removing its stabilized plutonium earlier.
Run Hanford's first waste glassification plants beyond their
2018 shutdown dates.
Study if some low-activity tank wastes can be solidified and
neutralized some way other than the more expensive and time-
consuming glassification.
Close Tank C-106 and fill it with concrete or sand by 2004,
instead of by the current 2014 deadline.
Senator Cantwell. So, my question is--and before I get to
that question, Mr. Chairman, because I know that we have a
pending vote--I think this overall issue of the DOE top-to-
bottom review and how they are changing their environmental
management program is certainly a new direction, and I believe
that we need to have a hearing reviewing that. I know we all
have a hectic schedule, but I hope that we can hold this
hearing sometime in the next month or 2 so it will help us
focus on these important decisions and budget priorities during
this process.
So, Mr. Carnes, I guess my question to you in this process
is--and obviously, Secretary Abraham in his confirmation
hearing came before this committee and said that DOE will meet
the commitments that we have made before. I believe that to
mean the triparty agreement.
So, do you believe that the DOE can meet the required
cleanup milestones without guaranteed funding levels?
Mr. Carnes. Yes, Senator, I do think we can meet those
requirements. If I could just elaborate for one second.
There are a couple of areas in our budget that were
particularly trying as we came to closure on them, and I might
just mention in passing that the environmental management
budget was one of those thorny, vexing issues that remained
open very late in the session. We came to closure on that only
at the very last moment.
Let me also add that the new program, which we have
identified in the budget, identifies $800 million, but that we
consider to be a down payment. In fact, if that money is over-
subscribed in fiscal year 2003, our plan is that we would seek
from the Congress additional resources in fiscal year 2003, and
the Secretary and Director Daniels of OMB have an understanding
to that effect.
The third point I would make is that Hanford is a very high
priority for us, an extremely high priority.
My fourth point is that our view is that the existing way
of doing business is, if you will allow me, in a way
unconscionable public policy because it does not actually
reduce risk. And it is, in a way, unconscionable fiscal policy
because it does not save money. We are looking at cleanup
activities that could take until the lifetimes of our great
grandchildren. And the Secretary and others in the Department
feel that we must do whatever we can to hasten the cleanup of
these sites and achieve real reduction in risk.
We understand that that means examining. In some cases we
would have to look at various agreements, and I think probably
Jessie Roberson, our Assistant Secretary, is the appropriate
person to discuss the details of the Hanford situation with
you. But we recognize that that is in some cases a possibility.
Senator Cantwell. Let me just make sure that I am being
clear here because we have an agreement.
Mr. Carnes. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Cantwell. It is a legally binding agreement.
Mr. Carnes. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Cantwell. Now you are asking that we come as a
State or a site and negotiate with you on the details of
cleanup. The cleanup has already been detailed. What milestones
have to be met have been explicit in that agreement. So, now to
come and say here is less funding than you had last year, but
we will let you and everybody else go after this pot of money,
but we are going to negotiate with you what we are going to pay
out and how we are going to pay it out is not living up to the
triparty agreement. That is changing the agreement and the
process, and it is leaving them at risk.
Now, if you want to guarantee today that you will meet the
funding level that was requested to meet the triparty
agreement, as a minimum, and then the State can talk about
other ways to expedite, then we would be in a different
discussion. Do you want to make that commitment today?
Mr. Carnes. Ma'am, I cannot, though I more than understand
your point and it sort of goes back to the first thing I was
saying which was this is an issue that was a long time
settling. I recognize that your State and surrounding areas
have a big concern here, and we are not indifferent to that,
and we do want to work with you and officials in Washington to
move this along as fast as we can to achieve a reasonable
solution that satisfies your needs as well as ours.
Senator Cantwell. Well, I would just say again that
creative accounting at this point in time on something as
important as Hanford cleanup--again, other administrations have
come and looked at this big budget and said: How can we do it
for less and how can we do it in a different time frame? But we
keep revisiting these same issues. That is how we got to the
triparty agreement, to make it legally binding. So, now to do
creative budgeting on top of that obviously has a lot of people
very anxious and very nervous that this legal document is not
going to be met and the objectives are going to be changed
without real review of that document.
Mr. Carnes. Well, I can understand, if you will allow me,
concerns about the question of the policy, but I can assure you
there is no creative accounting or creative budgeting in our
proposal. But I do recognize that the proposal is a
controversial one.
The Chairman. We are at the point where we need to break
for this vote. We will reconvene after the three votes and
Senator Cantwell will then preside.
I thank you all very much. I understand Mr. Griles will not
be able to stay.
[Recess.]
Senator Cantwell [presiding]. The Energy and Natural
Resources Committee will reconvene for the purposes of hearing
testimony on the budget request for the Department of the
Interior, U.S. Forest Service, and the Department of Energy.
If I could, I would like to go back to Mr. Carnes in
questioning. Thank you for some of your follow-up comments.
I have questions then in regards to the program that you
are talking about, the $800 million reform account. I know you
think it does not mean risky accounting, but obviously if you
had full funding of the budget, that to me is the direction
that we need to go.
Can you tell me precisely what are the criteria of the
process and the time line that will determine which sites get
funded and how the new account will operate?
Mr. Carnes. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. And let me just make one
comment about our previous exchange. We will carry out the
provisions of the law. We will always do that.
In response to your present question, the criteria for
access to the funds are being worked out right now by the
Department under the leadership of Jessie Roberson, our
Assistant Secretary. They may, in fact, be different for
different places depending upon what the situations are at
different places.
Some have asked, well, why do that this year? Why not do it
next year? And our answer to that is we would ask for the funds
this year because we think, if we get agreements, we want to
move ahead to execute them as fast as we can rather than wait
another year to do so. Criteria are currently being established
by the Department.
Senator Cantwell. So, if you in your statement said that
you will live up to the triparty agreement, then why not just
fund the budget for Hanford in full as opposed to putting them
in a group of people that have to compete and then maybe trying
to convince them to go for lower standards on the cleanup?
Mr. Carnes. The reason is that the current plan calls for
ultimate resolution of the Hanford waste problem by the year
2070 and the Department believes that after 10 years under the
triparty agreement, we have learned some things and believe
that there are opportunities where we can do accelerated
cleanup and alternative strategies that may be something that
the State and Federal regulators would be interested in
pursuing.
Senator Cantwell. But if you do not have the criteria in
place, how do you know what the base level is?
Mr. Carnes. We know what the base level is for the current
funding profile, for the status quo, with the 2070 closure
date.
Senator Cantwell. But I am saying how did you come up with
$800 million? You said earlier if it took more money for
Hanford cleanup, you would come up--how would that work?
Mr. Carnes. The $800 million, if you will allow me, is like
that. We consider it the opening of the program, an initiation
of----
Senator Cantwell. I am sorry. Did you mean a moving target?
Mr. Carnes. No, ma'am. I mean it is sort of Kentucky
windage. Feels right. $800 million preserves us at the fiscal
year 2002 funding level in total for environmental management.
There is nothing sacred about the $800 million level in and of
itself. We would, in fact, be pleased, as would the rest of the
administration, were that level to go up, and the total funding
for environmental management to be in excess of 6.7, provided
that it represents a change in the way we do business. So,
there could be in excess of 6.7 in 2003 if in fact enough
locations seek to embrace this proposal and accelerate cleanup.
What it would mean for most locations is more money in the
short term, in the near term, than they would have otherwise
gotten under whatever current agreements are in force, and at
the end of the day, it would mean quicker cleanup. The new
program's intention is to support additional funding for
accelerated cleanup which will produce in the long run both the
elimination of risk and savings to everybody.
Senator Cantwell. If in this case the Hanford's numbers are
off by a couple of hundred million dollars, what if everybody's
numbers are off by that? How would you see that working in the
budget process?
Because I can tell you what you are also suggesting is that
new negotiations take place that would substitute for the
triparty agreement, and the last thing the people in the State
of Washington or the Northwest want to hear is that somehow
people think that the cleanup process can be expedited by
taking some of these tanks and sealing them up and that will
take care of our problem and they will not be part of the
removal process.
Mr. Carnes. Yes, and we certainly would not pursue a course
of action that did not have the support of State officials. It
would be an agreement, if you will. We would not proceed in
violation of the agreement. We would see, in various cases,
including Hanford, to revisit certain aspects of that agreement
to see if we can get a new agreement.
Senator Cantwell. There are agreements and then there are
holding people hostage to get their funds by getting them to
agree to a new process. So, I think what would be wise is if we
do have a review of this new environmental management approach
by the agency and have the committee review that and have them
give testimony on how this process might work. But I think you
can understand the history of many different administrations
coming in and trying to look at the cleanup, trying to cut
funds for it. That is how we got to the triparty agreement.
Mr. Carnes. Yes, ma'am. I do not think we are under any
illusions about how hard this is.
Senator Cantwell. Great.
I would like to turn to Mr. Rey, if I could, and ask you a
question about the budget as it relates to the backlog on road
maintenance. I think we have a backlog of between $5.3 billion
and $8.4 billion in deferred maintenance on about 386 miles of
existing roads. It appears that your budget does very little to
alleviate that backlog. In fact, you have cut I think $10.1
million, for a total of $50.87 million compared to $60 million
enacted in 2002 from the deferred maintenance and
infrastructure improvement program.
Do you not agree that in the long term it makes more sense
environmentally and fiscally to start maintaining the roads
that we have rather than letting them fall into disrepair?
Mr. Rey. Yes.
Senator Cantwell. So, why not reflect that in the budget?
Mr. Rey. I think that there are a couple of pieces to that.
Our annual operating budget is probably not the place where we
are going to make major inroads in that large backlog, but I
think what we are hoping to do later this year and early next
is to engage the committees of jurisdiction, when Congress
revisits the ISTEA bill, to see if we can secure some
additional resources through the ISTEA funding to get a larger
chunk of that backlog dealt with.
Senator Cantwell. I think you are proposing $44 million on
road construction to support the new harvest levels. So, how
much of that $44 million would be spent on new roads?
Mr. Rey. Very little of it. I think it is almost
exclusively maintenance and reconstruction of existing roads.
Senator Cantwell. So, you could provide the committee with
an exact number on that?
Mr. Rey. I will provide you with an exact breakdown. But I
think we are somewhere in the neighborhood of 90 percent on
maintenance and reconstruction.
Senator Cantwell. Mr. Rey, in your testimony you mentioned
the Thirtymile Fire, I think in your written testimony. As you
are aware, OSHA just last week issued five citations, three
serious violations, and two willful violations against the
Forest Service.
Since this committee held an oversight hearing on the
incident in November, my office, Senator Bingaman, and the
Forest Service have been engaged in ongoing dialogue about what
we should do to change the culture of complacency that I think
exists within the Forest Service on this issue.
It is my understanding, Mr. Rey, that the money for
firefighter safety and training is contained within the Forest
Service wildlife preparedness account. However, after one
adjusts for uncontrollable costs, the President's budget
actually cuts this funding by $39 million. So, how can we get
the Forest Service to commit to the safety programs that they
need when these safety programs within the budget are actually
being cut?
Mr. Rey. The overall fire plan program budget is being
reduced by the amount that you have indicated. A good chunk of
that reduction will be offset by outsourcing or contracting out
some of the fire plan work, not specifically related to
firefighting per se. Our actual commitment to firefighter
training is increasing, and I can get you a separate breakout
of that.
But more broadly, we are committed to making the reforms
not only indicated in our own internal investigation, but in
OSHA's investigation as well. We were relieved to some extent
to see that OSHA's findings were comparable to ours, so that we
were correctly, we think, diagnosing the problem. We have, as
you indicated, been engaged in an ongoing dialogue with your
staff and the Forest Service. I have participated in most of
those meetings, and we have a commitment from OSHA that they
will review our performance in a year's time so that we will
have and you will have an independent audit of the success we
are making in improving our firefighter safety responsibility.
Senator Cantwell. You mentioned contracting out. What work
is being contracted out?
Mr. Rey. We are going to look toward contracting a lot of
the fuel reduction activities and some of the support
activities associated with firefighting, but not the actual
firefighting force per se. And I can give you a better
breakdown of that, if you want, as well.
Senator Cantwell. How long would you predict your audit
would take?
Mr. Rey. Our audit of the Thirtymile Fire?
Senator Cantwell. Yes.
Mr. Rey. Our audit of what went wrong at the Thirtymile
Fire is complete. Our action plan is in place and being
implemented, and I believe we are scheduled to accomplish
implementation of that action plan over the course of this
year, with most of the major elements being completed before we
get into this year's fire season.
What remains under review is the individual personnel
review to establish whether there are individual personnel
issues that we have to address, and I am hopeful that we will
complete that relatively shortly.
Senator Cantwell. Well, I still have a great deal of
skepticism about the change in culture that I think needs to
happen there. In talking to constituents in the Northwest,
there is a great deal of concern that maybe the Forest Service
should suspend some of the activities of these young people
being engaged and trained in a very short period of time and
being out on the line for this upcoming fire season until we
can, in fact, guarantee that the system has been improved. What
would your thoughts be?
Mr. Rey. That is something we can look at, but we are not
hiring any new firefighters this season.* So, everyone who will
be on the line this year will have had 1 year of experience and
will have benefitted from the additional training that the
action plan resulting from the Thirtymile Fire indicates. So, I
think I would like to review----
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* We believe Under Secretary Rey misspoke regarding firefighters.
We suggest that on page 59, beginning on line 7, the passage ``. . .
but we are not hiring any new firefighters this season'' be stricken as
well as the passage at line 16 ``. . . we will not be hiring new
people.'' We suggest inserting the following: ``We will be hiring new
firefighters and they will be trained and assigned based on their
experience and capability.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Cantwell. Even if we see an increase in activity?
Mr. Rey. No. If we see an increase in fire activity in
season, we will not be hiring new people.* We will be
contracting with other firefighting authorities to assist in
the firefighting effort. Those could be Canadians. Some years
we have used Australian firefighters. In some years, in 2000
for instance, we have used the National Guard to do some non-
fire line related work so as to free up some of our staff. You
do not hire new firefighters once you are in the season in
response to the immediate effects of that particular fire
season.
Senator Cantwell. So, what are the specific funding levels
for safety and training?
Mr. Rey. I will have to get you that for the record. I do
not have it broken out in the budget materials with me today.
Senator Cantwell. But you think it is an increase? You
think it is status quo? You think it is a decrease?
Mr. Rey. I think related to the findings of the Thirtymile
incident, we will be increasing some of our safety and training
programs.
Senator Cantwell. Could you talk about the charter forest
proposal and the administration's intentions?
Mr. Rey. The charter forest proposal in the President's
budget is a response and a reaction to a number of suggestions
that have been put forward to us to look at alternative ways to
manage individual national forests on an experimental or pilot
project basis. The originators of those proposals have been as
diverse a group as Congressman Udall and Congressman McGinnis
who wrote to us on November 29 when we were completing the
development of the fiscal year 2003 budget urging us to look at
some ideas in this area.
Additionally, we have had proposals from the Center for the
Rocky Mountain West at the University of Montana, as well as a
consortium of environmental and other groups, who put together
a working group called The Forest Options Group, and identified
five or six different alternative management arrangements for
individual national forests on a pilot project basis.
Also, we had a group of people brought together last fall
under the auspices of Liz Claiborne's foundation in Missoula to
talk about similar alternative arrangements.
I guess the unifying theme in all of these proposals is
that it ought to be possible to take an individual national
forest or a couple of national forests on a pilot project basis
and, while maintaining strict compliance with all of the
Federal environmental laws, look for alternative management
procedures that get us better on-the-ground results with a
greater degree of collaboration.
Hearing all of that from as wide a variety of sources as we
heard it from inspired us to put forward the idea in this
budget proposal and see if there is a reciprocal interest on
the part of Congress to exploring this further. We do not have
a legislative proposal to put before you, and I am not sure the
best next step, if there is interest on the part of the
Congress, is for us to draft such a proposal.
I suspect instead the next best step might be for the
committees of jurisdiction, if there is sufficient interest, to
schedule a hearing to hear from some of the authors of these
proposals and perhaps some of the opponents of the proposals,
and then evaluate whether there is a joint willingness to
proceed.
If that is the case, if we get that far, then I think the
next step might be for the administration to sit down and work
with Congress to draft the parameters of what an acceptable and
useful pilot project would look like. That is about as far as
we have gotten to date, and so that is what is envisioned in
the proposal that we have put before you so far.
Senator Cantwell. Do you expect to make recommendation for
changes to the Endangered Species Act?
Mr. Rey. No, not as part of this proposal.
Senator Cantwell. Actually, I think I had a follow-up
question for Mr. Griles that I will just submit to the record
in regards to the PILT program and the 22 percent decrease in
the Payment in Lieu of Taxes, unless anybody else wants to
comment on that.
Then I have one last question I guess to you, Mr. Carnes,
about BPA borrowing authority. The $700 million in increased
borrowing authority falls short of the amount needed to bolster
security and reliability of the electricity grid over the next
10 years. So, given that the administration has that as a
priority in bolstering the security of our critical
infrastructure, where did the $700 million come from?
Mr. Carnes. The $700 million figure is a level that will be
required at this time to finance a number of significant
transmission system, conservation, and hydropower improvements.
But I do not think that the administration takes the view that
that would be the end of BPA borrowing authority. Rather it is
what we are seeking in this tranche of borrowing authority. We
have been working closely with BPA to identify the particular
projects against which the borrowing authority would be
applied. As we work with them to develop what the specific
projects against which additional borrowing authority would be
needed, we will evaluate those and would, at the appropriate
time, then submit a request for additional borrowing authority.
Senator Cantwell. You are saying sometime in the next
several months or?
Mr. Carnes. The earliest time we would do that would be in
next year's budget request, for the fiscal year 2004 budget. At
this point, what we are working with BPA to do is to lay down
exactly which project is going to cost which amount of money
and how each of these projects is going to be financed. There
is still some borrowing authority remaining in the borrowing
authority they have already received. There is then this
additional tranche of $700 million, and if the need is there,
we would come back and ask for some more in the next year in
2004 or beyond.
Senator Cantwell. Well, obviously increasing the
reliability of the Northwest system, I am sure you will hear
more from----
Mr. Carnes. And may I just say, Senator, that we are
committed to increasing the economic health and vitality of the
Northwest.
Senator Cantwell. That is all the questions I had, but I am
sorry, Ms. Scarlett, I did not realize you were here
representing Interior. Did you want to comment on the PILT
question?
Ms. Scarlett. Yes, thank you, Senator. Yes, we are
proposing $165 million in this budget which you were right to
note is less than the 2002 budget. At the same time, I should
note it is substantially greater than historical levels through
the 1990's which ranged between $101 million and $134 million.
This was a very tough choice for us. We understand that
this is extremely important to the Western States, and we are
trying to do our very best to meet the needs of those States,
but had to make some very difficult tradeoffs. I should also
note that the $165 million that we proposed is an increase over
what we proposed last year, although Congress then in 2002
increased that still further.
Senator Cantwell. Obviously, Senator Bingaman already
mentioned the cuts in the President's budget for economic
action, but this program particularly impacts a variety of
counties in our State and leaves them without really much
assistance to provide support for their communities, schools or
hospitals.
Sometimes you get the impression that the administration
knows that whether it is in Hanford cleanup or these programs,
that the Congress is counter to their beliefs and will just
supply the funds. And we are at that budget battle again with a
variety of these programs. Just as you commented, the Congress
came in last year and pumped up that support. So, I do not know
if the administration does not believe that these programs are
effective and responsible actions in these communities or
whether they just believe that Congress will come in and
restore the funds.
Ms. Scarlett. No. Actually we think these are very
important programs and in fact understand that there are needs
in those communities for those monies. When we began the
process last fall, of course, prior to Congress acting on our
2002 budget, the numbers that we were putting forward, the $165
million, was an increase over our previous year request, and in
fact we thought at that time it might actually be equal to
whatever Congress would propose. In the meanwhile, of course,
Congress went even further ahead of us on that, and we ended up
with our proposal below the 2002 enacted level. But we are
committed to and I think our request, with the increase that it
had over 2002, showed a recognition of the importance of this
program.
By the way, I should also add in some other areas, we are
attempting to provide resources to local communities. You had
mentioned the fire plan, and of course, Interior has a role
there which we are fully funding, and it includes a rural
assistance component which we think is very important.
Senator Cantwell. Well, I thank the panelists for their
time this morning and being patient with us in between votes.
We will hold the record open for questions to be submitted to
you by other members for 1 week, and if you could get back to
them on those questions, we would appreciate it very much.
We are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:27 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.
[Subsequent to the hearing, the following was received for
the record:]
American Lands Alliance,
Washington, DC.
President's Budget Threatens National Forests
The Bush Administration has released its budget blueprint for FY
2003 which proposes to increase logging and to create a new ``Charter
Forest'' system by turning over an entire National Forest (or two) over
to a locally controlled trust, similar to a Resource Advisory Committee
(RAC), to manage the land instead of the Forest Service ``to reduce
management bottlenecks and costs.''
``The objective of the proposal is to reduce our unit cost in doing
the things we do across the board,'' said Undersecretary of Agriculture
Mark Rey. Few details are available about the Charter Forest program at
this time, but it is being promoted by advocates who support
privatizing and/or placing a money-making mandate on the public lands.
The proposal appears to be a modified version of the Forest Options
Group proposal and legislation introduced in the last Congress (S.
1274) by Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) and his former staffer Mark Rey to
turn over National Forests to the states. Please see the Forest Options
Group proposal at http://www.ti.org/2cfinal.html for more information
about Charter Forests.
Legislation is needed before any lands can be turned over but this
could come in the form of a rider on the Interior Appropriations bill.
Conservationists will be working to stop this dangerous proposal.
timber sale budget increases again
The Administration is proposing spending $278.6 million for timber
sales on the National Forests. This is a huge increase from the $233
million budgeted for logging only three years ago. The agency is also
hoping to sell 2 billion board feet of timber this year, a substantial
increase from the 1.4 billion expected to be sold this year.
The timber program will continue to be augmented by off-budget
funds such as the Salvage fund ($79.8 million) and KV Fund, which are
fueled by timber receipts as well as hazardous fuels and restoration
funding that is being used for commercial logging instead of brush
removal in the wildlands interface zone or for true ecological
restoration. In addition, it is necessary to count the $.5 million for
salvage, $1 million for the timber sale pipeline (preparing future
sales), $38 million for road engineering support and $5.8 million in
direct logging road construction.
Other timber subsidies include an additional $5 million for
biobased products and bioenergy research. The Forest Stewardship
Program is increased $16 million, of which $10 million is for a small-
diameter and underutilized wood biomass cooperating fund and $6 million
is to be allocated competitively in priority locations identified by
States within national priority areas identified by the FS. The budget
does not include funding for the Economic Action Program or the Pacific
Northwest Assistance Program.
On a potentially positive note, the budget includes a new $12
million emerging pest and pathogen fund. The fund would be used to
respond to new introductions of non-native or invasive pests or
pathogens.
another $235 million for hazardous fuels reduction
The budget includes approximately $1.5 billion in funding for the
National Fire Plan, a decrease of about $185 million below the 2002
level. The reduction from 2002 is a result of reducing one-time
emergency funding that was enacted to meet short-term needs.
The 2003 budget maintains funding for priority activities to
increase efforts to fight wildfires, reduce the risk of fire, and
assist communities including: $235 million for hazardous fuels
reduction (allows for the treatment of 1.7 million total acres); $627
million for preparedness; and $443 million for suppression activities
which provides funding at the 10-year average. It is important to
remember that as recent as 1990, the hazardous fuels budget was only
$80 million. The huge increase in this budget has resulted in a shift
in agency priorities towards expensive mechanical fuel reduction
treatments.
The budget also includes $20 million for a pilot Fire Plain
Easement Program. Under the proposed program, State officials, in
consultation with the Secretary, would identify areas within and
adjacent to NFS lands where potential fire suppression expenditures may
exceed the estimated value of the private land. Within identified
areas, States or the Secretary may use grant funds to acquire on a
``willing seller'' basis perpetual easements to permit the
implementation of fire suppression strategies, including allowing fires
to burn without suppression activities.
This program has a potential benefit by allowing for more
consistent management and a facilitating a let burn policy in back
country areas by removing ``interface'' conflicts. However, it could
also become a new $20 million subsidy to industrial landowners who
would receive an easement from the government which would then take
responsibility for thinning these private forests. We'll need to
monitor this program to see how the money is actually spent.
making progress on fire policy issues
In a serious of surprising acknowledgments about issues the
conservation community has raised about the fire program the
Administration's budget mentions the need to reduce costs for fire
suppression, the need to focus on the urban/wildlands interface and the
need for improved fire planning. The budget states:
``Costs for suppression have also risen as the other chart shows.
In 2001, the Forest Service spent $1,300 per acre in suppressing fires
on 573,000 acres of forests, an increase in cost per acre of almost 300
percent over 2000. In comparison, wildfire suppression costs for the
Department of the Interior (DOI) averaged about $235 per acre, although
much of DOI's lands are grasslands, which burn less intensely than
forests. In some western areas, the government pays more in suppressing
fires than the fair market value of the structures threatened by those
fires. It would literally be cheaper to let the fires burn and pay 100
percent of the rebuilding cost.''
``The Forest Service is looking at a variety of ways to control the
costs of fire suppression. For example, the Forest Service will work
with state and local governments to identify areas to pilot test `fire
plain easements' as a way to protect lives while ensuring that taxpayer
funds are used wisely.''
``Another way to protect communities and lower fire-fighting costs
is to reduce the amount of brush and small trees, especially in areas
adjacent to human populations. The President's Budget funds the Forest
Service Hazardous Fuels Treatments program at $229 million, with over
70 percent of funds directed to the wildland-urban interface. This will
result in the completion of buffers at eight percent of eligible
vulnerable communities by the end of 2003.''
``This budget also emphasizes improvements in fire management
planning, and will incorporate the results of several ongoing program
reviews, so that better decisions can be made regarding when and how to
fight fires, and fire program performance and cost effectiveness.''
This is a good sign that the agency is feeling pressure from
Congress on all of these issues. This year conservationists we will
continue working with the agency on these issues as well as better
defining the urban wildlands interface zone and prioritizing
communities at risk.
legislative proposals in the president's budget
This year's budget includes a number of legislative proposals that
may be included in the Interior Appropriations bill, or that may move
through the regular committees.
Permanent Authority for Recreation Fees
Proposed legislation would make permanent the current demonstration
program and would authorize the Forest Service to retain and use
recreation fees collected under the program which is opposed by the
conservation community. We expect hearings in both the House and Senate
to discuss this effort to make the fee demonstration program permanent.
Increased Timber Sale Competition
Proposed legislation would increase competition for commercial
timber sales. The legislation would require timber sales, with certain
limited exceptions, to be sold using the sealed bidding method. The
legislation would also alter the requirement for harvesting timber,
allowing recreation or conservation groups to participate in auctions
of timber harvest rights. If only conservationists could afford to buy
them all!
APPENDIX
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Department of the Interior,
Office of the Secretary,
Washington, DC, April 22, 2002.
Hon. Frank Murkowski,
Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Murkowski: Enclosed are responses to questions
submitted following the February 12, 2002, hearing before the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources concerning the Department's Fiscal Year
2003 budget request.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this material to the
Committee.
Sincerely,
Jane M. Lyder,
Legislative Counsel,
Office of Congressional and
Legislative Affairs.
[Enclosure]
Responses to Questions From Senator Bingaman
Secretary Norton stated that this budget request is ``the largest
Interior budget ever presented by a President.'' Unfortunately, the
Youth Conservation Corps program, operated by the Bureau of Land
Management, the National Park Service, and the Fish and Wildlife
Service, does not benefit at all from this large budget. In fact, you
request no increase for YCC ($7 million total, same as FY 2002). YCC at
one time was funded $60 million and employed 30,000 young people on our
public lands each summer.
Question. Rather than continuing to add new programs to the
Conservation Spending Category, as you did last year (Private
Stewardship grants program and the Landowner Incentive Grants), and
propose to do this year (i.e. the North American Wetlands conservation
fund and private forest stewardship), why don't you request increases
for programs that are currently eligible such as YCC?
Answer. In formulating the FY 2003 President's Budget, the
Department had to make difficult choices in balancing competing needs
at a time of fiscal constraint. The Department's proposed allocation of
funds best meets our assessment of current needs while maintaining the
current level for the Youth Conservation Corps (YCC.)
The Department's request for the Youth Conservation Corps is $5
million, the same as the FY 2002 level. Funding for the YCC has more
than doubled since FY 1999 when the program totaled $2.0 million.
The 2003 budget request for YCC will provide almost 1,000 students
an opportunity to work at over 160 different Interior Department sites.
Young adults participate in conservation projects such as maintaining
parks and other public lands, and in return, they are introduced to the
conservation mission of the Interior Department.
In addition, the U.S. Forest Service 2003 budget maintains YCC
funding at the current level of $2.0 million, providing a total YCC
program of $7.0 million.
The programs you mention: the Private Stewardship grants program;
the Landowner Incentive grant program; and the North American Wetlands
Conservation Fund program all promote important conservation efforts
that are critical to the mission of the Department of the Interior.
The $10.0 million requested for the Private Stewardship grants
program will directly assist individuals and groups engaged in local,
private, and voluntary conservation efforts for the benefit of
federally listed, proposed, or candidate species, and other imperiled
species.
The Landowner Incentive program will provide $50 million to
facilitate private wildlife conservation efforts. The program provides
competitive matching grants for the protection and restoration of
habitats found on private lands that benefit listed species or species
at risk.
The $43.6 million North American Wetlands Conservation Fund program
provides matching grants to private landowners, States, non-government
conservation organizations, Tribes, trusts, and corporations for
acquisition restoration, and enhancement of wetland habitat.
Question. I understand that EIA will be taking over from the
private sector (AGA) the function of reporting natural gas storage data
on a weekly basis. Storage data is a key market indicator in the
natural gas commodity markets. Does your budget request provide
additional funding for this responsibility? Are you discontinuing other
reports to make room for the storage report? I am also concerned about
improving the quality and availability of electric industry data. What
does the budget contemplate in this area?
Answer. Natural Gas Data: The budget for 2003 requests authority to
use $500,000 in EIA prior year deobligated funds to pay for the FY 2003
operation of the new weekly gas storage data system, the web-based
dissemination of the estimates, and the conduct of data quality
initiatives. No monthly or annual data reports have been discontinued
to make room for the new weekly storage report.
Electricity Data: The Energy Information Administration's proposal
is to use $1.3 million to continue to improve the quality, quantity and
relevance of its electric power data. To improve the scope of the
electricity data, the Office of Management and Budget approved EIA's
new electric power data collection forms during November 2001. These
new forms will now collect most of the same information from
nonutilities, as it has previously collected from utilities, as
nonutility electricity production is a growing part of the total
electricity picture. To accomplish this, EIA will be collecting more
financial, environmental, receipts and sales data from nonutilities,
and EIA will also be collecting more information on existing and new
transmission lines from both utilities and nonutilities.
To improve timeliness, as well as data quality, EIA has developed a
new data collection system to allow for the respondents to enter their
data directly into EIA's database using the Internet. The system is
designed to supply the respondents with feedback on the quality and
accuracy of their data, by providing comparisons of their data to
industry norms or their prior year's data. Assisting the data providers
with this ``real-time'' review of their submission will improve the
quality of the data delivered to EIA while reducing the time and
resources needed to audit and follow-up on errant submissions. The
system will also include quality assessment reports that will evaluate
the data from a higher level of aggregation. Performance statistics are
also being incorporated to monitor the quality of the data over time.
EIA is also developing a new design for its data dissemination. EIA
will make its electric power data available on the Internet through the
use of easily accessible spreadsheets at a variety of levels (i.e.,
national, State, region, company level).
nuclear power 2010
Question. DOE proposes to establish a new, $38.5 million program
called Nuclear Power 2010, designed to help the private sector overcome
technical and regulatory obstacles facing the deployment of new nuclear
power plants. The Department will cost-share with project teams
comprised of reactor vendors and power generation companies in a two-
phase program. The first phase is an effort to demonstrate untested
Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing processes. The second phase
will complete the engineering and design work for one advanced light
water reactor and one advanced gas-cooled reactorin time to allow start
of plant construction by 2005.
The Administration proposes to establish a program to help get new
nuclear power plants built in the U.S. Have U.S. utilities expressed
significant interest in building these new plants?
Answer. U.S. utilities and power generating companies are
demonstrating growing interest in building new nuclear power plants,
due in part the recognition that nuclear power plants are expected to
be profitable sources of generation, growing recognition of the clean
air benefits associated with nuclear energy, and the strong performance
and record of the Nation's existing nuclear power plants. As you know,
there has been a strong secondary market for purchase of the nation's
existing nuclear power plants and each year the Nation's existing
nuclear plants achieve record performance. Also, the activities of the
Federal Government regarding nuclear technology and policy and the
future of nuclear energy in the U.S. and abroad cannot be overstated.
Exelon Corporation has been looking into development and building
of new nuclear power plants for several years. Exelon has become a
partner along with British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) and Eskom, a South
African nuclear utility, in a corporation called PBMR Limited that is
focused on the development and construction of the Pebble Bed Modular
Reactor (PBMR). Exelon's interest is to build and operate this advanced
gas reactor in the United States.
Several other nuclear power companies have been seriously
evaluating the prospects of new nuclear power plants in the near term.
Dominion and Entergy have both publicly stated their interest in new
nuclear power plants as part of their future electricity generation
strategies. The Department is aware these three utilities have
evaluated, or are in the process of evaluating, potential nuclear power
plant sites. Dominion and Exelon are participating in Department
sponsored cost-shared Early Site Permit scoping studies of both Federal
and commercial site locations. Utilities are discussing the deployment
potential of several advanced nuclear power plant concepts with vendors
such as Westinghouse, General Electric, and General Atomics. Foreign
interest in the U.S. nuclear generation market is also increasing.
France's Framatome and Canada's AECL both plan discussions with the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regarding the Design Certification
of their advanced designs. Japanese companies have held discussions
with several nuclear power generating companies regarding the
construction of a certified advanced reactor design.
The interest level is high and utilities are participating in these
activities with considerable enthusiasm. They are working very
aggressively to determine whether the business case exists to build new
nuclear power plants in this country by the end of the decade.
pension and health care benefits
Question. Please explain why the proposed change is not explicitly
called out in the DOE budget request, and why the proposal does not
endanger federal employee benefits and usurp the authority of Congress.
Answer. The Fiscal Year 2003 Congressional Budget submission
includes the increased cost to fully fund accruing pension and
annuitant health benefits. These amounts are identified in the program
direction totals for each appropriation. An explanatory footnote was
also included showing the specific amounts for each year. The
Administration proposal does not endanger federal employee benefits
because the increased discretionary amounts are to fund the post-
retirement costs of current employees, not the benefits of current
retirees, which are funded by mandatory payments from the retirement
funds. The intent is to fund the total costs of each and every
employee, including their accruing post-retirement costs, at the time
that the employment decision is made. The presentation of the full
costs in the budget will allow the Congress to see a much more accurate
picture of real costs of programs.
Responses to Questions From Senator Akaka
One of the pressing problems facing Hawaii is the identification of
extensive areas of critical habitat for endangered species by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. These actions are currently taking place in
Hawaii under court order, but nonetheless Hawaii has the highest number
of endangered species in the U.S. and faces daunting responsibilities
to protect the species and to work with the public in conservation
efforts. Our state agencies are faced with overwhelming challenges and
lack the appropriate funds to address the needs. The FY 2003 budget
request for the Cooperative Endangered Species fund is reduced by $5.2
million from last year's appropriation. Additionally, the conservation
spending category--Title VIII of the FY 2001 Interior Appropriations
Act, or CARA ``lite''--has also decreased by $441 million from
authorized levels established by Congress in 2001.
Question. Given the reduction in funding for the conservation
categories such as Title VIII and the Cooperative Endangered Species
Program, how do you see the Administration's proposed Cooperative
Conservation Initiative (CCI) filling the gap to address needs of
states like Hawaii with intractable challenges for endangered species
and nonindigenous species? How will CCI funds be allocated to states,
and on what basis?
Answer. The $100 million Cooperative Conservation Initiative (CCI)
provides mechanisms and incentives for states and Interior Department
Bureaus to work together to address the conservation challenges faced
in many regions of the country, and can help address the unique
conservation challenges in Hawaii.
The CCI is an approach to conservation that strengthens our
partnerships with states and local governments and other partners. Of
the $100 million requested for CCI, half would go to the states through
the Land and Water Conservation Fund State Grant Program. The other
half would be divided among our land management agencies, the National
Park Service ($22 million), the Fish and Wildlife Service ($18 million)
and the Bureau of Land Management ($10 million).
Partners are required for CCI funds and may be States, local
governments, Tribes, non-governmental organizations, private sector
entities, and/or private individuals. Coalitions of partners are
encouraged. A minimum of 50 percent match through new cash and/or in-
kind goods and services (not used for match elsewhere currently or
previously) is required, thereby doubling the effect of the Federal
funds.
There are two different aspects of the new Cooperative Conservation
Initiative in so far as the generation of grant applications is
concerned. First, applications for the LWCF State Grants portion will
be nominated through the Governors' LWCF State Liaison Officers while,
the BLM, FWS, and NPS Directors each will make final decisions on
competitive applications for funds for the relevant State LWCF and/or
Federal program under his/her purview. Second, the CCI LWCF State
Assistance funds would be available through grants, while the Federal
CCI program funds will be made available through cooperative
agreements, memoranda of understanding, or contracts.
Question. I am pleased to see the Administration request of $107
million in additional funding for the National Park Service, including
a continued commitment to address the backlog in maintenance and
facilities, and much-needed increases for park management. I would add
that I am especially pleased to see the Park Service propose $4 million
in priority funding for Hawaii Volcanoes National Park in the Land and
Water Conservation Fund.
My question has to do with the proposed increases in the Park
Service's Resource Stewardship programs under Park Management. As you
know, our national parks are under siege by invasive species, from the
Great Smoky Mountains to Haleakala. In some parks it is feral pigs
causing damage, and in other parks it is introduced tree species, such
as miconia in Hawaii. Miconia is a fast-growing, tall, invasive tree
species that forms dense, impenetrable stands. It is currently outside
the boundaries of Haleakala National Park and we need to keep it there.
Can you explain whether the increases identified to fight exotic
species under the Natural Resource Challenge account can be used to
fight exotics if they are outside the boundaries but threatening the
resources inside the national park? Can demonstration fees be used to
address the situation? What assurances can you provide that we can get
some relief from invasives that threaten park resources, both inside
and outside the boundaries?
Answer. The National Park Service and the Department of the
Interior are very concerned about invasive exotic species and very
cognizant of the fact that controls are ineffective unless neighbors
work together. Miconia threatening Haleakala National Park is a special
concern. The National Park Service is an active member of the Maui
Invasive Species Council that works to control Miconia and other
invasive species both on and off the park.
The National Park Service's Native and Exotic Species Management
Program, part of the Natural Resource Challenge, provides funding
directly to a number of parks and nine Exotic Plant Management Teams to
manage exotic species within park boundaries. Haleakala has received
direct funding and is the host park for the Pacific Islands Exotic
Plant Management Team. However, our solicitors inform us that current
National Park Service statutes do not provide the authority to conduct
these activities outside of park boundaries.
The President's FY 2003 budget proposes $22 million for the
Cooperative Conservation Initiative. As proposed, this funding requires
a one-to-one match of non-Federal funding or in-kind contributions. The
non-Federal matching funds could be used to fight exotic species
outside of the parks boundaries. Federal funds will be used in a manner
consistent with park units' operating authorities. This funding would
allow increased efforts with the Maui Invasive Species Council and with
other groups and neighbors working together to control invasive exotic
species.
Invasive species are a threat to this country's resources. The more
we can provide our managers with the flexibility to address these
resource threats through collaborative efforts with our neighbors the
better we can protect our resources.
Question. I took note of the $11.2 million decrease between the FY
02 budget and the proposed budget for the Office of Insular Affairs for
FY 03. The Office of Insular Affairs has been consistently underfunded
in the past few years, given its immense responsibilities in addressing
the needs of the insular areas and territories.
The Office of Insular Affairs budget includes a $750,000 increase
to support additional staffing for oversight of the Compact of Free
Association financial assistance. The budget documents indicate an
increase of four full-time employee positions. Can you please clarify
why four additional employees are going to be necessary for oversight
of the Compacts?
Answer. In reviewing the experience of the first period of Compact
financial assistance, the Office of Insular Affairs believes the
Compact, as negotiated, moved too far in the direction of local control
and away from basic standards of accountability and United States
oversight.This need for greater accountability and oversight has been
endorsed by the Interagency Group on Freely Associated States in
reviews conducted by the General Accounting Office and in hearings
before Congress. Our budget request for additional positions is a
significant part of the United States response to the demonstrated need
for greater accountability and oversight of United States funds. Our
budget request actually envisions eight additional staff positions for
this function, six of which will be centrally located in Hawaii and two
in Washington.It will only require four full-time equivalent staff-
years in fiscal year 2003 because we will be in transition and
recruiting and hiring will be occurring throughout the year. The new
financial assistance package is expected to more than double OIA's
total grant funding, for which we currently have eight dedicated staff-
years.
Question. The FY 03 budget completely eliminates Compact Impact Aid
funding for the State of Hawaii. FY 02 was the first time that Hawaii
received funding for compact impact assistance despite the millions of
dollars that Hawaii has spent to meet the health and education needs of
compact migrants. Could you explain the justification of eliminating
Compact Impact Assistance for the State of Hawaii when the health and
medical costs associated with compact migrants continues to increase.
Answer. The Department recognizes the impact on social and
educational programs in Hawaii and other United States insular areas.
We have worked within our Assistance to Territories account to identify
impact assistance for Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. We are now
working closely with the Department of State, seeking to deal with this
issue on a broader basis in the context of re-negotiating the Compact
of Free Association financial assistance package. We hope to address
Hawaii Compact impact issues in the new financial assistance package.
Unfortunately, any funding we identify through this process will not be
available until the new financial assistance package is implemented in
FY 2004.
Question. How much does the Department of Energy propose to spend
on the FreedomCar in fiscal year 2003? Is this an interagency program?
If so, which other Federal agencies are involved in this venture and
how will they be involved?
Answer. The Department of Energy (DOE) FY 2003 budget request for
FreedomCAR is $150.3 million. This amount includes funding for the
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's Offices of Transportation
Technologies and Power Technologies. DOE is the sole Federal agency in
the FreedomCAR partnership. Other agencies will be involved on a
consultative basis. For example, the Department of Transportation may
provide expertise on new infrastructure, requirements, and we expect
that the Environmental Protection Agency will provide advice concerning
technologies that are most likely to achieve future emission standards.
Responses to Questions From Senator Craig
cooperative conservation initiative
I am encouraged that the Interior Department is seeking to explore
and build on creative natural resource restoration ideas through its
cooperative conservation initiative. In my view, however, agency
implementing guidance and selection criteria for an initiative such as
this become the most important factors in it success or failure. Many
of our resource industries are at the forefront in crafting solutions
for restoring disturbed environments.
Question. Will commercial resource development companies, for
example, mining companies, be eligible to participate in projects
funded under this initiative?
Answer. The Cooperative Conservation Initiative is a cost share
program that funds restoration, protection, and enhancement of natural
areas through established programs and new pilot programs that feature
creative approaches to conservation.
Not-for-profit subsidiaries of commercial resource development
companies will be eligible to participate in projects funded under this
initiative provided the projects further the Federal mission of the
bureau with which it seeks to partner and meet the criteria of the CCI
program.
environmental management--new approach
Under the new approach to the Environmental Management Program
proposed in the DOE budget, if states do not agree to renegotiate their
clean-up agreements, they will suffer a greatly reduced clean-up budget
in the coming fiscal year.
Question. Under such a scenario, how would the DOE decide which of
its milestones it would meet and which ones it would fail to meet?
Answer. The overall requested funding level of $6.71 billion is
approximately the same as the FY 2002 appropriation. The Department
anticipates the FY 2003 appropriation will enable it to be
substantially in compliance with its legal agreements and requirements
in FY 2003.
We can't do business as usual under any funding scenario. We must
be focused on more than meeting our legally enforceable milestones, but
also on addressing our environmental obligations to the communities and
the American taxpayer. With the additional funding from the EM Cleanup
Reform account, we will be able to pursue cleanup approaches that will
produce more real risk reduction, accelerate cleanup, or achieve much
needed cost and schedule improvements, as well as maintain compliance
with legal requirements.
Question. Why should States have confidence in any new agreements
they sign with DOE, if DOE openly acknowledges it cannot meet the
agreements in place now?
Answer. It is not our intention to evade compliance with any
regulatory agreements. What the Department is trying to do throughout
the complex is revise its cleanup strategies and internal practices to
achieve more cleanup and risk reduction.
These regulatory agreements were always intended to be living
documents, with processes to enable improvement and revisions as needed
to reflect actual cleanup experience to achieve our mutual goals. The
Department anticipates the FY 2003 appropriation, in combination with
improved agreements with regulators and improvements in program
performance resulting from implementing the Top-to-Bottom
recommendations, will enable it to be in compliance with its legal
agreements and requirements in FY 2003.
The Department recognizes its obligation to the communities that
have supported the Department's national security mission over the past
50 years, and is firmly committed to completing the cleanup of the
sites that contributed to that mission, and to ensuring the safety of
the workers and the public while that cleanup is underway.
nuclear energy research
Question. Two years ago, the Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory and Argonne West Lab were named the DOE's Lead
Laboratories for nuclear reactor design and technology. I am encouraged
to see the DOE's new initiative entitled Nuclear Power 2010. This new
initiative has the goal of working with the nuclear power industry to
address the barriers to the deployment of new nuclear plants.
Aside from this initiative, however, nuclear energy research--as a
whole--is down in funding from the current year. How do you explain
this, given the support expressed for nuclear energy in the
Administration's National Energy Policy?
Answer. The Administration is committed to a balanced energy
portfolio, one that recognizes the benefits of nuclear energy in
providing reliable, clean, and affordable electricity for the Nation.
We believe that nuclear energy is key to long term energy security. The
FY 2003 budget request reflects the need to fund higher priorities
within the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology and within
the Department.
Despite these reductions, the Department is moving forward with a
substantial nuclear R&D agenda. Nuclear Power 2010 is the first major
new nuclear initiative in about a decade. It is aimed at deploying new
nuclear plants in the United States by the end of the decade. We
believe this is an ambitious goal but one that is achievable, and that
there is a role for government in working with industry to remove
technical and institutional barriers to building new plants. As such,
we are proposing to work in cost-shared cooperation with industry to
demonstrate the streamlined but never tested regulatory processes
required to build and operate new nuclear plants. This year, we
announced plans to initiate a cost-shared demonstration of the Early
Site Permit process with nuclear utilities or generating companies over
the next thirty months and we are proposing additional activities for
FY 2003 to initiate cost-shared reactor technology development
activities for one advanced light water reactor and one gas-cooled
reactor technology.
The Administration also supports long-term nuclear R&D. The
Department proposes to increase our investment in Generation IV
technologies, with $8 million requested in FY 2003. With the support of
our lead laboratories, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory and the Argonne National Laboratory, this funding will
enable us to complete the technology roadmap in early FY 2003. The
roadmap will identify the six to eight most promising technologies, and
the Department will begin working in cost-shared cooperation with the
Generation IV International Forum countries on R&D. Our Nuclear Energy
Research Initiative (NERD request of S25 million, although less than
this year's appropriation will enable those projects awarded this year
and underway from prior years to continue in FY 2003. We strongly
support the objectives of NERI and hope to see the program grow again
in the future. The Department also supports the objectives of the
Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization (NEPO) program and hopes that the
highest priority projects will continue to be supported by industry.
Question. Two years ago, the Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory and Argonne West Lab were named the DOE's Lead
Laboratories for nuclear reactor design and technology. I am encouraged
to see the DOE's new initiative entitled Nuclear Power 2010. This new
initiative has the goal of working with the nuclear power industry to
address the barriers to the deployment of new nuclear plants.
In your vision of developing automobiles which utilize hydrogen for
their fuel, how do you envision the amounts of hydrogen necessary for a
substantial portion of the automobile market will be produced? Does
nuclear power play a role in this?
Answer. Hydrogen has the potential to solve two major energy
challenges that confront America today: reducing dependence on
petroleum imports and reducing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
Non-emitting energy technologies for the production of hydrogen,
including nuclear power, must be used to the fullest extent possible if
we are to meet these two challenges. The amount of hydrogen necessary
to fuel even a modest portion of U.S. automobile market will far exceed
the current 3 billion cubic feet of hydrogen needed each day by U.S.
oil refineries to produce gasoline from ever increasingly heavy crude
oils. The standard method for hydrogen production today is, by
``reforming'' natural gas at high temperatures which also results in
additional greenhouse gases. The steps required to transition the
Nation to a hydrogen-based energy infrastructure are outlined in the
Department of Energy's document, ``A National Vision of America's
Transition to a Hydrogen Economy--To 2030 and Beyond.'' This document
is based on the results of the National Hydrogen Vision Meeting held in
November 2001, at which 53 senior executives representing energy
industries, environmental organizations, and Federal and State
government agencies met to discuss the future of hydrogen in America's
energy future.
As a non-emitting source of energy, commercial nuclear power is a
very, attractive method for the generation of large quantities of
hydrogen. The high temperatures attainable in gas-cooled and liquid
metal-cooled reactors allow higher efficiency thermochemical water-
cracking processes to be employed, increasing the overall efficiency to
50-60 percent compared to 20-30 percent in traditional processes such
as electrolysis. These reactor technologies--which are areas of
significant interest to our lead laboratories--can supply a mix of
energy products, such as electricity during peak demand and hydrogen
during periods of lower demand, or offer a dedicated baseload supply of
hydrogen which may be supplemented by other non-emitting sources such
as hydropower. As a non-emitting baseload energy source, nuclear is
uniquely suited to support large scale hydrogen production for use in
the transportation sector.
subsurface geosciences--release of current year funds
In DOE's budget for the current year, Congress provided $4 million
for Subsurface Geoscience Research at the INEEL. This funding is to go
to eight universities in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. Although it
is now February, these funds still have not been released by DOE
Headquarters.
Question. Why have these funds not yet been released and when can
they be expected to be transferred to the Idaho Operations Office?
Answer. Funding for the Subsurface Geoscience Research Institute
has been released to the INEEL. Approximately 81 percent is available
for obligation through March 31, 2002. An additional 9 percent will be
released in April with the remainder available in July.
Question. I am pleased to see that your recommended budget for 2003
contains at least some increase in funding for the fusion program. As I
understand it, the scientific knowledge of fusion has increased greatly
over the past decade and the fusion community is ready to move forward
with a burning plasma experiment.
Is it time now to put some more resources into developing the
technology and materials necessary for fusion energy in order to hasten
the day when fusion energy can be shown to be practical? How much of
the fusion program budget is spent on these important areas?
Answer. At this time, in the U.S. fusion program and other fusion
programs abroad, the next major step is seen as a burning plasma
physics experiment. The larger fusion energy research programs in the
European Union and Japan are explicitly directed toward fusion energy
development paths and, consequently, are investing greater amounts of
resources in technology and materials than is the U.S. fusion energy
sciences program. Scientific results from the U.S. Fusion Energy
Sciences program have strongly influenced the revised ITER design. Once
decisions are made on the step toward a burning plasma physics
experiment, the nature and timing of any additional resources for
further technology and materials research and development capabilities
will become clearer than they are today.
In the FY 2003 Budget Request, 11.1 percent ($28.5 million) of the
total funding request for Fusion Energy Sciences is for enabling
technologies research and 3 percent ($7.6 million) is for materials
research. Given the many priorities in the program, the significant
fusion technology and fusion materials programs abroad and the related
technology and materials programs in the U.S., and our collaborative
involvement in both sets of programs, the Department deems this
allocation to be sufficient.
Responses to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Question. Ms. Scarlett, I note that the Forest Service has proposed
a $25.6 million increase in the National Fire Plan hazardous fuels
[reduction program] while the Bureau of Land Management seems to have
requested a flat budget request for this line item. Why is it that the
BLM has made that much progress in hazardous fuels reduction?
Answer. A portion of the Forest Service increase reflects the
Administration's CSRS/FEHBP legislative proposal to budget for the full
costs of these programs with each agency's budget. While the Department
of the Interior has similarly included these costs in its request, the
Department did not break out this funding amount below the account
level as USDA did in its request. Therefore, this funding is shown as
being allocated to the wildland fire management account as a whole,
rather than to fuels reduction specifically, even though these funds
will ultimately be used to support the fuels program.
The additional increase for the Forest Service reflects a somewhat
differing assessment of needs between the two agencies based on the
amount and types of hazardous fuels on agency lands and the amount of
work required to reduce fuel levels on each agency's lands. The funding
levels in the President's budget are not based upon any assessment that
one agency has made more progress than the other in terms of fuels
reduction.
Question. Mr. Griles, the Department of the Interior has proposed a
50 percent tax credit on capital gains if a private landowner sells his
or her land to the Federal Government or a Non-governmental
Organization.
How much land do you expect to gain through this program and how
much capital gains tax credits do you expect to pay out per year?
Answer. We do not yet have an estimate of how much land will be set
aside for conservation purposes under the Conservation Tax Credit
program. We expect, however, that this non-regulatory, market-based
tool to promote conservation goals will be well received. The
Conservation Tax Credit program allows a 50 percent capital gains
exclusion for private landowners who voluntarily sell land or an
interest in land or water, including easements. The Treasury Department
estimates that over the next five years the value of these tax credits
could be $328 million as shown below.
Revenue estimate of the tax credit program by year as estimated by
the Department of the Treasury:
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003-
2007
- -2 -44 -90 -94 -98 -328
Question. How do you propose to offset the Capital Gains revenues
lost by the federal government, as a result of this problem?
Answer. The Administration's total budget proposal for all Federal
agencies factors in the loss in revenue for this 50 percent tax
exclusion.
Responses to Questions From Senator Domenici
plutonium disposition program
Question. Progress on plutonium disposition must be coordinated
between the United States and Russia. It would not be appropriate for
the United States to be the only nation with such a disposition
program, especially when Russia has far more surplus plutonium than the
United States. I realize that the development of the Russian program
requires the full cooperation of Russia and represents an interagency
endeavor for the United States.
Is the Department adequately funded to fully support the
development of a cooperative program with Russian to dispose of their
plutonium?
Answer. At the present time DOE is adequately funded to support the
development of a cooperative program with the Russian Federation to
dispose of surplus Russian plutonium. Current U.S. policy is to seek
international support for plutonium disposition in Russia. In this
regard, the United States Congress has appropriated $200 million to
support Russia's surplus plutonium disposition program, and we have
indicated that we will seek an additional $200 million for this
purpose. Britain has announced they will contribute the equivalent of
over $100 million; France and Japan have announced lesser amounts. All
three total $200 million.
The Department of State (working with DOE) has intensified efforts
and meetings with G-7 counterparts with the goal of additional pledges
by the G-8 Summit in Canada in late June. This will energize the
necessary negotiations on completing multilateral financial and
organizational arrangements.
At the same time, representatives for the Departments of State and
Energy have begun a series of meetings with their Russian counterparts
to discuss ways to achieve increased Russian contributions and develop
a more cost-effective program.
rocky flats closure
Question. In announcing the MOX decision, the Department
indicated that plans for disposal of 2 tons of plutonium-bearing wastes
were not final. There has been widespread suggestions that these
materials will be diluted to enable removal of international safeguards
and subsequent removal at WIPP. I've been assured by the Secretary that
a range of alternative disposition paths will be examined for these
materials and that they will not be shipped to WIPP.
Does the Department's budget request contain funds required to
accomplish this additional study?
Answer. The Department is considering a range of disposition
alternatives for this material. One of the alternatives involves added
processing that might result in the recovery of additional product
suitable for fabrication into MOX fuel if that turns out to
be a relatively cost effective path for disposition of this material.
In that instance up to two metric tons might also be credited toward
the 34 tons that the United States has agreed to dispose of. The
Department of Energy has adequate personnel to conduct this examination
and we anticipate that no additional funds will be required to
accomplish this study.
research on alternative management approaches for spent nuclear fuel
Question. The President's National Energy Policy:
``recommends that . . . the United States should reexamine
its policies to allow for research, development and deployment
of fuel conditioning methods (such as pyroprocessing) that
reduce waste streams and enhance proliferation resistance.''
And also stated:
``The United States should also consider technologies, in
collaboration with international partners . . ., to develop
reprocessing and fuel treatment technologies that are cleaner,
more efficient, less waste-intensive, and more proliferation
resistant.''
Yucca Mountain, even if successfully opened as a repository for
spent fuel, does not have sufficient capacity to accept the spent fuel
from even the existing nuclear plants much less any new one.
Furthermore, it would be extremely difficult to gain approval for new
repositories for spent fuel.
Why did the Department choose to deviate so dramatically from the
President's National Energy policy which supported this research and
cut roughly $65 million from the ongoing programs?
Answer. This program activity has evolved significantly over the
last tuo years. Originally, it was directed to apply high-energy
accelerators to transmute spent fuel to lower quantity, less toxic
forms. Consistent with the direction of Congress, we are combining the
technology activities at the national laboratories and the University
of Nevada-Las Vegas into a single, integrated program to explore both
reactor and accelerator technologies associated with spent fuel
pyroprocessing and transmutation.
While we are interested in the potential of this research, we also
recognize that it represents a long-term, potentially expensive
commitment of the Department's scarce nuclear technology research
funding.
An independent expert committee chaired by Dr. Burt Richter
believes that the next phase of this research could cost over $400
million over the next five to six years. Before we can commit to such
an investment, it is important that we be certain that the goals and
approach of this research be carcfully reviewed and a clear plan
established.
Such a plan is now being written with considerable input from Dr.
Richter's committee and should be provided to Congress by the first of
May. Unfortunately, this plan could not be completed in time to support
a more robust funding request during the formulation of the
Department's FY 2003 budget.
Once it is complete, however, I am confident that the plan will
detail a technical approach to this research that we will be able to
discuss with Congress and use to determine an appropriate path-forward
for this research.
los alamos national laboratory foundation
Question. Section 3136 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2002, specifically authorized the Secretary to continue
payments to the Los Alamos National Laboratory Foundation for fiscal
year 2003. That Foundation enables vital educational enrichment
programs in the region surrounding the Laboratory in Los Alamos. It
directly supports the Laboratory's ability to recruit and retain the
scientific staff who certify our nuclear stockpile and are playing a
vital role in homeland security and the war against terrorism.
Please explain the Department's rationale for zeroing this support
in fiscal year 2003.
Answer. The Department's original plan for funding the Los Alamos
National Laboratory Foundation was described in our 1998 report to
Congress pursuant to section 3167 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85). That plan called for
providing a total of $25M through fiscal year 2002 with no further
funding thereafter, as required by the Act. As described in our latest
report to Congress pursuant to section 3136 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, which will be submitted
shortly.
pit fabrication
Question. A Department of Energy report last year called for
``projectizing'' the production of pits for our nations nuclear
stockpile and called for $245 million in fiscal year 2003 in order to
achieve a certified pit by 2007. Pit production is perhaps the most
important and highly visible program in our entire stockpile program. I
am very concerned that the Department only requested $194 million for
this effort for the next fiscal year.
Please explain the rationale for the reduced request for pit
production?
Answer. The $242 million for fiscal year 2003 called for in the
September 2001 pit report to the Congress covers both W88 pit
manufacturing and certification and includes a contingency of some $53
million. The Department's request of $194 million for FY 2003 covers
W88 pit manufacturing and certification as well as pit manufacturing
technology and Modern Pit Facility activities. The program remains on
track to deliver a certifiable pit by 2003 and a certified pit by 2007.
To balance near-term priorities, contingency funding for the W88 pit
manufacturing and certification project has been eliminated in FY 2003.
These contingency funds are for risk mitigation activities, if needed.
Risk contingency funding for the projectized W88 pit activities is
currently budgeted for fiscal year 2004 and beyond.
Responses to Questions From Senator Wyden
soil washing technology
The Department of Energy (DOE) is currently working with an
innovative Soil Washing Technology proposal, which the Deputy Assistant
Secretary has acknowledged as a significant improvement over other
systems.
The technology has been reviewed by qualified people including a
panel at INEEL (Idaho National Nuclear Engineering Laboratory), a
Hanford Manager, a panel at Oregon State University's Department of
Nuclear Engineering, which would save the taxpayer's money.
The proposal initially received a ``business as usual'' form letter
response at the same time the Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Environmental Management (Mr. Gerald Boyd) was stating in a conference
call that he considered the proposal open and ``on the table.''
The Deputy Assistant Secretary then directly assigned the project
to the Director of Technology Development (Mr. Jeff Walker), the same
person who had been working on the project all along.
Mr. Walker put the technology through an intensive cost comparison
on an actual DOE site where other soil washing systems had been
rejected due to inefficiency and high cost. The study showed that the
innovative changes made by this new technology would provide a 50% cost
reduction and reduce the cleanup time from 22 years down to eleven
years.
It is my understanding that the DOE concluded the technology would
work, but that they did not want to spend the money to fund a
demonstration.
The original proposal called for a two-year project at a cost of
$9.6 million dollars with the DOE required 50% contingency adder.
Suggestions from the DOE reviewers, and in an effort to get the project
started, a schedule change was discussed with the DOE involving a
phased approach lasting three years with an initial stage lasting nine
months at a cost of between $450,000 and $500,000. Subsequent stages
would be subject to the success of the first stage thereby lessening
the commitment on the DOE and resting the burden directly on the
technology.
It has come to my attention that now, after more than two years
into the process, the project has been asked to submit another proposal
under a new broad open solicitation, which is not scheduled to close
until the end of 2002, and for which, according to the solicitation,
there aren't any funds available. In other words, they are being asked
to essentially forget about the last two years and start the process
over.
Question. Wouldn't you agree that the DOE ``business as usual''
practices do not make it easy for promising new technologies to be
tested and funded?
Answer. Our goal has always been to invest properly and prudently
in the right technology development projects that show promise of
significantly improving cleanup of the DOE complex and reducing the
costs to the taxpayer.The value of an innovative technology is the
potential improvement over the baseline approach for either cost,
schedule, performance or regulatory acceptance.
If cleanup technologies have been utilized in the past and have
demonstrated improvement over the baseline, other sites have
substituted those innovative technologies for their current approach.
However, if the contaminated area has different attributes or the
technology needs some enhancements to demonstrate improvements over the
baseline, then technology funds are often utilized to develop those
improvements. These potential ``improvement'' projects are evaluated
and prioritized with other projects. Based on the funds available, a
decision is made as to which projects will be funded.
In the case of soil washing, this technology has been demonstrated
for certain contaminants at specific sites. The technology is most
successful where the soil is granular, the contaminants are soluble in
water, the soil has a fairly high contaminant concentration level, and
the secondary wastes are minimal. There are very limited areas where
these conditions exist. In fact, at most sites, it is much more cost
effective to remove the soil and dispose of it in an acceptable
disposal cell. For sites with on-site landfills, soil is otherwise
needed to fill in around debris placed in the disposal cell, which
further reduces the benefit of soil washing.
We continue to look for ways to implement promising technologies in
a more timely fashion. The challenge is finding the applications where
the technology is an improvement over the baseline and not just the use
of an innovative technology for its own sake.
Question. The DOE is on record saying it needs new innovative
technologies to solve cleanup problems and save money. Here is a
technology that has been acknowledged and entertained by DOE management
for over two years, endorsed by nuclear scientists, shown to be cost
effective while actually cleaning up radioactive waste, and is being
called for as necessary to achieve the DOE cleanup mission, can now be
asked to go through yet another year of proposal writing and review?
Why can't a project that has all of this support and affirmation seem
to get off the ground?
Answer. In general, the Department must be satisfied that this
technology provides an improvement over the current soil washing
practice already available to DOE. The value of an innovative
technology is the potential improvement over the baseline approach for
either cost, schedule, performance or regulatory acceptance. If cleanup
technologies have been utilized in the past and have demonstrated
improvement over the baseline, other sites have substituted those
innovative technologies for the current approach. However, if the
contaminated area has different attributes or the technology needs some
enhancements to demonstrate improvements over the baseline, then
technology funds are often utilized to develop those improvements.
In the case of soil washing, this technology has been demonstrated
for certain contaminants at specific sites. The technology is most
successful where the soil is granular, the contaminants are water
soluble, the soil has a fairly high contaminant concentration level and
the secondary wastes are minimal. There are very limited areas where
these conditions exist. In fact, at most sites, it is much more cost
effective to remove the soil and dispose of it in an acceptable
disposal cell. For sites with on-site landfills, soil is otherwise
needed to fill in around debris placed in the disposal cell, which
further reduces the benefit of soil washing.
We continue to look for ways to implement promising technologies in
a more timely fashion. The challenge is finding the applications where
the technology is an improvement over the baseline, and not just the
use of an innovative technology for its own sake.
The Department has met with the proponent of the soil washing
process, and has explained the specific, basic data that are necessary
in order for the technology to be considered for support. So far, the
information provided is insufficient to demonstrate any significant
improvement in the cost effectiveness of this technique over other
baseline methods used at individual DOE sites.