[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2012
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho, Chairman
JERRY LEWIS, California JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
KEN CALVERT, California BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
TOM COLE, Oklahoma JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Rogers, as Chairman of the Full
Committee, and Mr. Dicks, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full
Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
David LesStrang, Darren Benjamin, Jason Gray,
Erica Rhoad, and Colin Vickery,
Staff Assistants
________
PART 7
Page
Major Management Challenges at the U.S. Forest Service........... 1
U.S. Forest Service FY 2012 Budget Oversight Hearing............. 97
Fish and Wildlife Service FY 2012 Budget Oversight Hearing....... 165
U.S. Geological Survey FY 2012 Budget Oversight Hearing.......... 272
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement
(BOEMRE) and Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) FY 2012
Budget Oversight Hearing.......................................... 333
Bureau of Indian Affairs FY 2012 Budget Oversight Hearing........ 451
Indian Health Service FY 2012 Budget Oversight Hearing........... 511
National Endowment for the Arts FY 2012 Budget Oversight Hearing. 567
National Endowment for the Humanities FY 2012 Budget Oversight
Hearing........................................................... 609
Smithsonian Institution FY 2012 Budget Oversight Hearing......... 635
________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
?
PART 7
MMCFS
FS
FWS
USGS
BOEMRE/
ONRR
BIA
IHS
NEA
NEH
Smithsonian
INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2012
?
INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2012
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho, Chairman
JERRY LEWIS, California JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
KEN CALVERT, California BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
TOM COLE, Oklahoma JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Rogers, as Chairman of the Full
Committee, and Mr. Dicks, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full
Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
David LesStrang, Darren Benjamin, Jason Gray,
Erica Rhoad, and Colin Vickery,
Staff Assistants
________
PART 7
Page
Major Management Challenges at the U.S. Forest Service........... 1
U.S. Forest Service FY 2012 Budget Oversight Hearing............. 97
Fish and Wildlife Service FY 2012 Budget Oversight Hearing....... 165
U.S. Geological Survey FY 2012 Budget Oversight Hearing.......... 272
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement
(BOEMRE) and Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) FY 2012
Budget Oversight Hearing.......................................... 333
Bureau of Indian Affairs FY 2012 Budget Oversight Hearing........ 451
Indian Health Service FY 2012 Budget Oversight Hearing........... 511
National Endowment for the Arts FY 2012 Budget Oversight Hearing. 567
National Endowment for the Humanities FY 2012 Budget Oversight
Hearing........................................................... 609
Smithsonian Institution FY 2012 Budget Oversight Hearing......... 635
________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
66-897 WASHINGTON : 2011
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky, Chairman
C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida \1\ NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington
JERRY LEWIS, California \1\ MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia NITA M. LOWEY, New York
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New JerseyJOSE E. SERRANO, New York
TOM LATHAM, Iowa ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts
KAY GRANGER, Texas ED PASTOR, Arizona
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
DENNY REHBERG, Montana SAM FARR, California
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas JESSE L. JACKSON, Jr., Illinois
RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
KEN CALVERT, California STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey
JO BONNER, Alabama SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio BARBARA LEE, California
TOM COLE, Oklahoma ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
STEVE AUSTRIA, Ohio
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
TOM GRAVES, Georgia
KEVIN YODER, Kansas
STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas
ALAN NUNNELEE, Mississippi
----------
1}}Chairman Emeritus
William B. Inglee, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2012
----------
Thursday, March 10, 2011.
MAJOR MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES AT THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE
WITNESSES
ANU K. MITTAL, DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES AND
ENVIRONMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
PHYLLIS K. FONG, INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
Opening Remarks of Chairman Simpson
Mr. Simpson. The committee will come to order. Once again,
I would like to welcome the members of the subcommittee as well
as our panel of witnesses this afternoon from the Government
Accountability Office and the Department of Agriculture's
Office of Inspector General to present testimony on the major
management challenges of the Forest Service.
The Forest Service manages a great deal of land for the
public, including several national forests in my district.
There is certainly no lack of issues to discuss, so I would
like to keep my comments to a minimum and focus on the
testimony. This hearing will help prepare the subcommittee's
members for tomorrow morning's Forest Service budget hearings.
Before introducing our witnesses, I would like to yield to
Mr. Moran for any opening statement he might have.
Opening Remarks of Mr. Moran
Mr. Moran. Thanks so much, Mr. Chairman. We invariably
schedule these hearings at the same time as Defense, but there
is nothing we can do about it when we compress 4 weeks into 3.
Thanks for having the hearing, and it is nice to see Ms. Mittal
again, and of course, the Inspector General for the Agriculture
Department. I do not know if you know Ms. Fong is a special
Inspector General because she is the Inspector General of
Inspector Generals. Yes. She is the first chairperson of the
Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency.
Mr. Simpson. I did not know that.
Mr. Moran. Oh, there you go. Seventy-three different
Federal Inspectors General, and she is the boss of all of them.
I appreciate the fact that the chairman is having these
hearings which, whether it be a Democratic or Republican
majority, we found that the Inspector General's enlightenment
serves us very well in subsequent hearings and the General
Accounting Office as well. I guess it is General
Accountability. It will always be General Accounting to me.
But there are forest management issues that are worth
looking at. Last week I was down at the Agriculture Department
with Secretary Vilsack where we were recognizing the centennial
anniversary of the Weeks Act. That was a situation where we had
so many denuded forests, particularly in the east, and they
were just being allowed to lie fallow. The folks who had clear-
cut those forests would not even pay taxes, so the states and
localities picked it up and that enabled the Federal Government
to pick it up, and that led to 52 national forests in the east
and 26 different states. So the Forest Service has a great
record of oversight and management, but it can always be
improved, and that is what we want to talk about today.
So, again, thanks to both of you for being here. I look
forward to your testimony.
Mr. Simpson. Our first witness is Ms. Anu Mittal, Director
of Natural Resources and Environment Division of the GAO. She
will be followed by Ms. Phyllis Fong, the Inspector General of
the Department of Agriculture and the Chief Inspector General.
We appreciate you appearing before the subcommittee this
afternoon. We will give you each 15 minutes to outline your
concerns, followed by questions from committee members.
TESTIMONY OF ANU K. MITTAL
Ms. Mittal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee, for the opportunity to be here today to discuss
management challenges facing the Forest Service.
As you know, in 2009, we testified before this subcommittee
on three areas where the Forest Service faced major management
challenges. These included the lack of strategies to
effectively use wildland fire funds, the lack of data on
programs and activities, and inadequate financial and program
accountability.
Based on the work that we have undertaken since 2009, we
believe that these three areas are still challenges today, and
we have added a fourth area relating to the lack of program
oversight and planning. I would like to briefly summarize each
of our concerns in these four areas for you.
As we reported in 2009, the Forest Service still lacks key
strategies needed to effectively manage wildland fires. As you
know, over the past decade wildland fires have dramatically
worsened, and their associated costs have substantially
increased. Likewise, for over a decade we have made numerous
recommendations to improve the Forest Service's efforts in
fighting these fires.
While the agency has taken some steps to implement our
recommendations, much work remains to be done in all of the
areas that we have highlighted in the past. For example, the
Forest Service and Interior still have not completed the
Cohesive Wildland Fire Strategy that we have recommended since
1999, and that Congress mandated in the Flame Act of 2009.
Congress required this Cohesive Strategy to be completed within
1 year of the Act's passage, however, according to the agency,
while the first phase of the strategy has been drafted, it has
not yet been finalized, and it is unknown when the second
phase, which will include the development and analysis of
different options for wildland fire management as we have
called for, will even be completed.
Similarly, the Forest Service has not yet clearly defined
its wildland fire cost containment goals. Without taking the
fundamental steps of defining its cost-containment goals or
developing a strategy for achieving those goals, the agency
cannot insure that it is taking the most important steps first,
nor can it be assured that it is taking the right steps first.
The agency also has not fully implemented all of the
improvements we have recommended for allocating fuel reduction
funds and still lacks a measure to ensure that fuel reduction
funds are being directed to those areas where they can best
minimize the risk to people, property, and resources.
And, finally, in the wildland fire area, we continue to be
concerned that the Forest Service is several years behind
schedule in developing an interagency fire program budgeting
and planning tool known as FPA. The development of FPA has been
characterized by delays and revisions, and the project has not
yet been subject to peer review as we had recommended.
It is, therefore, unclear to us whether the tool will meet
one of its original objectives which was to identify cost-
effective combinations of assets and strategies to fight
wildland fires.
The second major management challenge that we have
repeatedly identified in the past and which continues to be a
concern today is the Forest Service's lack of complete and
accurate data on its program activities and costs. Over the
last few years we have continued to encounter shortcomings in
this area during our audits of Forest Service programs that
reinforce our concerns.
For example, we recently reviewed the data in the agency's
Planning Appeals and Litigation System, and we determined that
these data were not always complete or accurate. As a result,
we have to conduct our own survey of field office staff to get
the information that we needed.
Similarly, on our review of abandoned hard rock mines, we
found that the Forest Service had difficulty determining the
number of such mines on its land, and the accuracy of the data
that it did have was also questionable.
The third area that we have been and remain concerned about
relates to financial management and performance accountability
shortcomings. While we moved the Forest Service's financial
management issue from GAO's high-risk list about 6 years ago,
there are lingering concerns about financial management at the
agency, especially in the wake of recent reports from the
Department of Agriculture and the IG.
For example, in its 2010 performance and accountability
report the Department concluded that the Forest Service needed
to improve controls over its expenditures for wildland fire
management, and it identified the Wildland Fire Suppression
Program as susceptible to significant improper payments.
In addition, the Forest Service has not fully resolved the
performance accountability problems that we have identified in
the past. According to the IG, the longstanding problems that
we have identified with the agency's inability to link its
planning, budgeting, and results reports continues to be an
issue today.
The final area that I would like to talk about relates to
challenges that the Forest Service faces in delivering its
programs because it lacks adequate oversight or strategic
planning. Our recent work provides a number of examples in this
area.
For example, as part of its land management
responsibilities, the Forest Service acquires and disposes of
lands through its Land Exchange Program. However, we recently
reported that the Forest Service needed to improve oversight of
its Land Exchange Program because it lacked a national strategy
and process for tracking costs, and it did not require its
staff to take mandatory training.
Similarly, we have been concerned about the ability of the
Forest Service to maintain an effective workforce because it
has not clearly aligned its workforce plans with its strategic
plan and has not monitored and evaluated its workforce planning
efforts.
Because of this lack of planning and monitoring, we
concluded that the Forest Service remains at risk of not having
the appropriately-skilled workforce it needs to fulfill its
mission.
Finally, our recent work has raised concerns that the
Forest Service, like other federal land management agencies,
lacks a risk-based approach for managing its law enforcement
resources. In 2010, we reported that the Forest Service needed
a more systematic method to assess the risks posed by illegal
activities that are occurring on its lands, and if it developed
such an approach, it could better insure that it is allocating
its limited law enforcement resources in the most effective
manner.
Mr. Chairman, we recognize that these are not easy issues
for the Forest Service to resolve, but we also recognize that
these are not new issues for the agency and that many of them
have been very well documented for a very long time. In light
of the Nation's long-term fiscal condition, we believe that it
is imperative for the agency to expeditiously address these
management challenges now so that it can insure that going
forward it is fulfilling its mission in the most cost-effective
and efficient manner.
That concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to
respond to any questions.
[The statement of Anu Mittal follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.015
Mr. Simpson. Ms. Fong.
TESTIMONY OF INSPECTOR GENERAL PHYLLIS FONG
Ms. Fong. Thank you, Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member
Moran and members of the subcommittee. I really appreciate this
opportunity to come up here today and talk about our audit and
investigative work concerning the Forest Service, and at the
outset I want to express our appreciation, the OIG's
appreciation for the agency's mission of sustaining the health
and diversity of the Nation's grasslands and forests. We deeply
respect the Forest Service's dedicated efforts in this area and
the very many professional employees that they have across the
country.
In that context, we offer our remarks. We are here to try
and help the Forest Service address the issues that we have
identified. You have my full written statement for the record,
so I just want to offer a few brief comments on the three areas
that are of concern to us that we have been focusing on in the
last year.
These three areas are basically: Improving the health of
the forest system and fighting wildfires; secondly,
implementing strong management controls; and third, delivering
the Recovery Act programs as effectively as possible.
So let me just start out with the firefighting topic. We
have done quite a bit of work in fighting wildfires and how the
Forest Service manages that because it is such a key part of
the agency's mission. We recently completed a couple of reviews
in this area that I want to draw your attention to.
First off, we looked at the workforce at the Forest Service
and concluded that the Forest Service really needs to focus on
developing, recruiting, and retaining its very critical
firefighting management jobs. As our report identifies in great
detail, we see that that workforce is turning over very
quickly, and we do not believe that the agency has adequately
addressed that situation. The Forest Service has generally
agreed with our recommendations in this area.
The other topic that we looked at which is related to that
deals with the usage by Forest Service of contract labor crews
to fight forest fires. We took a quick look to see how the
agency was overseeing that program, and we found that there
were a number of things that the Forest Service could do better
in terms of assessing how effective contract labor crews are.
And we have made a number of recommendations, which, again, the
agency has generally agreed with us on.
Turning to the issue of management controls in the Forest
Service programs, I know management controls is a topic that
people say, ``what is a management control?'' We IG's, we like
to talk about that. Very simply put, what we are trying to get
at here is does the Forest Service have in place the ability to
effectively manage its programs, to deliver the programs the
way Congress intended, and to report on how it is doing.
As an example, we took a look at the Invasive Species
Program, which is intended to address the problem of invasive
species in the forests, and we found that this program is
illustrative of the challenges that the Forest Service faces.
We concluded that the program lacks a lot of the kinds of
controls that you would expect in a federal program. The Forest
Service, for example, does not have an inventory of all the
different kinds of invasive species that are out there in the
forests. The Forest Service has not assessed the various risks
associated with different species, and it has not really
assessed the efficacy of the different treatments that are
available to deal with different species.
And so when you take all of that together as a whole, we
felt that the Forest Service really needed to focus on how it
is delivering that program and tighten up its management
controls, and we made a number of recommendations, which,
again, the agency generally agreed with.
Let me turn to our work in the Recovery Act arena. Congress
saw fit to make available $1.5 billion in recovery money to the
Forest Service for capital improvement and maintenance, and for
wildland fire management. As part of our oversight
responsibilities, we are charged with looking at the
expenditure of those funds to make sure that the Forest Service
is delivering those programs as effectively as possible.
We have already issued 18 fast reports on this. We have
taken a look, and we plan to look at every program within
Forest Service that received recovery money. We are right in
the middle of all of that, but I can give you right now a
general sense of where the Forest Service is.
With respect to the wildland fire management funds, we took
a look at a number of grants and contracts that the Forest
Service made to non-federal entities, namely state and local
entities, private entities, and we found some instances where
recipients were getting reimbursed for expenditures that were
not appropriate. We found that the grant agreements did not
include all the right terms that they should have included. So
there is room there for some improvement.
In the area of capital improvement and maintenance
projects, we took a look at those and again found that there
were some instances of inappropriate purchases where those
grantees have sought reimbursement. We also questioned some of
the sub-grants to some recipients, and we have found some
issues with the execution of contract awards.
And so overall, as we look at the Recovery Act, I would say
that the Forest Service has done a good job of putting the
money out. They have done a very fine job of getting the money
out into the country and the local jurisdictions. We found a
few issues with regard to grant and contract awards, and by the
end of this coming year we should be able to give you a pretty
good assessment of how that all looks from a macro perspective.
I think I will stop at this point and just say that we,
again, thank you for the opportunity to be here, and I would be
very happy to address any questions that you might have.
[The statement of Phyllis Fong follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.027
IMPLEMENTATION OF OIG RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. Simpson. It has been a couple of years since the GAO
and IG testified before this subcommittee, and we find that a
lot of the issues seem to repeat and repeat and repeat. What
percentage of the recommendations that you make do you feel are
addressed by the Department and which ones find themselves on
the shelf? Any idea?
Ms. Fong. Well, let me just preface by saying that when we
work with the Forest Service, we start out our audit
engagements and try to reach a very clear understanding with
the agency as to what we are looking at. We try to ascertain
what their concerns are so that whatever report we come out
with is useful to them and useful to the Hill and to the
Secretary as well and addresses the issues that we have
identified.
And what we have found generally is that we have a very
good professional working relationship with the agency. By and
large, when we sit down and issue our reports and our
recommendations, they by and large agree with them. There will
be a few areas where we may not have agreement, and that is to
be expected, but generally they see the value in our
recommendations, and they agree to take action.
Where we start to perhaps lose the bubble, as they say, is
that it takes a lot of effort to implement recommendations, and
some of these recommendations do involve quite a bit of work to
think through. It may involve some staff time. It may involve
the need for independent looks. It may involve quite a bit of
focus on the part of the agency, and so if the fix is not
something that can be done quickly, we have seen the
recommendations that involve more long-term analysis tend to
take quite a bit of time, and those, of course, are the big
issues.
Mr. Simpson. Yes.
Ms. Fong. Those are the very difficult issues.
Mr. Simpson. And wildfire management is a big issue.
Ms. Fong. Exactly.
ALBUQUERQUE SERVICE CENTER
Mr. Simpson. The Albuquerque Service Center, specifically
the IT and HR functions, have been problematic and, frankly,
demoralizing for many Forest Service employees as I have talked
to Forest Service employees over the years that I have been in
Congress. I was surprised when the report came out in 2009,
maybe not so much surprised after talking to many of them, that
out of the 216 agencies--in terms of the best place to work--
the Forest Service ranked 206, which you would have thought,
you know, anybody that ought to be happy with their job is
working in the forests and stuff.
And it seemed like a lot of it came back to the Albuquerque
Center and the centralization of a lot of those efforts there.
Have you looked at that at all?
Ms. Mittal. We actually have a review ongoing right now at
the request of this subcommittee and the Senate Subcommittee on
Appropriations, and we are doing a comprehensive review of the
Albuquerque Service Center consolidation. We are looking at how
much it has cost to consolidate all of the business services in
Albuquerque. We are looking at the savings, if there have been
any, as a result of the consolidation. We are also taking a
very thorough look at the effects that it has had on agency
operations.
So we are looking at effects across the agency, both at the
agency-wide as well as the field office level, of course,
paying particular attention to the field offices and the field
staff.
And, finally, we are looking at how the Forest Service is
measuring progress in implementing the consolidation and
centralization. So that review is ongoing. We are in the
process of completing our audit work. We should be done by the
end of April in terms of our audit work, and at that point we
should be able to sit down with the staff, the committee, and
give them a pretty good overview of our preliminary findings.
The report will be issued later this summer.
Mr. Simpson. Later this summer.
Ms. Mittal. Uh-huh.
INTEGRATED RESOURCE RESTORATION PROGRAM
Mr. Simpson. The 2012 budget request of the Forest Service
proposed combining several operating line items such as wild
fire or wildlife, forest products, watershed, hazardous fuels,
and road funding to create a large bucket of funding for the
Integrated Resource Restoration Account. Presumably this line
item would pay for projects that would achieve numerous goals
such as road maintenance, foresting projects that would also
improve the watershed and produce wood products.
In concept this sounds like a good idea. I am concerned,
however, that if the Forest Service in your findings lacks, or
you have concerns about their oversight and strategic planning
process and their financial management systems that currently
exist, throwing all of these different line items into a big
bucket of funding may, in fact, do more harm than good in terms
of being able to do that strategic planning and financial
oversight.
Is that a concern? Would that be a concern to you?
Ms. Mittal. I can start by saying that we have not actually
looked at how they are going to do this consolidation, so I
cannot comment on the IRR, but what I can say is that you are
absolutely right. Given how much difficulty they have in
providing oversight over individual programs and ensuring that
they are tracking costs, which they oftentimes do not do, it
really is a concern that if they bundle everything together and
lump it together in this account, then how are they going to
manage it. It does raise some concerns given their past
management control issues.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Moran.
Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is an ongoing
issue we have in so many agencies, you know. We worry about
duplication and overlap, but then on the other hand when we
consolidate programs, we have difficulty in tracking and
auditing the money as well. I would like to kind of see what
the Integrated Resource Restoration Program is able to achieve.
But I share the chairman's concern on the other hand if we
can achieve the economy to scale and efficiencies, then
management and operational, that would be good.
STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTING PROGRAM
There is a Stewardship Contracting Program in the Forest
Service that allows it to trade goods like timber for services
to improve the condition of the public lands. The Forest
Service wants to do a lot more of that with its forestry and
restoration projects using these in-kind swap contracts.
Can we be assured that the various field units are getting
a fair return for the timber that they are trading for
services? I would think that would be a difficult thing to
monitor, and either the GAO or the Inspector General can
respond.
Ms. Mittal. We did a comprehensive review of the
Stewardship Contracting Programs a couple of years ago and
generally what we found is that the, again, and I hate to sound
like a broken record, but the agency did not have comprehensive
data on the stewardship contracts that it had used, and it was
hard to figure out what they had used them for, and they did
not have a national strategy for the use of stewardship
contracts.
What we did find is that they have been using stewardship
contracts for very small projects. They have not been using it
for some of the more complicated, multi-year types of projects
that it has the potential to be used for.
FIRE SUPPRESSION
Mr. Moran. Has the Forest Service adjusted its fire
programs to fit the new reality of changed climates and
increased suburbanization of the wildlands? We know that the
last decade has been the hottest on record with some of the
most volatile temperature changes and temperature events.
Has there been a change to reflect what has happened in
terms of climate and its impact upon the forests of the
country? I guess I will ask the Inspector General. I know each
year we get lip service to it saying that we are going to, but
I do not know whether it has actually been done.
Ms. Fong. Well, we had done an audit a couple of years ago
on large fire suppression and wildland fire and the ways, the
different ways that the Forest Service addresses that, and we
identified a number of concerns with respect to fire
suppression and the WUI, the Wildland Urban Interface, and we
made a lot of recommendations on how the Forest Service could
improve how it manages that program.
We understand from the Forest Service that they agreed with
our recommendations, and they have told us that they have taken
action. Now, we have not gone in yet to verify. We do have two
audits on our books that we have planned to start later this
year that will go in and take a look at whether those
recommendations have been successfully implemented, and we
should have a better view on that probably in the next year.
SPECIAL USE PERMITS
Mr. Moran. Okay. One other area of questioning. The IG
mentions the work that has been completed on special use
permits; 74,000 authorizations for over 180 different kinds of
land uses. Can you give us a sense of what you found and
whether or not the Service is providing adequate oversight,
public resources, and seeing that the public gets a fair share
of revenues?
In your testimony you talked about 15.7 million, in 2008,
and that the funds go to the Treasury. You know, at Interior
funds stay with the bureaus, and I wonder if an incentive
program would serve us better in which the agency can reinvest
some of the funds in managing the program or restoring natural
resources. They would have a greater incentive, and I wonder if
that would not be beneficial to all of us, Ms. Fong.
Ms. Fong. Well, I think you have really hit the nail on the
head. I think you make a very good point about the program as
it is run at the Forest Service compared to how it is run at
the Department of Interior. As you point out, the monies that
come in, the Forest Service spends quite a bit of time on that
program, but the monies all must be delivered over to the
Department of the Treasury, and so they do not benefit the
Forest Service.
We are getting ready to issue that report, and it should be
out in the next month or so, and at that point I think you will
find those recommendations very helpful to you. We will make
sure that the committee gets a copy of that.
Mr. Moran. Very good. Thank you. I am fine, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Calvert.
BORDER PATROL
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
Thank you for coming today, Ms. Fong. I appreciate that. I
represent the Cleveland National Forest out in southern
California, and we have had a lot of challenges with the
Cleveland National Forest, especially as a smuggling route up
from Mexico. I was wondering in your investigation did you look
into how the Forest Service works with DHS and with the Border
Patrol? Do they coordinate their activities and work well
together?
Ms. Mittal. We actually did look at all of the land
management agencies and how they are working with the Border
Patrol along the southwest border, and what we found is that
they have established a number of MOUs, memorandums of
understanding, to increase cooperation and coordination with
Border Patrol but not in all cases does that coordination and
cooperation actually occur.
And so we made a number of recommendations to encourage
them to enhance the coordination and cooperation with Border
Patrol. Some of the concerns that we had is that they do not
receive the threat assessments from Border Patrol, they have
not developed joint budgets for operations in those areas, they
have not developed strategies and joint operations for their
law enforcement to work together.
Mr. Calvert. Does the Forest Service allow access for the
Border Patrol, for DHS and for local law enforcement into those
areas?
Ms. Mittal. Yes, it does. If Border Patrol requests it and
they are required under the MOU to grant them access as long as
they comply with the environmental laws.
LAND EXCHANGES
Mr. Calvert. Okay. On the issue of land exchanges, there
have been a number of land exchanges, usually for public
benefit. Usually for roadways or some other purpose. Trying to
get these land exchanges done virtually in every case is time
consuming. It seems that the process is never ending, and even
when it is to a mutual benefit to the Forest Service and to the
public agency. Why is that the case? From my anecdotal
information, people say it is generally the fault of the Forest
Service. Why do these land exchanges take so long to complete?
Ms. Mittal. Land exchanges are a very complex process. One
of the challenges that the land management agencies have shared
with us, including the Forest Service, is the fact that they do
not have the adequate staffing with the right types of training
to conduct all of the different aspects of a land exchange. It
is generally a lower priority within the agency so it does not
get the attention it deserves.
In addition to that, we found that they do not have a
national strategy on how they are going to go about doing land
exchanges. So they have not set priorities for what land
exchanges they should be focusing on, and in terms of the
training for the staff, they have not made mandatory training
available to the staff, and they do not track that training. So
even though they have these challenges, they have not taken the
steps that would help move the program forward.
Mr. Calvert. I assume fees are paid for these land
exchanges. Has the Forest Service looked into bringing in
outside help to move these things along, or do they have the
authority to do so?
Ms. Mittal. I do not have the answer to that question. I
would have to check.
INVENTORY OF RESOURCES
Mr. Calvert. Okay. You mentioned inventory of invasive
species, and certainly we have a significant amount of invasive
species throughout the national forests, but what about an
inventory of resources? Over the years has the Forest Service
kept an inventory of those resources? Some as you know are
abandoned hard rock mines or abandoned resources of one kind or
another. For potential future benefit, do they keep an
inventory of that?
Ms. Fong. I am taking from your question that you are
talking generally about whether the Forest Service has an
inventory of all its capital assets and property.
Mr. Calvert. Right. Well, like the Bureau of Land
Management supposedly has an inventory of their resources that
they are able to call up at any moment. Is that the case in the
Forestry Service?
Ms. Fong. I am not sure that we have done specific work on
that, but I do recall a few years ago that there were some
questions about inventory of capital property within the Forest
Service, and that may address your question. If you would like,
I could provide information for the record.
[The information follows:]
Forest Service has many systems to track its resources and assets.
Specifically, Forest Service's fixed asset system(s) track and account
for its property for inventory and financial management. This was the
system I referenced during the hearing where I recalled a few years ago
that there were some questions about inventory of capital property
within Forest Service. The issue related to capital property and
inventory has been resolved over the years and there are currently no
outstanding reported deficiencies related to property attributed to the
financial statement audit. The most recent deficiency reported in FYs
2008 and 2009 (but closed in FY 2010) was related to the plan to
improve the quality of the 5-year pooled real property physical
inventories.
Forest Service does track the quality and number of abandoned mines
on Forest Service property. Currently, we are conducting audit work
reviewing the use of Recovery Act funds for remediation of abandoned
mines on Forest Service lands. This work was referred to in our written
testimony.
In regard to resource deployment, Forest Service does maintain
systems to manage and provide resources for its various missions.
Specifically, there are various systems to deploy human and tangible
resources in relation to its wildland fire management and related
mission lines. Some of these systems are fully in-house, while others
are multi-organizational systems linked to other Federal and State
agencies. Additionally, Forest Service employs many systems to manage
assets related to the National Forest lands. These include timber
growth, sales, revenue, and recreational assets used by visitors to
National Forests and other Forest Service-managed lands.
Mr. Calvert. That would be helpful. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Flake.
RECOVERY ACT FUNDING
Mr. Flake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
testimony.
With regard to the Recovery Act funds, you mentioned that
there were problems, some inappropriate expenditures and what
not. Obviously that is from a lack of some kind of controls
there. It seems that these things seem to come up routinely.
Why has it been so hard to get them to put these controls in
place? Why do we have to discover it with an IG report or GAO
report?
Ms. Fong. I would say generally that grants management and
contract management is a very specialized area, and it is an
area that within the Department of Agriculture as a whole we
need to spend a lot of time on, because the expertise there
really needs to be further developed and refined.
We are seeing that coming out in our work in the Forest
Service because the money for the Recovery Act had to be put
out very, very quickly; there were some statutory requirements
on that.
Mr. Flake. We are finding that in a lot of areas.
Ms. Fong. Exactly. It is not an issue that is confined to
the Forest Service, and so as we go through and do our
oversight work, we are seeing at the back end controls that
really should have been addressed at the front one. I think
that would be very useful to the Forest Service moving forward
as it administers its grant and contract programs, that they
will have benefited from the experience that they are going
through right now with Recovery, and this will enable them to
put in effective controls for the future.
Mr. Flake. What percentage of the 1.5 billion that was
provided was subject to these lax controls or whatever else? A
big chunk of it, all of it? What are we looking at here?
Ms. Fong. From the IG's perspective we are looking at all
of the funds that the Forest Service received under the
Recovery Act. We are in the middle of our work. We have done,
we have reviewed field work on about half of what we need to
look at, and we are in the middle of the rest of it. At this
stage of the game what we are seeing is individual instances
here and there of inappropriate claims for expenditures,
inappropriate documentation. We will probably have a more
comprehensive overview and can give you a better sense of it in
about 6 months when we finish all of our fieldwork.
Right now all I could give you would be bits and pieces,
anecdotal evidence.
Mr. Flake. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Mr. Lewis.
LAW ENFORCEMENT TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry about
arriving late and going to be leaving early, but in the
meantime I very much appreciate both of you being here.
The Forest Service and San Bernardino National Forest
dramatically impacts at least two of us here in the room and
the work over the years, our relationship with the agency has
been overall extremely positive. You know, the fire problems
and the challenges, the difficulties have been very, very real.
I want to ask two questions quickly. One takes me back to
an early day when another guy and I went to visit some of the
forests in northern California, and part of the reason for this
overflight was to have the Forest Service show us an example of
the way the forest oftentimes is abused. And we landed our
helicopter somewhere nearby and then we went up to visit the
fields of one of those growth ag products that are not
automatically a part of the forest work.
And what occurred to me at that point in time as you are
dealing with invasive species, if you will, I wonder just how
well we have developed our IT programming to be able to
automatically be in a position to get response to challenges
like that without the Forest Service becoming the police
officers for the world.
It would seem to me it would be software programming that
would say when something like this occurs, the first thing that
happens is you plug it into your computer, and you notify the
appropriate agencies, not just federal but local and otherwise,
about, hey, we got 16 acres of pot growing out here, and why do
you not do something about it.
Do we have that kind of software interaction? I mean, does
the Forest Service think aggressively in terms of that sort of
use of resources? I think the answer is no. Right?
Ms. Fong. You know, let me just comment generally. I know
the Forest Service is trying very hard to bring its IT systems
up to date and current. They face a lot of challenges. Funding
is one, design is another.
Mr. Lewis. Well, we have heard a lot about their not being
very good at being able to get one piece of the agency to
communicate with another and using the IT, why do we have
computers in the first place. But this is just kind of a
fundamental rifle shot at an example of how we might be able to
accelerate the value of these computer assets. I am sorry.
Ms. Fong. Well, I think it is a very good point, and I
believe we have some work that we will be doing shortly on law
enforcement issues within the Forest Service, and I will make a
note that we should take a look at their IT systems.
Mr. Lewis. I would be very interested in your response.
Ms. Mittal. If I could just add to that, when we did look
at the law enforcement programs at the Forest Service, we did
not see any indication that they were using that sort of
software or IT facility. They could not even tell us how many
incidents were occurring on Forest Service land, they could not
tell us what the effect of those incidents were. They knew in
certain places they knew it was happening, like the marijuana
growing and things like that.
Mr. Lewis. Correct.
Ms. Mittal. They knew about it, but they could not quantify
that for us.
Mr. Lewis. Which is an indication of potentially a very
serious problem that we tend to build walls between our sub-
agencies of a department like Interior, then we build walls
between their law enforcement people and their responsibilities
to see that the reports are used appropriately. And if we are
not exercising simple things like computer programs, man, we
have got a long ways to go.
PERSONNEL TURNOVER
One other very brief thing, Mr. Chairman. I will be very
interested in your report regarding what the thoughts are about
turnover of personnel, young people being hired, trained, and
bang, somebody else locally or otherwise hires them out the
door. I hope we have some imaginative ideas besides just pay as
to how we can have these agencies not be 106th on the list or
whatever--206th. Yes.
Ms. Fong. We have issued a report on firefighting
succession plans, and I think you might have noticed it in my
testimony today that we have identified this as a very
significant challenge for the Forest Service because their
turnover rate, their rate of retirements is very, very high,
and the length of time it takes to train somebody to be an
incident commander, for example, averages 23 years, which is
just not a good thing.
And to my thinking, I think one of the most critical issues
facing the Service right now is to get that pipeline going, or
we are going to have major problems in the next few years.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Chairman, I think we need to look carefully
at both the--GAO has to say about a subject like that personnel
turnover critical to our being successful. We should not be
training people for the local government takeover or something.
Mr. Simpson. Well, it is certainly an issue when we have
the Forest Service in to talk to them about what they are doing
to address that turnover. I have met some marvelous incident
commanders that have done fantastic jobs, but as you said, they
are not going to be around forever, and it bothers me. I mean,
most people that have not been out on a forest fire do not
understand it is not just picking up a shovel like it used to
be in 1910 and going and throwing dirt on it. When I was first
elected, we had one that burned 1.8 million acres up in Idaho,
and I took my chief of staff and said, let's go fight a forest
fire, and he thought I was nuts.
But we called the local Director of the Forest Service and
said we were going to come up, we wanted them to treat us like
a forest firefighter so that we knew that it took. And we spent
a couple days up there with them, and it is huge. You have
5,000 people out there to fight one of these fires to make sure
that the personnel are in the right place the next morning,
that they have the food and water they are going to need. I
mean, it is a huge undertaking.
And incident commander is a hell of a responsibility.
Mr. Lewis. By the way, Mr. Chairman, as I was closing that
out, I really am appreciative as well as you are, but I wanted
the Forest Service to know there is a lot of interest in this
subject here. I am sure you will make sure that is available.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Cole.
Mr. Cole. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am always hesitant
when we get on this subject. When you are from Oklahoma, if we
see three trees together, we think it is a conspiracy, and that
they are talking to one another. We do not know a lot about
forests, but I wanted to pick up on an area, I had actually
marked this in your testimony, and I apologize for arriving
late.
But the same concerns that Mr. Lewis expressed, just about
the aging of the workforce that you mentioned in your
testimony, which those are really striking figures about what
percentage, 64 percent within a few years of retirement. And
when you say they have not planned adequately, before you asked
the questions was there any plan? Were people thinking about
this? Were people recognizing it, or did you say, hey, look
around the table you guys are getting old here. Anybody
thinking about who would be here next?
Ms. Fong. My sense is that there is an awareness of the
issue, and it is certainly not an issue that has taken anybody
by surprise. You know, throughout the Federal Government there
has been this whole issue of the baby boom generation all
approaching retirement, and so it is an issue of general
concern to every agency in the Federal Government.
I think where perhaps we have added some useful thinking to
the subject is that we have tried to identify what is going on
within the Forest Service that tends to act as a disincentive
to people to get their training done more quickly, and we have
tried to point out to the Forest Service things that they can
do to actually address these issues, to create some incentives,
to perhaps require people to serve on fires, perhaps direct the
training to be done much more quickly.
And I think all of those things will spawn a debate within
the Forest Service as to whether this works for their
organization, culture, and mission.
Mr. Cole. In the Forest Service how do they identify how
they want to recruit people? Let me give you sort of an example
where I have seen a similar problem addressed I think pretty
well.
Tinker Air Force Base has an aging workforce. That is one
of the big depots and getting mechanics is difficult and it is
a very skilled profession, particularly when you are
rehabilitating air frames that are 50 years old. It is almost a
craftsman. It is not an industrial process of mass production.
And they literally saw this coming, went to local community
colleges, sat down with the state government, helped them
design the training programs that would begin to produce people
because they are good jobs. They are well-paying jobs, and the
schools produced the kind of worker that they wanted to hire.
Literally went into the high schools in some places, sat down
with retiring military personnel who acquired the skills
working on aircraft, did a really masterful job and now have an
ongoing training program, and we are not going to miss a beat.
And that was all driven by the institution. That is by the Air
Force and by the folks that saw this coming.
Do we have anything like that in the Forest Service? Did
somebody say there has got to be community colleges in Idaho
and places like that where here is this promising career or a
career tech-type situation, sit down and develop programs for
those people so they would actually direct their graduates
towards you?
Ms. Fong. Well, I think you have a terrific idea there, and
I think it makes a lot of sense for agencies to be thinking
very creatively about how they can partner with educational
institutions.
In the case of our work, we focused on the senior fire
management positions, which are the incident commander and the
position that coordinates all of the support services, which
would not necessarily be entry-level types of jobs. And I
think, you know, some of your ideas perhaps we should explore
with the Forest Service to see if they would apply to the way
the Forest Service is addressing its issues at the senior level
as well.
Mr. Cole. Well, I would just assume since you pointed out
that this is a generational problem. It is a problem across
federal service. There ought to be a sort of best practices
almost agency by agency. When you have got this problem, here
are some of the things you should be thinking about. They are
not my ideas. They are just ideas I saw applied by one
institution.
Ms. Mittal. If I could add to that, when we looked at their
workforce planning efforts, one of the things that we noted is
that the Forest Service had identified key competencies that it
needs to conduct its mission, but one of the things that they
had not done was a gaps analysis. And that actually feeds into
exactly what you were saying, that if they do a gaps analysis
which tells them where the competencies that they do not have
and what are the types of people and what are the types of
skills they need to hire, then they can start making those
kinds of decisions and looking for those relationships with
community colleges, with other places where they can start
getting those skills and those abilities into the organization.
But because they have not done that critical gaps analysis,
they are not there yet where they can start implementing those
strategies.
Mr. Cole. Have they committed to do that, though, in their
discussions with you?
Ms. Mittal. They have told us that they are going to do the
gaps analysis. Another area that we found that there are
limitations is they have not used all of their human capital
flexibilities available to them, and that would also help, you
know, things like retention bonuses or paying back tuition for
the new hires, those types of things.
So those things are available to them as well, and they
have not used them as effectively as they could, but they do
plan to do so in the future.
RECOVERY ACT FUNDS
Mr. Cole. I do not want to overuse my time, Chairman. I
have one or two other areas. Well, the other area that
interested me in just looking at the testimony was your
discussion and your analysis about what had happened with the
Recovery funds.
And I want to ask a very general question, and you just
sort of take it where you want. I look on this whether you were
for it or not, this was an enormous, one-time opportunity that
is unlikely to ever come again to really focus on big capital
items or some, the one that you just cannot deal with on a
yearly basis.
If you had to judge broadly how well has the Forest Service
used the money to deal with big one-time problems as opposed to
here is my kind of wish list, and I want to get this IT thing.
That is just dealing with immediate need. It is sort of like
money comes in, this is your chance to put all the money back
to educate your kid, or we can go to Bermuda. There is just no
plan to it.
And I know they had to move very rapidly, but were they
able to do that sort of thing?
Ms. Fong. Well, looking at the money that the Forest
Service got, they got two pots of money: half for capital
improvements and half for wildland fire and hazardous fuels.
And as you mentioned, they got the money out very quickly.
As we are starting to look at it, we are identifying
questions in our own mind as to whether or not the money went
to the areas where it was intended to go. In particular, we are
asking questions like, ``did the money really go to communities
that were underserved?'' I think that was one of the
requirements that was put on by the Recovery Act, to send the
money to the communities that really were economically
distressed.
And we have some initial findings on that. As we move
through the next year and we look at the results of the
Recovery money to see where the money ultimately went and what
was accomplished with that money, I think we will be able to
give you an assessment as to whether or not the Forest Service
was able to effectively use that money.
Mr. Cole. At GAO are you doing that across the board so to
speak? Because I suspect again whatever problems we find with
the Forest Service, if there are any, you are going to see in
other places.
Ms. Mittal. Right. Most of the GAO Recovery Act work has
focused on funds that were provided to the state and local
governments. So we have not looked agency by agency at the
Recovery Act spending. We have been primarily focused on the
money that passed through to the state and local governments.
Mr. Cole. Is there a plan to do that at some point? I know
the volume of work we are talking about here is enormous.
Ms. Mittal. Right now I am not aware of it. Most of the
work that we are doing on the Recovery Act has been requested
by individual committees where they are concerned about their
particular department or agency, and so we do not have a
government-wide effort ongoing right now.
Mr. Cole. That is something, Mr. Chairman, maybe you as
chairman talking with the other chairmen, it would be nice to
have, because this was massive. Again, it was one-time. We
spent more money in one bill than we spent on the war in Iraq
and Afghanistan, I think, combined up to that point, but that
kind of effort.
So there needs to be some sort of sense of whether or not
this huge one-time investment got us something that was
tangible and long-lasting.
Anyway, I yield back. Thank you very much.
Mr. Simpson. Mrs. Lummis.
Mrs. Lummis. And I apologize for being late. It is Ms.
Mittal?
Ms. Mittal. Yes.
FIRE PROGRAM ANALYSIS TOOL
Mrs. Lummis. It is very nice to meet you. Thanks. You noted
that the GAO has consistently been concerned about the
interagency development of the Fire Program Analysis tool that
is intended to allow agencies to analyze asset combinations and
strategies for fuel reduction and, you know, determine a more
cost-effective approach or the most cost-effective approach.
What do you recommend as a path forward here so the fire
program can develop a tool to analyze that?
Ms. Mittal. Well, they have been working on this tool for
almost a decade now. Congress required them to develop the Fire
Program Analysis tool in 2001, and in 2002, the agency started
working on the tool. They were supposed to be done with the
tool in 5 years, and it is about 10 years later, and they are
still not done. What we would like to see is that they have
science that underlies the tool, be peer reviewed so that we
have some assurance that the tool will be developing good
analysis and the data that comes out of this tool is reliable.
So we think that that is a very important step that needs to be
undertaken.
We were also concerned by some of the changes that they
made during the course of developing the tool that they did not
document as to why they were making those changes. So that is
an important aspect of the development that needs to be done.
The other thing is that the way they have been rolled out,
the tool has been a little bit confusing, because even before
it was ready they were starting to use it, and so I think what
that did is it raised some concerns about the effectiveness of
the tool.
So not only has the development been a little bit choppy,
but then you have got the management of the tool has been not
very effective.
Mrs. Lummis. Would you care to comment on that?
Ms. Fong. No, thank you.
Mrs. Lummis. Okay. That is fine. Well, do you think we are
going to be able after this investment of time, Ms. Mittal, to
get a useful tool that is worth all the time and effort that is
being put into it?
Ms. Mittal. Honestly, I cannot answer that question right
now. There is so much uncertainty about what this tool is going
to be able to provide in terms of results that I cannot answer
that question at this point in time. I mean, it had a lot of
promise. There were a lot of things that they were doing. It is
a very complex modeling process that they are going through. We
recognize that, but it has also been a very long time and a lot
of money that has gone into it, and at this point in time we
are not sure about the results that are going to come out of
this tool.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Let me ask just a couple other questions.
INVASIVE SPECIES
You mentioned something near and dear to my heart, invasive
species. I have had several organizations, groups, county WEED
personnel, others meet with me about trying to change the way
we do invasive species, and their argument was, and I think the
number that they gave me, I might be off, but it was like only
about 5 percent of the funds being spent on invasive species
actually killed invasive species, those that are used on the
ground to spray invasive species.
Do you know if that is true or accurate or anything like
that?
Ms. Fong. Yes. In our work on invasive species we did not
look at that, and I am looking at my staff here, and I am not
sure that we can provide you any additional information.
Mr. Simpson. Okay. I will ask the Forest Service that.
CLIMATE CHANGE
One other issue that I have been concerned with over the
last several years, and I do not know if you have done any work
on it yet or not, deals with climate change, in that in this
budget we are spending about $500 million, close to half a
billion dollars, on climate change studies, and the Forest
Service gets some, you know, namely the agency within the
Interior budget, gets some money to study climate change.
My concern is not that we are spending money on studying
climate change, but that I do not see any coordination between
all the other agencies. It has become the key phrase, as I like
to say after 9/11 the key phrase was homeland security if you
wanted to increase your budget. Now the key phrase is climate
change, so everybody is putting in money for climate change. I
suspect some of the science that is actually being done is
science that was being done before, but now we are going to
define it as climate change science because it is easier to get
money for that because everybody is concerned about climate
change.
Have we done anything--have either of your agencies done
anything--to look at the coordination of the amount of money? I
mean, it is hard to tell how much just within our budget we are
spending in climate change, but government-wide it is
incredible how much we are spending.
And I do not mind doing that. I just want to know that
there is some coordination between all of it, and that it is
not just how agencies are rebuilding science programs that they
would like to rebuild.
Has anybody done any study of that or anything related to
it?
Ms. Mittal. We do have an ongoing engagement looking at the
total amount of money being spent by the Federal Government on
climate change, and that report is going to be issued at the
end of April, early May. And it looks at how the strategic
priorities are being set for climate change funding and whether
the funding is actually going to those strategic priorities.
At the Forest Service we have looked at their R&D Program,
and climate change research is one of the five emerging issues
that they are focusing on. We also looked at coordination
between the Forest Service and other agencies that do similar
research, and we actually found that the Forest Service R&D
Program had put in improved coordination mechanisms with these
other agencies so that they were not duplicating one another
but were actually complimenting each other's research.
Mr. Simpson. That is good to know. My impression in just
talking to all the different agencies, and I do not have
anything to back it up--it was just my impression--is that the
Forest Service probably does a better job of overseeing their
climate change science than just about any of the other
agencies.
Ms. Mittal. Well, I think overall we were very surprised,
pleasantly surprised that the Forest Service R&D Program is a
very well-managed program. Usually when we go in we always find
negative things, but for the R&D Program over at the Forest
Service we were surprised by how well they are managing that
program.
Mr. Simpson. I have thought seriously about putting
together a line item within the budget, and it would take some
authorizing legislation, too, that, say, within the Interior
budget puts the money not into each specific agency, but into a
climate change budget and then has, I do not know, a panel, I
have not considered yet who that would be, and that different
agencies might apply to that panel with their research projects
of what they want to do and how they want to spend it. Then
somebody coordinates it centrally to make sure that it is being
done wisely, and we are using it in the highest priority areas
that we should.
So, anyway, those are some discussions that I think will
probably be coming up over the next year.
Any other questions, Mr. Cole? Mrs. Lummis?
Mrs. Lummis. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you both for being here today. Your
reports are actually very valuable to us in that they form the
basis for a lot of the inquiry we will have with the
Department. I hope that the Department, I am sure the
Department knows that we are looking at your reports also and
will ask them questions about why some of the things are being
implemented and why some of them are not, but I appreciate the
work you do, and thanks for being here today.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.075
Friday, March 11, 2011.
U.S. FOREST SERVICE FY 2012 BUDGET
WITNESSES
TOM TIDWELL, CHIEF, U.S. FOREST SERVICE
KATHLEEN ATKINSON, DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC PLANNING, BUDGET AND
ACCOUNTABILITY
Opening Remarks of Chairman Simpson
Mr. Simpson. The committee will come to order.
Today we meet to discuss the President's fiscal year 2012
budget for the Forest Service. I would like to start out by
saying that we are very happy to have the chief with us here
today and thankful that you are healthy and clearly on the
mend.
Mr. Tidwell. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. First, I would like to highlight a positive
story in Idaho. On the Salmon-Challis National Forest, the
Salmon Valley Collaborative has made some great progress
putting together projects to protect communities, improve
forest health and reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfires.
The Forest Service has been working with the BLM, Fish and
Wildlife Service, state agencies, the community, industry,
environmental groups and numerous others to solve problems. To
me, this is exactly what the Forest Service should be doing.
Chief, I applaud these efforts and hope to work with you to
expand and build upon these success stories.
This is one of many positive examples of things the Forest
Service is doing in my state and across the country. I am
concerned, however, that the Forest Service's fiscal year 2012
budget reflects a major shift in priorities by putting land
acquisition before fulfilling the agency's mission to manage
forest health. I support the President's America's Great
Outdoors initiative and recognize the value of providing
opportunities for people to connect with our forests, National
Parks and amazing natural resources. But it does not make sense
to me that we would use this initiative to dramatically
increase land acquisition instead of focusing our limited
resources on desperately needed efforts to improve forest
health and address the maintenance backlog, grazing permit
backlog and numerous other problems across the country.
At a time when our forests are significantly overstocked
and unhealthy, the Forest Service proposes reducing spending on
hazardous fuels, forest health, grazing and fire suppression.
Many of these programs support private jobs in rural
communities from ranching and forestry to recreation and
wildlife management. These important programs, so valuable to
rural communities, should be a priority.
The budget also proposes taking $328 million out of
discretionary funds for the Secure Rural Schools Act, which up
until this proposal has been a mandatory program. This program
is critical for many rural counties in the West, and I
appreciate your recognition of that. I am concerned, however,
that this proposal moves this program from mandatory to
discretionary spending, essentially taking funding away from
fire and hazardous fuels to make counties whole. I would like
to work with the Administration on a better solution that does
not sacrifice firefighting for the counties.
I have a couple other concerns about this budget. The
combination of line items under the National Forest System,
known as the Integrated Resource Restoration budget line item
is also concerning to us, mostly because the Forest Service has
difficulties explaining how the fiscal year 2010 and fiscal
year 2011 funding and line items would be changed as a result.
The Forest Service needs to demonstrate accountability and
robust performance measures before the subcommittee can support
this proposal. We are the stewards of taxpayer dollars and need
to accurately report them.
As you know, the travel management plans were defunded in
H.R. 1, mostly because Members of Congress are hearing
complaints from their constituents. I do not think defunding
travel management plans is the solution, but I do know this
issue will continue to come up again, very likely on the House
floor. I know there are forests that have done a good job
handling travel management plans, including some forests in my
own district, but others have ignored the public and concern
from local officials. That is not right and, in my opinion,
when the Forest Service has not adequately addressed the
concerns of the community, they should redo these plans. Chief,
again, I would like to work with you on solutions to this
problem.
In closing, I would like to commend the Forest Service
employees in Idaho and really across the Nation. They do a
great job in an environment that is making it increasingly
difficult for them to do so. I reiterate my concern about the
report that came out a few years ago ranking Forest Service
employees as some of the most dissatisfied employees in the
Federal government, and I hope that you are taking steps to
address these issues. If anyone should love their job, it is a
Forest Service employee. I look forward to working with you on
many of these issues and thank you and your staff for their
hard work that you are doing and for your assistance.
Mr. Simpson. With that, I am happy to yield to the
gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Moran.
Mr. Moran. Well, thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
Opening Remarks of Mr. Moran
Good morning, and we are delighted to see you, Chief
Tidwell and Director of Budget Ms. Atkinson.
The Forest Service as we know manages substantial land in
43 states and Puerto Rico. It has national responsibilities as
well with the state and private forestry and research branches.
It is a terribly important agency. The open space and water
produced in these forests is of tremendous importance, even to
the Bronx where while we have some large windowsills, we do not
have a lot of national forests, and Mr. Hinchey has a few more,
but all of us have a stake in the health of our forests whether
we live in urban or rural areas.
Last week, as I mentioned yesterday, I joined the
Agriculture Secretary Vilsack and Chief Tidwell and a number of
conservation leaders to celebrate the centennial of the Weeks
Act. That was an act that was passed 100 years ago this month
that allowed the Forest Service to work with counties and
states to acquire denuded lands in the East and restore forests
and watersheds. At that time the timber industry had gone
through and clear cut hundreds of thousands of acres and just
left them, and as a result the water was blocked from running.
It had begun to toxify. There were no navigable waters in much
of the East as a result, and people knew something had to be
done but they did not know what to do, and it was Congressman
Weeks that went forward in a time that the political context
was very much like it is today. There was an aversion to
federal activity and yet he was able to get that legislation
through, and it has been a tremendous success. It allowed 52
new national forests to be developed in 26 Eastern United
States, and it covers more than 27 million acres today.
Now, with this budget we are being asked to continue
funding forest and watershed restoration activities. And as
strongly as we support the concept, obviously the devil is in
the details. There are some issues that I know we want to
pursue and we are going to pursue it often-times from different
perspectives.
Mr. Chairman, I know you would be disappointed if I did not
share with you a quote.
Mr. Simpson. I wait for it every morning.
Mr. Moran. Thank you. The chairman has a real affinity for
John Muir particularly, so we are going to quote John Muir. He
wrote in his opening to American forests, and I am quoting,
``The forests in America, however slighted by man, must have
been a great delight to God for they were the best he ever
planted. The whole continent was a garden and from the
beginning it seemed to be favored above all the other wild
parks and gardens of the globe,'' and he continued, ``Every
other civilized nation in the world has been compelled to care
for its forests and so must we if waste and destruction are not
to go on to the bitter end leaving America as barren as
Palestine or Spain.''
Now, he wrote that a long, long time ago but certainly the
wisdom is just as needed today, so while we move ahead with the
watershed and restoration agenda, we want to remember that our
job is to improve the environment and the forests for the next
generation and for all generations to come. Foresters and
biologists are trained to be a patient lot, much more than
Members of Congress, I might say, but the Congress also needs
to oversee the activities on the public lands because so much
is at stake. And as we heard from the GAO and Inspector General
yesterday, the Forest Service does have some room for
managerial improvement in some areas.
With that, again, Mr. Chairman, thanks for holding the
hearing and we look forward to the testimony.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, and thank you for the quote. I am
not sure that Palestine and Spain like that quote.
Mr. Moran. You have to call it like you see it.
Mr. Simpson. Chief Tidwell, thank you for being here today,
and the floor is yours.
Mr. Tidwell. Well, Mr. Chairman, members of the
subcommittee, it is a privilege to be here today to discuss the
President's 2012 budget request for the Forest Service. I am
here today with Kathleen Atkinson, our budget director, and she
will be ready to answer your very specific budget questions
once we get into those.
I really appreciate the support that this subcommittee has
shown the Forest Service in the past, and I look forward to
continuing to work with you for us to be able to provide more
of the things that the American public want and need from the
Nation's forests and grasslands.
The President's budget is designed to support the
Administration's priorities for maintaining and restoring the
resiliency of America's forests. Additionally, this budget
request reflects our commitment to fiscal restraint with
significant reductions to ensure that we are spending
efficiently and focusing on the priorities of the American
public. The budget request supports these priorities through
four key objectives.
The first is to restore and sustain the forest and
grasslands by increasing our collaborative efforts, Mr.
Chairman, that you referenced, to build more and more support
for the restoration activities that need to occur that create
jobs. The budget requests full funding for the Collaborative
Forest Landscape Restoration Fund. It increases the emphasis on
protecting and enhancing watershed health with a request of $80
million for a new priority watershed and jobs stabilization
initiative that would really help us focus on funding large-
scale projects. It does propose a revised Integrated Resource
Restoration budget line item to align our budget structure with
the work that we are doing on the ground. This will help
facilitate a more integrated approach to developing project
proposals that will result in more work and more jobs. We will
continue to track the traditional targets such as board feet,
miles of stream improved, but we also will track the overall
outcomes of restoration and watershed improvement so that we
can show you that based on the investments that we are making,
we are making a difference at a landscape scale. We are going
to continue to incorporate our climate change adaptation and
mitigation strategies that have been developed by Forest
Service research to determine how our management needs to
change, to be able to increase the ecosystem's resistance to
increased frequency of disturbances like fire, insects and
disease, invasives, flood and drought.
The second objective is the budget request's funding for
wildland fire suppression that includes a level of preparedness
that will continue our success to suppress 98 percent of the
wildland fires during initial attack. It is also a realignment
of our preparedness and suppression funds to more accurately
display cost. It provides for the FLAME fund to increase
accountability and transparency for the cost of large funds,
and to further reduce the threat of wildfire to homes and
communities, we want to do more of the hazardous fuels in the
wildland-urban interface.
The third objective is to increase support for community-
based conservation with the America's Great Outdoors
initiative, and we want to do this by helping America reconnect
with the outdoors by increasing our conservation education and
volunteer opportunities through our youth programs. We want to
build on the success of our 28 Job Corps centers by supporting
the creation of a 21st Century Conservation Service Corps
program that will help build skills and provide work
experiences for more of our youth. We want to continue to work
with our states to use their state and private programs to
promote conservation and to help keep private forests forested,
and we are requesting an increase in LWCF funding and our
Forest Legacy program so we can use conservation easements and
land acquisition to protect critical forests and acquire public
access.
And the fourth objective is to further support the economic
opportunities in rural communities by supporting our
recreational opportunities that not only add to the quality of
our lives but support these communities with over $13 billion
in annual spending by recreation visitors. We want to encourage
biomass utilization and other renewable energy opportunities
while we explore ways to be able to process oil and gas permit
applications and energy transmission proposals more
efficiently.
And then, Mr. Chairman, as you mentioned, we are proposing
a framework for a five-year reauthorization of the Secure Rural
Schools Act with $328 million in our budget request to fund the
first year. We want to work with the subcommittee to consider
options for mandatory funding and also with the overall
legislative proposal. Our goal is to increase the collaborative
efforts to encourage public involvement in management of their
national forests and grasslands. To maintain and restore
healthy landscapes, we need to take care of the ecosystem but
we also need to support healthy, thriving communities and
provide jobs in rural America.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to address the
subcommittee, and I look forward to answering your questions.
[The statement of Tom Tidwell follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.085
GRAZING ALLOTMENTS
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. I appreciate that opening
statement.
Let me first ask a couple of specific questions relative to
Idaho. Last year, the Payette National Forest made a formal
decision to end sheep grazing on a number of allotments because
of concerns about possible impacts that domestic sheep have on
wild bighorn populations. I recognize that this was a difficult
decision for the agency, and I commend the leadership and
supervisors of both Payette National Forest and Boise National
Forest. Chief Tidwell, I know that you share my concern not
only about the impact of this decision on wool growers directly
impacted by eliminating these permits but also about the larger
impact the decision would have on domestic sheep grazing
throughout our national forest system.
One of the concerns I often hear from the wool growers is
that there has not been enough research done to determine with
certainty that bighorn sheep were dying as a result of contact
with the domestic sheep. Could you tell me what research is
being done by the Forest Service or the USDA to provide sound
science, what efforts are being undertaken to provide a vaccine
that might mitigate any impacts with the domestic-wildlife
interface, and is the Forest Service working to find
alternative grazing allotments for those impacted by this
decision and would it be helpful for Congress to include
language directing that this issue be addressed quickly?
Mr. Tidwell. Mr. Chairman, I do share your concern with
this issue and it is one that I have tracked not only in my
current job but also when I was a regional forester in our
northern region where one of the sheep permittees grazed in
both regions. This has been a longstanding, difficult issue
with bighorns and domestic sheep, and it is an area where there
is a need to develop probably more science. Our research
scientists are working with at least one effort at a university
to be able to do a better job considering what is going on with
disease transmission between domestic sheep and the bighorns,
so there is a need for us to be able to continue to do that
research and we are working in conjunction with the
universities on that.
In the near term, the best solution is to find some
alternative allotments that we continue to work on to be able
to find places that are substantial, and I know both forests
have been working on this, and it is a difficult situation
because some of the other sheep allotments have been closed
because of grizzly bear habitat, for instance. So it is one of
the things we want to continue to work on, but I tell you, I
cannot stress enough how important it is for us to be able to
find solutions and not so much just for this particular
situation. The livestock industry is very important to help us,
not only the economic opportunities that come from that but
also it helps us to be able to maintain open space. What I am
talking about is on the private lands because when these
ranchers go out of business, almost always they sell out to a
developer. Instead of having a ranch that provides wildlife
habitat, and in this case some bighorn sheep habitat, what we
will get is some really nice, beautiful cabins built there
instead that will complicate not only our job as far as
providing wildlife habitat but then also it really complicates
our mission when it comes to wildfire too. There are just
tremendous benefits for us to be able to maintain the livestock
industry for a lot more reasons than just the direct economic
benefits. And so we are going to continue to focus on that to
expand the research but then also do everything that we can to
maintain the industry.
Mr. Simpson. There are people who suggest that we should
remove all grazing from public lands, who attempt to get cows
and sheep and so forth off of public lands. There are a lot of
ways to reduce wildfires, fuels mitigation and those types of
things. Is grazing an important aspect of reducing the
likelihood of wildfires?
Mr. Tidwell. That is not a dominant tool. It is more of an
opportunity that comes along with it. But the focus that we
have is to be able to work with our permittees to manage the
resource and to lay out that these are the conditions that the
resource needs to be in when your livestock are removed. These
are the conditions that we are striving for over the next five
or ten years so that we can maintain that resource so that the
forage is there for the livestock, the forage is there for
wildlife, and that it is sustainable. That is always going to
be our primary focus on this. I know there has been criticism
in the past with some of our grazing allotments, but I can take
you out and show you places where the permittees are just doing
an excellent job of management and those issues are not there.
They work--as far as provide for the wildlife habitat, they do
a good job to maintain the riparian areas and they understand
that goes with the job. And I will tell you, on those
allotments we do not have the issues. Throughout the country,
the industry is doing a very good job, but it is like
everything, there is always one or two. I mean, we have over
10,000 allotments, and I am not going to tell you that every
one of them is in great shape, but I tell you, we have made
great strides and we are going to continue to work on that.
WILDFIRE SUPPRESSION
Mr. Simpson. One other question you brought up in your
testimony, you said you put out 98 percent of all wildfires
when they start, keeping them very small, right?
Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
Mr. Simpson. You know, as I have studied wildland fires,
you have to ask yourself, do we have the right strategy? I know
it is tough to say ``let things burn'' but if some of these
things do not periodically burn, the fuels build up and then
the likelihood that when a fire starts it is a catastrophic
sort of fire increases. How do we balance that?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, we are balancing it through our approach
to wildland fire. We recognize that there are places where fire
needs to play its role in the ecosystem. Then there are also
places, often because of the wildland and urban interface,
where we do not have those options. So when I talk about the 98
percent success rate, and actually last year it was 99 percent,
I am focusing on the fires that we take initial attack on. It
is the ones where we make a decision that we have a fire that
is burning in the back country, in the wilderness, where we
want to manage that. We do not count those because we are not
taking initial attack, we are applying a management strategy.
So we are doing a combination of suppressing the fires that
need to be suppressed but at the same time recognizing the
benefits of fire in the ecosystem and being able to manage
both.
And it works out very well except once in a while on some
of the fires that we are managing, weather conditions change
from what is forecasted and they become larger or they leave
the area that we were trying to keep them in, and that is
usually when we receive the criticism. I understand that, but
we are doing a really good job working with our communities and
getting folks to understand when we are going to suppress, the
location of fires, and the set of conditions that it is okay
for us to manage. We are doing it with our communities so that
they also have, I believe, a higher confidence level; they
understand what is going on so they feel a little bit better
about it. We are going to suppress the fires that need to be
suppressed.
COST RECOVERY
Mr. Simpson. One other question. In 2006, the Forest
Service finalized regulations that allow them to recover costs
for the processing and monitoring of special-use permits
including those that are issued to outfitters and guides.
Outfitters and guides in Idaho are deeply concerned about the
impact that these requirements will have on their businesses,
especially during an economic downturn that has hurt the
recreation industry. I have appreciated the Forest Service's
willingness to engage with these small business owners to find
solutions that are mutually beneficial. In particular, Regional
Forester Harv Forsgren has committed to sitting down with the
outfitters and guides in June to discuss this and other issues
facing the recreation industry.
However, I still have some concerns about the Forest
Service's cost recovery policy. As we have looked into this,
the Forest Service has indicated that it implemented its cost
recovery regulations in order to better coordinate these
policies with, the policies that the BLM has been using for a
number of years. When we spoke to the BLM, however, they
indicated the cost recovery structure they use is entirely
different. Can you tell me why the Forest Service decided it
needed to implement cost recovery and why it chose this system
rather than one similar to the BLM's?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, Mr. Chairman, the reason we pursued cost
recovery is to be able to address the backlog of applications
that we receive every year. We have over 75,000 special-use
permits on the national forests. We receive over 6,000 annual
applications, and in the past we had a tremendous backlog where
folks were coming in and it might be a year or two before we
could even address their application. Many of these are like a
one-year permit they are looking for. So doing the cost
recovery has helped us to significantly reduce that backlog,
and we have taken the approach that if processing the permit
and doing the environmental analysis that is necessary takes
less than 50 hours of staff time, then there is no cost to the
applicant. But if it takes more than that, then there is a
cost.
I recognize that with our current approach, it works really
well for the large operations. Where the trouble is, is with
those folks that maybe it only takes between 50 and 100 hours.
They are the smaller operators, some of them are outfitters and
guides that we have in Idaho and around the country. That is
where the impact occurs. So it is one of the things where we
need to take another look at what we are doing to see if there
is a better way to do this. I would love if we did not have to
have cost recovery. I wish that we could just have the staff to
be able to process these permits as they come in and do it very
efficiently and that people would not have to wait, but the
reality is, that is not the case. So this is what we have tried
to do to find this balance and it is one we need to continue to
look at to be able to find the right split between the small
operators and the large operators.
And then the other thing we are focused on is looking at
our processes so that we are making sure we can be as efficient
and as effective as we can with doing the processing, and so
those are the things we are going to focus on.
Mr. Simpson. Well, I am not opposed to cost recovery. I
think it is the right thing to do. The process that the Forest
Service has chosen, as I said, is substantially different than
the BLM's and you can understand why some outfitters are saying
if it takes less than 50 hours, I am exempt, I do not have to
pay, but if it takes over 50 hours, I do not start paying at 50
hours, I go back to hour one. So 51 hours, you pay the full
cost recovery; 49 hours, you pay nothing, which is a little
strange. But I look forward to working with you to try to
resolve this because I do not think the outfitters and guides
are opposed to a cost recovery program either.
Mr. Tidwell. We will look at what the Bureau of Land
Management is doing and take another look at that and see if
there are ways that we can improve this to make it consistent,
make it fair and allow us to be more responsive.
Mr. Simpson. Thanks, Chief.
Mr. Moran.
CONTINUING RESOLUTION IMPACTS
Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a good issue and
a good point.
We have gone though six months now, half a fiscal year, an
unprecedented time of uncertainty for every federal agency, not
really knowing from week to week how much money you are going
to have to deal with or even if you are going to have any funds
at all. We are now approaching the end of another Continuing
Resolution period. There are certain things that you do every
year that I cannot believe are not adversely impacted. For
example, you hire a number of summer temporaries and have
contracts that are seasonal. Has the uncertainty that
accompanies the C.R. affected your ability to do that?
Mr. Tidwell. Congressman, it has. We are not able to enter
into our larger contracts that we would normally be awarding at
this time of year. We are not able to make the commitments to
our seasonal workforce that we normally would be able to do,
especially this late in the year. Each week, it is down to each
week now, as this continues, it is becoming more and more
difficult as we are struggling to find ways to be able to make
the commitments to our firefighting resources, for our air
tankers and our helicopters that we bring on. We need to be
able to make commitments. These folks want a commitment for the
rest of the year, and as each week goes on, it is getting more
and more difficult to be able to find the resources to be able
to make those commitments. We are really focused on the ones we
absolutely have to do but it leaves no flexibility to move
forward with the contract work, the restoration work that we
would like to get done.
TRAVEL MANAGEMENT
Mr. Moran. Thank you. I was afraid that would be the case
and I guess it is fairly obvious.
During the extended debate on the full year Continuing
Resolution known as H.R. 1, there are any number of
environmental riders, some affecting the Forest Service, and
one of them, thanks in large part to Chairman Simpson, an
amendment was defeated that attempted to cut funding for your
international program. Another case, though, an amendment by
Mr. Herger, was passed that stops the Forest Service from
managing its roads. I would like for you to talk about your
off-road vehicle management program and the road system
generally through the forests and what impact this amendment
would have. And let me just mention the larger context. The
Forest Service has been talking about comprehensive forest
transportation plans for years, identifying which roads should
be saved, which removed and where people ought to be able to
travel with off-road machines. I guess it is fair to ask why it
has not been done yet and when it will be done, but I do
specifically want to know what is the impact of that amendment
if it were to be legislated in final form. What it would do to
Forest Service?
Mr. Tidwell. Congressman, thank you. I first also want to
thank the support for our international programs, and I just
appreciate everyone's help on that.
When it comes to travel management, I understand the
concerns and I understand some of the concerns that you folks
are hearing from your constituents. Travel management is always
by far the most controversial issue that we deal with. It
affects everyone whether you are an active user of the national
forest or an occasional user. The purpose of our travel
management planning when it came to determining a motorized
vehicle use map, there is one reason for that, and that was to
be able to sustain motorized recreation on our national
forests. When we started this process, there was tremendous
opposition that was forming against motorized recreation. We
were in court constantly. And so we made this decision a few
years ago to move forward and have a system of roads and routes
and travels on all of our national forests and grasslands that
would have consistent signing. We would take a fairly
consistent approach to reaching out to the public to be able to
determine what the system should be and the sole purpose is to
be able to sustain motorized recreation. We did pretty well
early on and there was a lot of support for folks to come to
the table, and we got about 65 percent of the forests and
grasslands that have completed the work but there is still a
significant portion that has not. I recognize the controversy
that comes from this, and the thing that I would ask your
support is to encourage us, direct us if you need to, to really
reach out and embrace collaboration to be able to find
solutions because that is the way forward with these issues.
Bring people to the table, keep them at the table until they
can work out their differences and then we can go forward with
a system so that folks who want to ride their motorcycles,
their ATVs, their Jeeps or whatever, they will know that they
have not an opportunity this year to do it but they also know
that they will next year, the year after and so forth.
And the other key part of it is that we can go from one
forest to another and see the same system of maps, so it is
very clear and easy for folks to understand which roads and
routes are open and which ones are not so that the users can
follow the regulations and further reduce the overall
controversy.
The other key part of this that I need to mention is that
before we started this, there were many of our forests and
grasslands that allowed cross-country travel. You could just
take your ATV, your motorcycle, your Jeep and go anywhere you
possibly could. It was resulting in a significant amount of
impact to the environment, which just added to the opposition.
That was something that we felt we had to basically put an end
to and so not only did they identify the system of routes and
trails but they also identified areas. There may be a specific
area where it is fine to be able to have cross-country travel.
Those are going to be fairly limited and well signed, but we
try to provide every opportunity we can.
LAND ACQUISITION
Mr. Moran. Thank you, Chief. That is basically the
discussion that we had on the Floor.
I wanted to ask you about the Federal Land Acquisition
program because the Forest Service is such a big player in
that. You have got a 41 percent increase to a total of $91
million in the President's America's Great Outdoors initiative.
It is a reasonable concern that we should not be buying more
land when we cannot afford to take care of what we have, but I
understand you are not really talking about buying new national
forests as much as it is a different kind of purchasing to
improve management efficiency and protect what we have. You
might also touch on the Forest Legacy program. That is up 78
percent to $135 million. Give us your philosophy, if you will,
why this is not subject to the concern that we are acquiring
more that we cannot manage but it is in fact improving our
ability to manage what we have.
Mr. Tidwell. Well, Congressman, I appreciate the concern
with our additional request with LWCF funding. I can understand
where that is coming from. On the other hand, the reason that
we have increased our request is based on what we heard from
the public in the meetings that we had and the listening
sessions that we had across the country with the America's
Great Outdoors initiative. There was strong, strong support for
our LWCF programs, and the reason for that is, these are
relatively small parcels. In fact, with the total LWCF program
for 2012, we would look at acquiring about 33,000 acres across
the country. These are usually small inholdings that are a
critical habitat in some cases but also provide public access.
One of the things we focus on is acquiring those properties
that for a variety of reasons, the landowners feel they have to
shut down public access. And so that is why we feel we need to
continue it.
With our Forest Legacy program, and especially in these
economic times, there are folks that are faced with tough
decisions about leaving their land and selling it to some form
of developer, some form of development, or being willing, or
wanting to work with us. It is not willing. These are folks
that want to work with us to acquire a conservation easement on
their land so they can continue to ranch, so they can continue
to manage forestry on their private lands. Those are the key
benefits. It also reduces our cost in almost every situation,
especially when we acquire an inholding, a 40-acre, 160-acre
inholding, it reduces our costs. It reduces the cost of
boundary-line administration. It reduces our management costs,
especially with things like with fire. When we no longer have
to deal with an inholding, it gives us more flexibility with
our fire management so there is also a direct reduction in
those costs.
So I think folks need to understand that these actually
help us reduce our cost of administration, but I sure do
understand the concern that especially in these economic times
that we have, why we would be asking for this increase.
Mr. Moran. Well put, Chief Tidwell. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Lewis.
HAZARDOUS FUELS
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Chief Tidwell and Ms. Atkinson. We very much
appreciate the work that you are about. I think maybe the major
story in the news this morning reminds us that Mother Nature is
a little bit difficult to predict, let alone control. Over the
years I have been involved in public affairs, one of the more
controversial agencies because of the proximity of the San
Bernardino National Forest has been the Forest Service. Early
on, my predecessor was constantly, it seemed, in lines of
attempted communication with the Forest Service, oftentimes our
constituents felt with very little or no result. I must say,
Chief Tidwell, that environment, if the original reflection was
accurate, has changed radically. We have had an endless series
of floods, fires, bark beetle, et cetera, in our region. With
that, there has developed an amazing level of cooperation
between the various agencies involved with these
responsibilities--law enforcement, the Forest Service, people
who control the highways, et cetera, really phenomenal
willingness to work together that has helped to improve
people's sense that we are attempting to maintaining managing
the forests adequately and at the same time make sure that we
recognize that these are the people's lands after all.
In southern California, as you know, we have recently had a
series of flooding problems. One of the major highways of
access into two of our major communities in the San Bernardino
Mountains, Highway 330, essential got washed out. Some of the
questions that you have already discussed relative to the need
to ensure that we are being careful about environmental
considerations, et cetera, could very well be a part of the
discussion but I am pleased to say that there is great work
going on between the Forest Service and Cal Trans to solve that
problem. We have already discussed the fact that you are moving
rather quickly on that and I very much appreciate it.
An interesting and important note is the way we manage the
forests and especially manage those portions around the urban
centers as it relates to hazardous fuels. Especially around
Lake Arrowhead and Big Bear, people are concerned that a
backing off of availability of funding as well as priority
could very well lead to potential disaster in pretty
significant population centers. Could you give me an idea--I
know there has been some shifting of management monies back and
forth. Can you give me an idea of how we are going to deal with
this 25 percent reduction of hazardous fuels and what it means
to the management of that portion of my forest?
Mr. Tidwell. Mr. Lewis, there is not a 25 percent reduction
in hazardous-fuels funding request. We did do a couple things
that would maybe lead folks to see that, and one of them is
that we wanted to increase our focus on the wildland-urban
interface, as you mentioned how important that is, and so we
have kept that fund and I think there is about $250 million
that will be focused just on that with a target of about 1.2
million acres to be treated. The rest of our hazardous-fuels
funding we did put into our Integrated Resource Restoration.
This is outside of the wildland-urban interface. So there is
another, I think, $85 million, $87 million that was put into
that Integrated Resource Restoration, and we felt that by
putting that fuels funding into that budget line item, it would
help us to do a better job to integrate the overall program, so
when we are looking at a landscape, it is not only to look at
what we need to do for forest health, what we need to do for
watershed conditions but almost always there is a hazardous-
fuels component to every project that we do. It just made sense
from our view and for the way projects are actually designed to
actually have some hazardous-fuel funding.
Now, there is about a $9 million reduction in hazardous-
fuel funding from fiscal year 2010 to what we are proposing in
2012, and it just reflects our commitment to fiscal restraint.
These are just tough budget times, and really the majority of
our budget line items except for about three actually do go
down. It is just one that we felt looking at the overall
balance that we could take a little bit out of there. But the
other thing we want to do is continue our focus to work with
other agencies, the counties and the states, but there is that
$9 million reduction in our request.
EMPLOYEE RETENTION
Mr. Lewis. As you know, in our own forestry region, the
interplay with the BLM and the Park Service as well, we often
talk about people in different shades of green uniforms.
Specifically, I am concerned about the turnover problems that
we have in the Forest Service, the number of people, as the
chairman indicated, and it ought to be the most popular
possible place to want to work and yet it would seem that we do
have this turnover constantly. It would be easy to say that is
simply because other agencies pay them more money and hire
them. What do you think we are going to be able to accomplish
in terms of the 2012 budget relative to that problem?
Mr. Tidwell. Especially in southern California, we did have
higher attrition there, especially in our firefighter ranks,
and over the last couple of years we have made some changes to
that. We have done two things. One, we have provided a
retention, a pay increase similar to what we have been doing
for decades there in southern California to be more competitive
salary-wise, and this is with our firefighters. And then we
also converted many of our temporary positions to full time and
that is full time that where they are working just four or five
months they have the option to work more like eight months to
maybe a full year, and we give them the option of having a
permanent job which has benefits. I think the combination of
these two programs has significantly reduced the number of
vacancies that we have. We have dropped that by way over 50
percent from what we have had in the past. So those are two
things that we are doing directly.
The other thing, and the chairman brought this up, is with
the survey that was done a couple years ago about the overall
morale. You know, we have the most dedicated, committed
workforce, I think in Federal Government by far, and I may be a
little biased but I truly believe that. For the most part, they
are happy but there are certain things that they would like to
see improved and they should expect to see things improved.
Those are some of the administrative operations and functions
that we did, some things that have actually asked all of our
employees to do more administrative tasks, and those are the
things we have been working on, to reduce that and address
those concerns. So I meet once a month with employees who
represent a cross-section of our agency so I can hear directly
from them. These are folks who represent every level of the
organization and I can hear from them directly about what is
going on, what they are concerned about and that sort of thing.
So I feel that we are making some progress.
The biggest challenge that we have and many federal
agencies have the same challenge is that our folks do get
frustrated because they are not able to do everything, and they
are so dedicated, they want to do it all and they will donate
their weekends, their evenings. They will do just about
anything to be able to do that, and so there is always going to
be this concern of needing more resources to be able to get
more work done, and we really stress that we want them to
really just feel good about what we are getting done because it
is tremendous. At the same time, every time that survey is
going to be taken, that frustration will be reflected, and it
is not all bad. I think most corporations would line up to have
our workforce.
LAW ENFORCEMENT-INTERAGENCY COORDINATION
Mr. Lewis. Frankly, that is a very interesting response. I
think it kind of adds to the flavor of what we have been
discussing.
If I could, Mr. Chairman, just briefly, recently when we
met with the Inspector General and GAO, I talked about a trip
to the forest one time by way of helicopter where we saw some
very interesting crops being grown in the national forest, and
I knew that this was not a Forest Service effort to raise
funding across the budget, but in the meantime it does raise
the question about the need for us to not only oversee these
challenges but to effectively be able to communicate not just
with other federal agencies but also local law enforcement,
etc. I am sure you are aware of GIS, that whole communication
system that is improving all of our ability to communicate with
one another. Are you involved in a project to attempt to figure
out better ways for your agency and your personnel to
communicate with other agencies whether they be local law
enforcement or USGS or otherwise?
Mr. Tidwell. Yes, we are, and we are probably doing the
most in the law enforcement arena and in the drug control
arena. I feel very good about the willingness of all the
agencies that deal with marijuana growth on our public lands
and in this country and we are sharing radio frequencies, we
are entering agreements. For instance, we have an agreement on
the southern border where the border patrol will actually take
over road maintenance on some of the roads that we really do
not need to have it be a fairly high-level road for Forest
Service activities but they do for their role and to carry out
their mission and so they are willing to actually then take
through this agreement, they will take over the maintenance
responsibilities because they need certain roads to be at a
little higher standard so they can be more responsive. And then
also when it comes to not only communications but just sharing
information, we are doing this not only with our federal
partners but also with our states and counties, and that is
just essential and especially in your part of the country. I
believe we have a model of cooperation down there but we still
need to improve on that and so those are the things we want to
continue to work on so that we can share information between
the various agencies so we can all be more effective in
carrying our specific missions but also the missions that we
share.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Chairman, I learned that Chief Tidwell is
not the son of a former sheriff of San Bernardino County. But
in the meantime, we are concerned about using forest product
for biofuels and the like. Berkeley is providing a serious
opportunity to experiment with that. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Lewis.
One other point that I just want to make before we go on,
on the personnel management. This has been an issue for a
number of years regarding the morale of the Forest Service. One
other issue that always comes up when I talk to Forest Service
personnel is most people enter the Forest Service because they
love the outdoors. They want to be out managing the forests and
so forth and they find themselves more and more spending time
behind a computer preparing for defense of certain decisions
against lawsuits instead of out doing what they love to do, and
I think that adds to the morale problem that many of them have,
and it takes away the resources that we should be using to
manage the national forests and their time personally, so that
is something that I continue to hear from personnel as I talk
to Forest Service employees around the country.
Ms. McCollum.
INTERNATIONAL FORESTRY
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And as was pointed out,
I think a lot of our thoughts and prayers are with the people
in Japan and that part of the world and what is about to fall
on the West Coast of the United States.
I want to put out there, I do not always agree with
President Obama. I agree with him quite often. It is not too
often I disagree with him. And I want to express my strong
disappointment that the Administration proposed terminating the
international forestry program, and that has been brought up
here in testimony before Congress. I think that shows that it
feels very strongly about this. It is a small, but vital agency
and it has done a lot of valuable work over the past decades.
It plays a very unique role as one of the two federal agencies
working internationally with NGOs to address very critical
natural resource issues that are vital to jobs and the economy
right here in the United States.
The international forestry program is the sole provider of
technical expertise on timber and logging issues. The
international trade agreements, you are the representative for
the United States. You are there. It is not the State
Department, it is the international forestry department. You
work to stop the global flow of illegal wood that is
undercutting our timber industry, and for this reason alone,
the American Forest and Paper Association has also expressed
criticism of the Administration for eliminating this program,
citing the uncertainty of the agency would have technical
capacity to really tackle a lot of these illegal-logging
issues.
But along with that, in addition to stopping the illegal
flow of timber, the international forestry program has also
worked tirelessly with Ducks Unlimited to protect the Canadian
boreal forest for future generations to ensure that our hunters
have waterfowl habitat. This is an area that is second to none
for the breeding ground for ducks and migratory birds in the
United States, and that means real money for jobs in our
economy in Minnesota. The waterfowl industry in Minnesota alone
contributes over $43 million to our local economy.
Now, the Administration claims that the work of the
international forestry program is not central to the mission of
the Forest Service, but I fail to see how we are going to
address invasive species if we do not work across international
borders. The emerald ash borer, which originates in Asia,
threatens millions of acres of forest in my home State of
Minnesota and across this country. The West Coast salmon
migrates to Russia, making the protection of the Russian
watershed vital to the U.S. fishing industry, and the
international forestry programs works on those issues. And as
was pointed out, there was an amendment that we worked in a
very bipartisan fashion to defeat to cut off funding.
So my questions are, without the international forestry
department intact, where it is identifiable out there, who will
be the U.S. representative when it comes to international trade
and protecting our forestry projects? Who will be the
international interlocutor with the world, but particularly
with Mexico and Canada with migratory birds? Who will be the
person, the entity out there to track and coordinate invasive-
species research and movement? Who will be there collectively
for Congress to look to for answers and where the international
community engages, but also where our hunters, our fishermen
and women both commercially and recreationally and our timber
people look to? What will happen if we do not fund this? And I
am very, very concerned about what will happen if this program
disappears. It is small but boy, it is effective.
Mr. Tidwell. Thank you. First of all, thank you for your
support, and I may need to apologize if we have misled the
subcommittee on what we want to do with our international
programs because it is not to zero it out. It is to eliminate
the separate budget line item for international programs but
still be able to continue that incredibly essential work, as
you have so well described. I mean, I could not do it better
myself. And so we were looking at increasing some efficiencies
within just our budgeting systems so we looked at several of
the smaller budget line items that we have and looked at some
opportunities to reduce some of those with the full intent to
be able to continue that program.
And I do know that there is some questioning if we have the
authority to fund international programs out of a variety of
budget line items versus having just one, and we want to work
with the committee to address that issue through either making
sure that they have the authority or if the committee feels we
just need to have the budget line item in there, we definitely
want to work with you on that.
But as you look at everything that this agency does and
when I look at our international programs and the amount of
funding that we request each year and the outputs, it is
probably one of the most effective, efficient programs that we
have, and granted, a majority of the funding comes from the
State Department and USAID because of what we are able to
accomplish, but as you mentioned, the work that we have done to
reduce illegal logging has a direct benefit to the industries
in this country. The work that we do with migratory species has
a direct benefit to this country. There is also, I believe, a
direct and somewhat indirect benefit of helping some of the
developing countries to be able to move toward sustainable
conservation and sustainable forestry. It will have tremendous
benefits not only today but for the future. And so I just want
to thank you for your support of this program and we want to
work with the committee to be able to find ways that we can
continue our international programs work and we are open to
have that discussion.
Ms. McCollum. Well, Mr. Chair, here is my concern. You are
authorized to have this entity and the authorization, what it
does is, it allows Congress when we are doing our oversight to
look at what State, USAID and you are doing all in one area.
When this gets divided up into different line items, it becomes
very difficult for us to do our oversight and it also makes it
very, very tempting when agencies are fighting for crumbs, as
many will be with what I am seeing here happening in Congress,
it is like well, this is pretty small and, maybe we will hold
somebody else to do it so we will do it here and if this is
important, somebody else will do it. And it starts to fall
through the cracks. By having this located in the way that it
is, it puts a lot of sunshine. I think that is one of the
reasons why it is so efficient and why it is so effective
because you know are getting so much scrutiny under it. It also
allows us to kind of in our oversight capacity really see what
we are doing in the areas of protecting our habitat as well as
protecting the species that go across our borders.
I am very concerned, and I do not take great comfort in the
fact that this is going to be micro-divided in other parts of
the budget--other agencies. If this is important work, I guess
you are hearing from this Member of Congress that this is a
tension between us and the Administration and that Congress
wants to be able to see how these programs are working and we
want to be able to have more direct oversight on it. I think we
have that when we have an international program which was
authorized by Congress. I really see that the President maybe
needs to kind of think this over, and I encourage you to have
discussions with the Administration. I think the House of
Representatives has spoken very clearly on this.
Mr. Moran. Would the gentlelady yield?
Ms. McCollum. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. Moran. I would like to just put myself on record in
total agreement with the gentlelady for what it is worth. Thank
you for raising this, Ms. McCollum.
Mr. Tidwell. You have my commitment to work with the
committee in ways necessary to maintain your confidence and
support for this program, so we are open to work with you and
your staff to find ways so that we can assure that you can
carry out your oversight responsibilities and be able to do it
in a way that you can track how the money is being spent and
the performance that is occurring.
Ms. McCollum. I do not doubt for a second that you are a
man of your word with that, but congressionally directed
legislative funds earmarks, authorizations that Congress does,
this is a way in which Congress has a direct voice on how money
is appropriated and how it is spent. The more power agencies
have, the more power the Administration has to determine where
every single penny is going. That takes power away from the
people and I actually see this as part of a constitutional
tension between the Administration and Congress. The President
is doing his job. I do not blame the President for wanting to
have more total control over the dollars, but we are also doing
our job in saying that there will be oversight, there are
statutory authorizations and we expect those to be at a minimum
discussed before they are totally eliminated out of the budget.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Hinchey.
GAS DRILLING--HYDRO FRACKING
Mr. Hinchey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very
much for the important jobs you are doing. This is a very
important set of circumstances.
I wanted to ask a question first of all about gas drilling
on national forest lands. As you know, earlier this year there
were several scientists in the Forest Service who published a
report about the effects of natural gas drilling on the Fernow
Experimental Forest located in West Virginia. The Fernow was
established, as you know, back in 1934. Research there has
focused on forest management and watershed research. This
drilling was significant. It followed just shortly after the
expiration of a very important law here by this Congress, a law
that was in effect for a long time which oversaw the way in
which drilling was taking place to make sure that it was not
being done in contaminated ways, ways which were going to be
deeply dangerous. Unfortunately, that expired here. Congress
expired it back in 2005.
So two years later in 2007, construction began on a new
natural gas well and pipeline, and this report evaluated, this
report that they put out evaluated the impact that this
development had on the natural and scientific resources in that
drilling on the Fernow. Some of the findings were pretty
remarkable, and here are some of them as they were. Loss of
control of the drill bore resulted in drilling fluid spewing
uncontrollably into the air, turning foliage brown, causing
leaves to fall off trees and killing vegetation. Fracking waste
that had been deposited in pits was sprayed into the air to
dispose of it. And there were many other unexpected impacts
that were not carefully controlled or planned for in the--well,
that were not really cared about in the way in which this
drilling took place and was not cared about because of the fact
that that law was revealed. They could just do whatever they
wanted to. So the report also made several recommendations
including the need for a better knowledge of the chemical
makeup of the drilling and hydro fracking fluid and more
thorough risk assessment that consider a variety of scenarios
to help prepare for such unexpected effects of natural gas
development. So these seem to be like very commonsense
recommendations.
So I was wondering if this is something that you have
looked into, and if so, what was your reaction to this report,
the report that was put out earlier this year by these
scientists? And have any effects been taken on steps to respond
to those recommendations and to try to do whatever can be done
to make sure that this kind of thing does not continue to
happen?
Mr. Tidwell. Just yesterday I met with Michael Rains with
our northern research station to be able to discuss not only
what occurred there on the experimental forest with this
approval of the well but also what we need to do to address
this overall issue as there is more and more activity,
especially with this hydro fracturing technique that is being
used by the industry right now. So we have made the commitment
to dedicate some additional scientists to work with our
managers to be able to evaluate the cumulative effects of this
activity so we can do a better job to be able to understand
what the tradeoffs are going to be and what the consequences
are going to be.
When I saw that report, I too was concerned. I mean, some
of those things should have been addressed just through us
doing our job to be able to monitor the activities of the drill
rig, etc., and those are just unacceptable under any situation
and so I have no response for that. I mean, those things should
not occur. But we are really focused on the larger issue and to
be able to move forward and to make sure we are using the best
science to really understand the hydrology, especially with
this different technique that seems to be quite popular now.
Mr. Hinchey. Well, this is something that should be
corrected by this Congress because it was a big mistake that
was made, pushed by the previous Administration, the Bush
Administration back in 2005. That should be changed, and I am
hoping that this Congress is going to wise up and get that
change into effect.
In the meantime, when it comes to public lands, we have an
obligation and responsibility to oversee that and make sure
that these things are not happening on public lands.
Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
RECREATION--FOREST MANAGEMENT PLANS
Mr. Hinchey. And I hope that that is going to take place as
an example of the kinds of things that really need to be done
in this regard. This hydro fracking has been very, very
damaging and dangerous on a lot of private lands, also on
public lands, and it needs to be dealt with, and I thank you
for your insight and your concern about it.
I also wanted to just make a quick comment about recreation
and national forests. I understand that the Forest Service has
requested comments on how the agency should rewrite the rules
to implement the National Forest Management Act of 1976. So I
applaud that, of course. I applaud the new management vision
that has been shown into place and articulated for the national
forest and grasslands. Focusing in ecological restoration and
water resource protection, it is a very welcome development,
and I know that you feel that way too.
An estimated 180 million visitors make use of our national
forests and grasslands. In order to serve the needs of these
millions of people, the Forest Service manages an existing
investment of approximately $4.1 billion in outdoor recreation
infrastructure. Recreation is also a key economic driver
representing an estimated 60 percent of the Forest Service's
total contribution to the United States gross domestic product,
which is really remarkable, significantly more than logging and
other resource extraction activities combined, all those things
combined.
So as you develop new rules, I would strongly urge you to
make recreation a focus of any new forest management plans. So
if I could just ask you this. What is the status of new
management regulations that you are developing, and how do you
intend to ensure that recreation restoration and resource
protection are incorporated into future forest management
plans?
Mr. Tidwell. Mr. Congressman, we just recently released our
proposed planning rule that would provide a new framework for
us to complete our forest plan revisions. One of the things
that we heard during the public meetings that we held across
the country was the need to increase the emphasis on
recreation. As we look back on the rule we have been using that
was developed in 1982, back in 1982 recreation had much less
importance for all the reasons you have laid out so well. So we
recognized, and we also heard that very strongly, that we
needed to really increase the emphasis on recreation and the
importance of providing those recreational opportunities, not
only for the economic benefits as you described but also just
for the overall quality of life that it provides. That is one
of the things that we focused on and now we have the proposed
rule out. We are going through a 90-day comment period so we
will have the opportunity for the public to comment on that. We
will be holding basically meetings across the country to be
able to sit down with folks and explain the intent of our
proposed rules so that they can provide even better comments to
us. So that is where we are in the process.
I feel very good about the approach, some of the changes
that we have taken when it comes to recreation, and so I know
we will be able to improve the proposed rule with the comments
that we receive but I think we are definitely in the right
direction to accomplish what you are asking.
Mr. Hinchey. Well, I thank you very much. I deeply
appreciate the very important things that you are engaged in
and how you are doing it.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Serrano.
URBAN AND COMMUNITY FORESTRY
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I was awaiting my
turn, I could not help but listen to my brother, Mo Hinchey,
and I was reminded that in January of 1975, we both walked in a
little less wrinkled and a little less gray into the New York
State Assembly, and from day one Mo Hinchey was our person, our
voice on the environment, on energy and other issues, and for
those folks who sometimes get cynical about government and
about elected officials, some people state what they believe
in. Thirty-seven years later, again a couple of wrinkles and a
couple of gray hairs on both of us, he is still fighting that
fight and fighting it well.
Mr. Hinchey. I wish my hair was the color of yours.
Mr. Serrano. Some day I will tell you----
Mr. Hinchey. We are envious.
Mr. Serrano. I am on camera so I am not going to tell you.
That was a long time ago, Mo. My son was not born yet, and now
he is in the State Senate. Or just barely born.
Because I represent an urban area, I am always interested
in the Urban and Community Forestry program, and I notice that
there is a $2 million increase over 2011 or the estimate for
2011. Can you take a moment to discuss what you hope to
accomplish with this increase?
Mr. Tidwell. The reason for the additional request in
fiscal year 2012 is our recognition of the importance of urban
forests in this country. We have over 700 million acres of
forests in this country but out of that 750 million acres,
there is close to 100 million acres that is in urban settings.
It is just essential that we recognize the importance of those
basically for the overall quality of life they provide to folks
who live in urban centers but also the benefits that they
provide, the wildlife habitat, the reduction in energy costs,
the improvements of water quality, air quality, the reductions
in infrastructure costs that some cities are finding that by
doing more with their urban forests, they can reduce the cost
of dealing with stormwater drainage and actually reduce some of
the systems, reduce the size of the pipes they have to use by
doing more with urban forestry. And this is one of the areas we
want to continue to work on and work with our communities.
I was just in Philadelphia yesterday to basically see the
signing of an MOU between the Pennsylvania Horticultural
Society and the Forest Service, and it is really to kick off an
effort between the State of Pennsylvania, the State of New
Jersey and the State of Delaware to plant another million trees
within that area where those three states come together in an
urban environment because those leaders, those communities,
those cities, those mayors, they understand the importance and
they are willing to put their support behind this. What they
look for in the Forest Service is for us to be able to provide
the technical expertise to be able to provide some financial
assistance, and that is the thing that we can bring to the
table, to helps folks really understand how to go about this,
what is the right approach and so that is why we have asked for
an increase in that appropriation so we can do more in this
arena.
Mr. Serrano. Again, as a representative from the Bronx, New
York, I wish it would be more believable to you both and to
this committee if I told you that I remember a young man or
young woman coming back from an overnight week, a camp in the
outdoors, coming back and saying I never want to do that again,
and I do not remember anyone ever saying that.
And so with that in mind, I know that you do work with the
young people trying to get them involved. What is happening in
that area and what can we expect?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, it is another area that we want to
increase our efforts under the America's Great Outdoors
initiative to reach out to more of the youth and find
opportunities for them to volunteer or actually opportunities
for them to gain work experience, and we want to do this with
our partners. We will continue to have our youth programs that
we have always had, but we want to be able to reach out and use
the student conservation corps networks to be able to continue
our partnership that we have there in New York City with the
MillionTreesNYC effort where they are able to provide jobs for
folks, for young adults to be able to learn how to deal with
urban forestry, and the programs have been very successful.
There are graduates that come out of that program who are able
to then find jobs right in your city. Those are the things that
we want to continue to expand. Between our programs and the
student conservation programs across the country, there are
close to 6,000 youth that we provide a work experience and then
tens of thousands of volunteers that we also share this
opportunity. This is one of the things that we need to increase
for all the right reasons, to help our youth reconnect with the
outdoors. Whether you spend your entire life in an incredible
city like New York City or you are out in more of a rural part
of the country, I think it is just essential for America to
understand those connections, and folks need to understand why
urban forests are connected to the most wild places in this
country. By understanding it will help us to deal with the
problems, and many of our forestry problems start in our urban
areas so that is another reason we want to strengthen that
connection.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
EL YUNQUE
Mr. Chairman, as a prefacing comment to my last question, I
want to apologize for something I did to you. When I walked in,
I looked at that map and I did what I do everywhere I go in the
federal offices. I say where are the territories, and all these
maps just have the 50 states, and my point being the
territories should be included. That may be the only map that
should not include the territories since I see it says
Congressional districts, and that is a whole different issue.
You are the only office that actually has the right map up.
So speaking about the territories, El Yunque is the only
rainforest, I believe, under the forestry system, and it is
just one of the marvels of the world, as you know. It
celebrated its centennial in 2003. What are we doing working
with the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico through the Forest Service
to make sure that we can enjoy it for at least another 100
years?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, we enjoy very good relationships down
there and to be able to share the benefits, and one of the big
benefits of that forest is not only the incredible habitat that
is protected there but also the recreational opportunities that
come with that, the economic opportunities that are tied to the
recreation. Our tropical institute that is also located in
Puerto Rico provides us the opportunity to continue our
research in tropical forestry, and not only does that help
there in Puerto Rico but it also helps around the world. So in
combination between the forest and that institute, it is just a
really good package of us not only being able to continue to
provide for that forest itself and all the wildlife and
recreational benefits but also for our tropical institute to be
able to continue our research that not only helps this country
but it is also a key part of our international programs.
Mr. Serrano. I understand, and correct me if I am wrong,
that there good are small wildlife there and orchids, for
instance, orchids that are not found anywhere else under the
American flag. Is that correct?
Mr. Tidwell. That is correct.
Mr. Serrano. Now, aside from the one you oversee, where
else do we have rainforests under the American flag?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, part of the Tongass National Forest is
also a rainforest and there are also some locations along our
West Coast, relatively small, but the Tongass would be the
other place.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you. Thank you so much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
INTEGRATED RESOURCE RESTORATION
A couple of other questions. Secure Rural Schools, we have
talked about a little bit during your testimony and during my
opening statement and other individuals have mentioned it. As
you know, it is a concern to all of us in the West. We
appreciate the fact that the President's budget has the funding
for the Secure Rural Schools program. We are concerned that it
shifts it from mandatory to discretionary funding. I want to
work with you to see if we can address that in the future. The
concern is this, that school districts out there that depend on
this and in some school districts it is like 50 percent of
their funding, or even greater in some areas. They are planning
now for next year and in negotiations with teachers and
contracts and sometimes they do not have a clue what is going
to happen, and before we did this reauthorization a few years
ago in Congress, those numbers would go up and down and up and
down and they had no certainty of what they were going to do,
how much they were going to have when they were doing their
negotiations and so forth with teachers, so it created a great
deal of havoc. We would like to see that in a more stable
footing and more predictable footing, so I want to work with
you on that issue, and I know it is a concern to you also.
Integrated Resource Restoration--overall, the concept
behind the IRR line item makes sense to me. That said, a number
of groups are concerned that their specific needs, whether it
be wildlife, watershed or timber, will not be met because their
specific line item will have been deleted and put together in
this package. How is the Forest Service going to ensure that
all of these needs are met? I am pleased to see the proposed
shift of $86 million in non-wildlife urban interface hazardous
fuels into the Integrated Resource Restoration line item, that
$86 million is put into that. In an October 19th press release,
you discussed emphasizing mechanical treatment over prescribed
burning with hazardous fuels to stimulate job creation. Any
idea what percentage of the $86 million is going to be spent on
mechanical thinning rather than prescribed burns?
Mr. Tidwell. Mr. Chairman, I will answer that last question
first. It depends on the projects that will be developed for
fiscal year 2012 but I expect the mix between prescribed
burning and mechanical will be the same it has been in the
past.
You know, with the Integrated Resource Restoration, we
listened to the criticism that we heard last year when we first
proposed this, and I feel that we have addressed many of those
concerns and primarily through continuing to have targets, the
traditional targets for board feet, miles of stream improved,
et cetera, and so each region is going to have a similar set of
targets from what they have had in the past and then they will
also have this BLI to be able to accomplish all of that work,
and so we will be able to show you how we are performing. We
will show you how you can hold us accountable. And at the same
time, it is my belief that by my pursuing this that the agency
can become more efficient in some of our processes and thus
provide more people to be out there on the ground getting more
work done, providing more jobs.
But I understand your concerns and the need for you to be
able to do your oversight responsibilities and we need to work
with you so we can satisfy your concerns and do this in a way
that you can feel that you are holding us accountable, that we
clearly can show how we are performing and that you can see
what we plan to do at the start of each year so that you have
the confidence that we are able to carry out our
responsibilities in a way that you can then show the American
public that you are holding us accountable.
Mr. Simpson. There is a tendency I think for Congress or
any legislative branch of government to line-item things down
more and more so that we kind of direct funding more and more,
and I have always been one who thought that we were better off
if we sat here and set goals of what we expect from the Forest
Service with a certain amount of appropriations and allowed you
the flexibility to use that how you could best achieve those
goals and then next year when you come in we will hold you
accountable for the goals that you have achieved or not
achieved. That seems to me like this is kind of the direction
that this is headed in to some degree even though it causes a
great deal of concern to some people who depend on those
individual line items.
Mr. Tidwell. Well, it does, and we appreciate your support
in this arena and your thinking, and I understand the concern
whether it is from the timber industry or for some of our
wildlife groups that they want to make sure that we are doing
the complete job and that we are not just focusing on any one
portion of our mission. I do believe that by including the
targets, and these will be targets that we distribute to the
regions and there will be the commensurate amount of funding
that will go with those targets, we will be able to show you
that you will be able to hold us accountable and that we will
be able to show that we are performing and that overall this
will be a better approach. I understand we are going to have to
be able to show you how, to the point that you feel confident
as we can move forward.
But when I think about the work, the way the work is done
in the field, we want to take a look at a landscape and decide
what needs to occur out here, whether it is some hazardous-
fuels reduction, whether it is forest health work, whether it
is watershed work, whether it is fisheries, recreation, etc.
And the more that we can just take a look at the landscape and
then if everyone could come together working with our
communities to decide what activities need to occur there to be
able to restore these areas and then we have just one fund code
to be able to fund the majority of that, it makes it easier.
Now, I will not tell you that we should not be able to
accomplish this with our current budget structure. We can. But
when I look at ways especially in these tough budget times that
we are having and we need to be looking for ways where we can
gain some efficiencies, this is one area where I believe we can
gain some efficiencies without any additional costs because
there are a lot of things that go on. I can remember in my
various jobs that I used to do the same thing, that I would
spend a lot of time tracking my part of the budget, whether it
was wildlife or timber or hazardous fuels, and I had to make
sure that we were getting X number of acres done and that we
had X amount of money. And so when I would come to the table, I
would make sure that my piece of the pie was taken care of. And
then I spent a lot of time tracking that, and we are not
talking about our budget staff, we are not talking about our
accountants, we are talking about our foresters, our wildlife
biologists, our hydrologists, our fire managers. They too end
up spending a lot of time tracking the budget to ensure that we
are accomplishing what you ask. And so one of the benefits of
this is that we would free up our field folks, our biologists,
our foresters so that they can focus more on that job and then
allow the budgeting, which is so essential, to leave that to
our highly skilled and specialized staff.
Those are some of the concepts behind it, and it is really
to help internal efficiencies. That is what this is about. I
know it is kind of a tough sell to you and also to so many of
our partners and stuff because they want to be able to see it
on paper. They also want to be able to support those various
activities, and what we would like to do is not only continue
that support but also continue support for more of a watershed-
scale approach to doing all this work.
Mr. Simpson. What I would like to see one day, I guess one
of my goals would be that we come in and actually have a budget
hearing on what are your goals going to be this year--if we
give you X number of dollars, what do we expect to see for that
in the various categories whether it is wildlife management or
forest health restoration or wildland fire suppression or
whatever, what do we expect to see from that, and then next
year during the budget saying this is what we gave you, this is
what you said you would do, did you do it, and if not, why not,
if you did better than that, great. Because to me, I do not
want to be the manager of the forest system. That is why we
hire you. So I appreciate the job you do. I know it is always
difficult but it is always hard when from every legislative
body I have served in legislature wants to get down into
every--you know, you cannot hire four new personnel because we
have a freeze on hiring when that might be exactly what you
need to accomplish the goal that we have set out here. So I try
not to get into too much management.
Mr. Moran.
SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS
Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I am
going to have to address a program that I am sure is near and
dear to your heart but I have to provide the committee and this
hearing with a different point of view, and that is the county
schools program. It is a program that is now mandatory. It
would expire this year. The Administration is requesting a new
five-year reauthorization. The money would come from that
dwindling 12 percent of our budget which is attributable to
domestic discretionary programs and of course virtually all of
them are under attack. This is $328 million. It is coming from
your Forest Service budget request but essentially it will be
coming from all of our domestic spending and it goes for county
school systems out of the Forest Service budget. Now, let me
share the perspective of my constituents.
Mr. Simpson. Sure.
Mr. Moran. In my Congressional district, we have more
people, almost 800,000 per district, than there are in some
states, and I know that the cumulative amount of money they pay
in to the federal treasury is substantially greater than what
is paid by all the taxpayers in a number of states. Now, they
want that money paid for national forests. In fact, one of the
troubling things is, they want those forests preserved for
future generations, same thing with BLM land, national park
land and so on. They get very troubled with what they see as
the extraction exploitation in a number of these forests. They
probably would be troubled at the idea that one of the states
that is represented by a member of this subcommittee gets $1
billion a year from the Interior Department. I will not go into
all the reasons for that.
But the fact is that they are having to cut back the money
that they have available for the education of their children,
and yet $328 million is going to local public school systems
out in the national Forest Service budget. Those counties that
are getting this money had the economic benefits that came from
excessive timber harvests of the 1970s and early 1980s, and now
they are also having to pay for the restoration of those lands
because of those past excesses, and I think it is appropriate
to ask, how much are we paying for the restoration of excessive
clear cutting and the like through timber harvests of the past?
I know my constituents are happy to pay for enhancements of
forest health and water quality. I do not think that they are
excited about paying for local school systems where they are
having to cut back for the education of their own children. Can
you address that? And the chairman may want to address it.
Mr. Simpson. Can I respond to it?
Mr. Moran. Yes.
Mr. Simpson. There is obviously a different perspective.
Mr. Moran. Well, I should say.
Mr. Simpson. And----
Mr. Moran. Where you sit is where you stand,
understandably, and it is our job to represent----
Mr. Simpson. How this started is those--and this is
probably a discussion Chief Tidwell really does not want to
enter into. But how this all started is that how much of the
land in your district is owned by people paying property taxes?
Mr. Moran. Well, virtually all of it. Well, actually I take
that back.
Mr. Simpson. That would be the problem.
Mr. Moran. We have got the Pentagon, we have got any number
of federal agencies and we do not get taxes from that, but I
understand that because----
Mr. Simpson. You go to a county like Custer County, Idaho,
that is 96 percent, I think it is 96 percent federally owned.
That means 4 percent of the land is paying taxes to support the
school system, the roads, the bridges, everything else that
goes on in that county. When you come out and visit and get
lost in our mountains, our search and rescue on the 4 percent
paying for it comes and finds you. That is the problem. They do
not have the resources and they do not have the ability to
create the resources to pay for the public schools in some of
these counties that are owned by the federal government, and as
you said, people out here love to have these public lands out
in the West. We like them too. We like public lands, frankly.
But the problem is, you do not have the taxes to pay for them
so there are several different programs that were set up. One
of them was counties and schools get a share of the timber
harvest that was created in that county. Well, that sustained
the schools districts and the counties and the roads for many,
many years. Now, you could say it was overharvesting or not,
but those have gone substantially down. How do they make up for
it? They cannot do it because 96 percent of the land is owned
by the Federal Government. They cannot have industry come in.
Where are they going to put them? There is no way to pay the
property taxes to make up for that. And that is the difficulty.
When you love the public lands in the West, you also have to
pay for them.
Mr. Moran. Mr. Chairman, most of my constituents are never
going to visit the public lands in the West but they like the
fact that they are there. They know it is the right thing. They
know that it is an appropriate use of their tax money. But most
of my constituents also share the feeling that I have, and I
will be very candid: this fierce anti-Federal Government
attitude on the part of the very people who are so dependent
upon a government being responsive to those situations, and as
long as that fierce anti-government attitude prevails, I think
the idea of our funding local public school systems with
federal money that most people do not know about I think it is
a legitimate subject to bring up.
You know, we want to protect our environment, we want our
money to be used for that purpose, but I have to say in the
interests of transparency, some of these programs I think need
to be publicly debated. I certainly understand your point of
view and frankly, I do not want to be debating you because you
are reasonable. Well, you are, and I think you have done a very
good job in terms of this Interior bill but these are issues
that need to be considered from a national perspective and----
Mr. Simpson. Well, there was a suggestion just the other
day at a meeting I was at, and this was by Easterners actually,
at least the individuals making the comments, and you know, pay
off this national debt, sell some of those public lands in the
West.
Mr. Moran. I know that. That is the attitude they have, and
frankly----
Mr. Simpson. I do not favor that.
Mr. Moran. No. In the long run, I do not think that is in
our national or local interests of the states. But I raise it
because you mentioned it, and without a response I think the
assumption would be that there is full support of this. I think
this is an issue that bears further discussion. I understand it
is a controversial one. I understand we come from very
different perspectives, different constituencies, but I think
it is an issue that bears further discussion, particularly when
it is going to be coming out of other domestic discretionary
programs.
Mr. Simpson. I understand that, and we are willing to
discuss it and certainly have discussed it over the years and
will continue to discuss it. There are a number of programs,
whether it is PILT payments, Secure Rural Schools or those
other things, that are supposed to help make up for the fact
that, as I said, states in the West that are substantially
federal lands do not have the resources and the ability. In
fact, if you looked at the amount of money funding it--Rob
Bishop from Utah has probably the best map on this--The funding
of public schools in relationship to the amount of public lands
that those states have, it is amazing that the lack of funding
directly tracks those states that have public lands, and it is
just a reality.
That was best probably not to get involved in that
discussion. Did you have something else?
Mr. Moran. Well, you know, just one further comment. We
used to have this program where the school system would be
funded proportionate to the federal presence. What was the name
of that? Impact. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. We still have Impact Aid.
Mr. Moran. Well, but we cut back severely. We do not get
any of that anymore. It was a program consistent with this
program but that was eliminated.
Mr. Simpson. That did not deal with public lands. That
dealt with if you had air base or something like that.
Mr. Moran. It dealt with federally owned land that you were
compensated for because it was a payment in lieu of taxes
basically.
Mr. Simpson. But that only dealt with the small like air
base or a federal reservation, an Indian reservation or
something like that. It did not deal with the 2 billion acres
of land.
Mr. Moran. Okay. I am not going to pursue it any further. I
think you understand that----
Mr. Simpson. I do.
Mr. Moran [continuing]. We will have further discussion,
and I think we have taken the chief's time a good deal up. My
very distinguished colleagues may have further questions.
Mr. Lewis. We do not have easement to sell those lands.
Mr. Simpson. Well, I know that. I just found it quite it
interesting. I do not want to sell them either.
Mr. Moran. And I do not want to.
Mr. Simpson. In fact, you will find that most Westerners
like public lands. It is how we access hunting, fishing,
everything else, the recreation that we do out there. We live
there because we love our public lands. We sometimes have some
complaints about the land managers just as you have complaints
about your neighbor, and that will always be the case and it is
not an anti-government mentality that you would suggest, it is
how can we do it better.
Mr. Moran. Mr. Chairman, for 60 hours we debated so many
amendments that were inspired by an anti-government attitude.
All those environmental riders, it was this almost vehement
attitude with regard to the Federal Government, and that is
what inspires my reaction to the role that the Federal
Government plays, particularly in terms of paying for local
public school systems. It is tough to take the money and bite
the hand that is providing it. That is all I am saying. But I
am not going to pursue this any further.
TRAVEL MANAGEMENT
Mr. Simpson. I would just disagree with one comment. Being
anti what the government is doing is not being anti-government.
You can change directions of what the government is doing or
think it can do it better or be concerned about things that are
happening with the government. That does not mean you are anti-
government.
As an example, and it is the last question I was going to
ask, the travel management plans, as I said in my opening
statement, I do not believe that eliminating travel management
plans is the correct answer. There was obviously an amendment
to H.R. 1 dealing with a specific area. In some areas, it had
worked well. In other areas, it has worked not so well. Is
that, in your opinion, because of the difficulty and the
complexities that are unique to certain areas where it is
having difficulty or is it the personnel that do not have the
ability to, I guess, bring together people like they do in
other areas to develop a management plan?
Mr. Tidwell. Mr. Chairman, in many cases it is the set of
circumstances that occur on that local forest, whether it is
specific issues with the need for us to recover threatened and
endangered species, additional concerns with municipal
watersheds. And so often there are additional factors that have
to be considered. Where we have been successful is when
everyone is willing to come to the table, and that is the
motorized community and the non-motorized community, that they
can come together, and what we try to do is create that
environment and help facilitate those type of discussions so
that folks can kind of find those areas of agreement and then
we can move forward with implementing that.
I mean, there are certain resource conditions that we will
take care of, and we just have to--and in most cases there is
strong support for that, but then some of these situations that
seem to be so contentious, then it gets down to how much is
going to be available for motorized recreation and how much is
available for non-, and even though after we solved all the
resource issues, you still have the social issue you have to
deal with, and those are the ones that seem to give us some of
the most difficulty. And when I look at those and it is easy to
step back and be able to look at them from where I am sitting
and I can say well, you know, people should come together and
work out some compromises and work together on these issues,
and at the same time I also understand the complexities of
this, and so I do believe that what we are trying to do is the
right course. I do think it is the very best chance to have
sustainable motorized recreational opportunities, which are
very important not only to the user but to the economy. There
are a lot of economic opportunities that come from that. We can
manage it in a way that there are very few adverse
environmental effects that are easily mitigated and primarily
through a system of trails and roads that are well positioned
on the landscape and that we can maintain. That is another one
of the challenges we have, that we have to look at what is
sustainable.
And so you may have a situation where yes, the resource
could handle another 100 miles and it is not like we do not
have a lot. I mean, our road system is 375,000 miles of road,
and that is just our roads, and you add all the motorized
trails on top of that. But we also have to do in a way that is
sustainable because if we are not doing it, then we allow these
activities to continue and then we run into--we kind of build
opposition because folks are out there and they do not like to
see the dirt in the stream. They do not want to see the impacts
to the fisheries. They do not want to see the impacts to the
municipal watersheds. And so that is the other thing that
brings a challenge because folks will look out there and say
well, by just doing this, building this bridge, you know, we
can have another trail here but part of our job is to ensure
that is sustainable, and that is the sort of thing that also
just adds to the controversy.
And at the same time, there are thousands of people that
are willing to roll up their sleeves and come together and
work, and I just marvel at the places where the non-motorized
and motorized communities come together, and where one group
did not want the trail in its location but they still needed a
trail, it is the non-motorized community that is out there that
is building that new trail for the motorized folks to be able
to go on it and then at the same time the next weekend they are
out there together decommissioning a road, for instance. That
is where we solve this, and it is going to take more time but I
think we can get there. I can understand the concern and the
controversy but not allowing us to go forward with this
planning is not going to be helpful to the motorized community
in the long term.
Mr. Simpson. Do other Members have questions?
CLIMATE CHANGE
Ms. McCollum. Yes, Mr. Chairman. First, I am boldly going
to go right in the middle of the previous discussion. We need
to increase Impact Aid. We need to work on PILT, and Rural
Schools and that. Minnesota, our state house, if we do not have
those payments coming in, whether it is PILT or Impact or
whatever other program, we have to make up for it. And we have
national forests and we are very proud of them, and we love
them, but they do have consequences and effects.
I wanted to ask a question on climate change because in
some of the other budgets--and the chair has been asking some
very thoughtful questions on it too--line, there has been
discussion on what is going on with climate change, and I know
because of the unique place where Minnesota sits where we have
prairie, forest, everything else, we are already starting to
see of the impacts of climate change. I know our forestry
council is very concerned about that. Could you maybe just tell
us a little bit where you fit in with the whole climate change
debate and how you are kind of watching what is going on? Are
you working with universities? And this goes to my other
question about is it embedded in other parts of your budget,
but we cannot see where it is because of what you have done to
my point about what happens with international forestry? Chief.
Mr. Tidwell. Well, thank you. You know, we are very
fortunate, and I am not speaking of the agency, I am speaking
of the Nation, that our forest research and development staff
are scientists that have been looking into the effects of a
changing climate on vegetation and on the ecosystems for close
to 30 years, long before anyone ever coined the term, and we
are very fortunate that the folks had the foresight and that
you provided the resources for them to be able to pursue that.
And so when it comes to the issue of climate change, our focus
is on understanding how this is affecting the ecosystems. We do
not study climate change. We understand the effects on the
ecosystem, and that is where our resources have always been
focused on and that is what kind of drives that.
So when it comes to climate change, it is a big piece of
our research and development budget, and that if you ask us to
kind of tease that out for between 2010 and 2012, there is a
slight reduction of funding just like there is in almost all of
our programs, but it is not a separate program. It is what we
do, and so we are focusing on using our research scientists who
work in conjunction with our universities very closely. It is
one of the things that I am stressing and they have been doing
a good job to not only look at and understand what we are doing
but also what the universities are doing and what the other
agencies are doing to make sure that we are not duplicating
efforts, because this is one area that there is a lot of new
interest in it and some expanding opportunities, and it is
important that we look at all of that. And so that is one of
the things that I ask our leadership and our research
organizations, to make sure that we are factoring that in so we
can determine where are the true gaps and we are not just
duplicating research. But our focus is on using the science so
that we can understand how we need to adapt our management to
address the changes and then also how we can mitigate where we
have those opportunities. So in this case, it is not a separate
program. It is really just about everything that we do.
The challenge that we have and where we are focusing is to
make sure that our managers understand the science, they
understand the things they need to be thinking about. It is a
key part in our proposed planning rule. You will see the
effects of climate change is mentioned in there numerous times
to ensure that in our future planning, we are really factoring
in the changes in the environment. You are seeing them in your
state and we are seeing them throughout the country, and
sometimes, depending where you are, there is going to be a
larger change than others but there are definitely things that
are going on. Often it is just to understand that when you are
designing a road, the size of the culvert that you should put
on that road, we need to understand that because of the
changes, the frequency of disturbance events and how the
climate has changed and some of the weather patterns, that we
need to just put a larger culvert in. It may just be that
simple.
On another extreme is what we are seeing in some of our
vegetative types is where we are seeing pests and insect and
disease activity occur that we have never seen before because
of the change in the environmental conditions, and how do we
address that? How does our management need to change? So those
are the things we want to continue to work on but it is just an
essential part of our programs.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Hinchey, do you have something else?
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY
Mr. Hinchey. I just want to compliment you again and say
the important things that you talked about, for example, more
restoration activities, things that have to be involved in, how
you talked about water protection and the need for water
protection, and in the context of water protection, of course,
it is going to be even more different in the situation of
climate change that you are now facing. So all of those things
are very important and we really need to work together to make
sure that this situation moves forward. I deeply appreciate
what you are doing.
And one other thing, energy. Alternative energy is another
issue that you may have some interest in in the context of the
energy needs that you have across this big operation and most
of the places in this country. So if there is anything you want
to say about that, terrific. Otherwise just thank you very
much.
Mr. Tidwell. Well, thank you. I would like to mention, you
mentioned water. We have increased our emphasis on water, and
it always has been one of the foundations of the U.S. Forest
Service to ensure that we are providing clean, abundant flows
of water. It goes right back to the Organic Act. One of the
reasons that the Forest Service exists, one of the reasons for
the Weeks Act, for the national forests we have and the eastern
southern part of the country was focused on water, and so it is
kind of just to increase the emphasis there because it is so
important. So many people in this country rely on the water
that comes off our national forests and grasslands.
On energy, we are increasing our focus on renewable energy.
We will continue to do our work with the more traditional oil
and gas industry but when it comes to solar opportunities,
wind, hydro, geothermal, those are kind of the four areas we
are increasing our work and we want to make sure that as
opportunities and proposals come to us that we are able to
quickly respond to those and so we are working on this set of
directives. We are doing some analysis, and there is about 99
of our units throughout the country that have the potential for
some type of utility-scale renewable energy. That will not
occur everywhere but we do know that there are more
opportunities out there and it is one of the things we want to
be ready for as proponents come to the table and want to pursue
some of these opportunities.
Mr. Hinchey. Thank you very much.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Chief, for being here today and for
your testimony.
For those who may not understand, Mr. Moran and I are
actually pretty good friends and get along well, and I often
say to people out in the West that oftentimes the debates that
go on here are not really between Democrats and Republicans,
oftentimes they are East-West debates where most of the public
lands are west of the Mississippi, most of the private lands
are east of the Mississippi, and while we in the West expect
Easterners to try to understand the unique situations in the
West, we have a responsibility to also understand some of the
unique situations that exist out here in the East and working
together, and Jim and I have talked about a lot of these issues
before. So in spite of our disagreements sometimes, that is how
you learn things. So I appreciate you being here during the
testimony today and for the informal discussion that went on
also.
Mr. Moran. Well, and if I could, Mr. Chairman, you
represent your constituency extraordinarily well and I hope all
of your constituents are aware of that, and I think it was an
appropriate discussion and I share your reaction to Mr.
Tidwell's testimony. It was superb, and we thank him and Ms.
Atkinson. Thank you.
Mr. Tidwell. Thank you. Thank you for your support.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, and thanks for the work the Forest
Service does and the great employees that are out there on the
ground.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.109
Wednesday, March 16, 2011.
FISCAL YEAR 2012 BUDGET REQUEST U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
WITNESSES
ROWAN GOULD, ACTING DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
DAN ASHE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
CHRIS NOLIN, BUDGET OFFICER, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Opening Remarks of Chairman Simpson
Mr. Simpson. The committee will come to order. Good
afternoon, Acting Director Gould. I would like to welcome you
along with the Deputy Director, Dan Ashe, and your Budget
Officer, Chris Nolin, who is instrumental in providing this
subcommittee with information it needs to do its work. Both the
2011 and 2012 budgets have generated considerable excitement
for better or worse.
I have an opening statement, and I will tell you what.
Because we are scheduled to have votes before too long, I would
like to get to your testimony as soon as possible, so I am
going to enter most of this for the record, if that is okay.
[The statement of Mike Simpson follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.111
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Moran, do you?
Mr. Moran. Well, since you have shown the lead, it is
incumbent upon me to do the same.
Mr. Simpson. That was my idea.
Mr. Moran. Shall I just give you----
Mr. Simpson. Do you have a quote?
Mr. Moran. I will give you a quote.
Mr. Simpson. Please.
Mr. Moran. This one is from John James Audubon. You
remember him.
Mr. Simpson. Yes.
Mr. Moran. Yes.
Mr. Simpson. A good friend of mine.
Opening Remarks of Mr. Moran
Mr. Moran. Yes. He quotes, ``A true conservationist is a
man who knows,'' and I am sure he meant to say a man or a
woman, ``who knows that the world is not given by his fathers
but borrowed from his children.''
And with that we can move forward to the hearing. Dr. Gould
has done a great job as the acting director. I know Mr. Ashe is
going to do a terrific job as well once the Senate lifts those
holds. We are anxious to have you take over as director, and we
do thank Dr. Gould for all his good work, and Ms. Nolin, thank
you for your work as a budget director.
[The statement of Jim Moran follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.113
Mr. Simpson. Is there anybody over there on that Senate
side we could talk to? Or is that a secret?
Mr. Moran. I will talk to you in private.
Mr. Simpson. Welcome. We look forward to your testimony.
The floor is yours.
Opening Statement of Rowan Gould
Dr. Gould. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Simpson, Mr.
Moran, and members of the subcommittee. Actually, I am going to
try to keep my remarks very short, too, in keeping with your
situation.
I am Rowan Gould. I am the acting director of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, and I appreciate the opportunity to
testify before you today on the Service's fiscal year 2012,
budget request. This request will focus funding on the agency's
highest-priority conservation initiatives, while containing
costs through management efficiencies and other savings.
This is a very difficult budget year as the committee well
knows. It does not come without some sacrifice on the part of
the Service. The $1.7 billion request contains $26.5 million in
efficiency reductions, along with program reductions and
eliminations that total $86.3 million. Program increases for
our high-priority needs result in a net increase of $47.9
million compared to the fiscal year 2010 enacted budget.
The budget also includes approximately $1 billion available
under permanent appropriations, most of which will be provided
directly to states for fish and wildlife restoration and
conservation.
Our request represents an excellent investment for the
American people. For every federal dollar spent the Service
supports job creation and economic development at the local
level. According to our 2006 Banking on Nature Report,
recreational activities on national wildlife refuges generated
$1.7 billion in total economic activity. According to the study
nearly 35 million people visited national wildlife refuges,
supporting almost 27,000 private-sector jobs with almost $543
million in employment income.
In addition, recreational spending on refuges generated
nearly $185 million in tax revenue at the local, county, state,
and federal level. The economic benefit is almost four times
the amount appropriated to the refuge system in fiscal year
2006.
In addition, in 2010, Service economists published a peer-
reviewed report of the economic contribution of the Fisheries
Program and attributed $3.6 billion per year to the economy
from fishing, aquatic habitat conservation, subsistence
fisheries, evasive species management, and other public uses.
The total number of jobs associated with this economic input is
over 68,000. It is clear the investment in the Service supports
economic development and job creation throughout the U.S.
The Service's highest-priority increases will help us use
our resources more efficiently. Continued development of shared
scientific capacity to obtain information necessary to
prioritize conservation spending is reflected in our increases
for landscape conservation.
A requested increase of $17.4 million will enable the
Service to continue working with partners to conduct
collaborative landscape scale, biological information
gathering, participate in cooperative planning and will
complete the network of Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, or
LCCs, initiated in fiscal year 2010.
The LCCs will fund science to answer fundamental questions
so that the Service, states, and others can make more efficient
use of their resources. Within the Service, LCCs help support
ongoing programs, including endangered species recovery, refuge
comprehensive conservation plans, fish passage programs, and
habitat restoration. In support of LCC development and adaptive
science management, we requested an increase of $8 million
within the Refuge Program to continue building the landscape
scale long-term inventory and monitoring network that the
Service began in fiscal year 2010.
The budget proposes an increase for the North American
Wetlands Conservation Act to $50 million, as well as an
increase of $4 million for activities associated with renewable
energy development, including $2 million for endangered species
consultation and $2 million for conservation planning
assistance.
The budget contains $15.7 million, an increase of $2
million, to support youth in the great outdoors.
In sum, the Service has taken a very serious look at its
budget this year and reduced our request in significant areas
while focusing increases only on high-priority items.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify this afternoon.
Dan Ashe and I are happy to answer any questions the
subcommittee may have and look forward to working with you
through the appropriations process. Thank you.
[The statement of Rowan Gould follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.122
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. I appreciate you all being here. I
am going to yield my time to the chairman of the full
committee, Mr. Rogers.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, witnesses,
for being here today. We appreciate your service to your
country and to this Congress.
MITIGATION HATCHERIES
Several decades ago when the federal construction of dams
was in its heyday, native trout streams were adversely
affected, and through its Fisheries Program, Fish and Wildlife
Service built a network of 14 national fish hatcheries that
specialize in mitigating for fisheries losses as the result of
the actions of other federal agencies.
Today the Service is proposing a reduction of $6.3 million
to these mitigation hatcheries, which would effectively force
their closure unless other federal agencies continue to
supplement funding through, ``mitigation.'' And on top of that
the Administration is proposing an across-the-board reduction
to supplies, translating to a $900,000 cut in hatchery
supplies, and that would, I believe, reduce the fish
populations.
Fish and Wildlife has received reimbursement from other
federal agencies like the Corps for some of those costs in the
past, but you have never assumed reimbursement in your
budgeting process until now. That is problematic because the
Corps fiscal year 2012 request is insufficient to cover this
reduction in your request.
Why are you changing your policy in this regard?
Dr. Gould. We have been getting to a fee-for-services
approach to doing business for almost 30 years now, and we have
several examples out there where that is exactly the way things
are. Most, if not all, of our mitigation hatcheries on the
Columbia River are Mitchell Act hatcheries and are paid for by
the National Marine Fishery Service. We have BOR supporting our
hatcheries in California.
So we have examples all over the country where this is
actually occurring. In fact, we do not look at this reduction,
this almost a little over $6 million reduction, as a reduction.
We see it as a transfer of funds. We have worked out an
agreement with the Corps of Engineers to include most of the
money that was identified specifically for these mitigation
hatcheries, and in fact, the amount they came up with is enough
to operate those hatcheries. It is a transfer of funds to their
budget, so there is no real reduction.
We are still trying to discuss with them the exact terms of
who pays for what. There are still some issues regarding who
pays for some of the maintenance activities in the hatchery,
which counts for some of the difference between what we have
agreed to for fiscal year 2012, and what we have specifically
identified as the need.
So, in fact, it is our view that we are looking for a
consistent way of dealing with these mitigation hatcheries
across the country.
Dan, do you have anything to add to that?
Mr. Ashe. I would just add, Mr. Rogers, that specifically
with regard to the hatchery in your state and hatcheries that
are operated, the mitigation functions that are to be funded by
the Corps of Engineers, those monies are in the President's
budget. So we believe that we are going to be able to continue
operation of those hatcheries, and it is our goal to continue
the operation of all of these mitigation hatcheries by working
with the other federal agencies.
In general, as a matter of policy, things like the funding
for the mitigation is going to be most sustainable if it is
closer to the action agency, the agency that is actually
responsible for the operation and maintenance of the project in
question.
Mr. Rogers. Well, the core of fiscal year 2012 request I am
told is not sufficient to cover that $6.3 reduction in your
request.
Dr. Gould. The amount we have agreed with the Corps is $3.9
million, and of the need we have identified around $4.3 to $4.7
million, and we are still negotiating that difference.
Again, there are also other mitigation entities, fee-for-
service entities, that we are working with, and those include
TVA and the Central Utah Project. We are in negotiations with
those folks right now to deal with that shortfall to make sure
that they have those funds identified in their funding
processes.
Mr. Rogers. Yes, but Fish and Wildlife is the lead federal
agency with responsibility over fisheries, not the Corps, not
anyone else. It is yours, and the Corps budget request does not
include the money that would be required to fulfill the $6.3
million reduction in your request. Am I mistaken?
Mr. Ashe. The Corps portion of that is not $6.3 million.
Six point three million dollars is the entire reduction which
also includes funds that would come from the Central Utah
Project, TVA, and Bonneville Power Administration. As Dr. Gould
said, I think the Corps portion of that as we identified it
was----
Dr. Gould. Four point seven.
Mr. Ashe [continuing]. $4.7 million. And included in the
Corps budget I believe is $3.9 million.
Dr. Gould. Right.
Mr. Rogers. Well, there is still a difference.
Dr. Gould. Right.
Mr. Ashe. From a policy perspective our goal is the same,
and that is to keep these hatcheries operating and providing
the mitigation fish to support this function. I think in the
long run we believe it is appropriate that the mitigation
responsibilities be attached to the action agency. That really
is the more common occurrence for us, that when an action
agency proposes an action, they are responsible for the
mitigation of the adverse affect.
For the security of those hatcheries and that mitigation
function in the long run, we believe that it is better to have
that responsibility attached to the action agency, not to the
Fish and Wildlife Service.
Mr. Rogers. Well, that is a change in policy, is it not?
Mr. Ashe. Yes. With regard to these hatcheries.
Dr. Gould. We have been working on this transfer of funds
approach as long as I have been in the Fish and Wildlife
Service, almost for 30 years.
We recognize the economic value of these facilities. We
recognize that they are incredibly important to the local
economies, and we will do everything we can to make sure that
those economic impacts, the potential economic impacts, will be
taken into consideration in terms of how we fund those
hatcheries and when we fund them. But the idea is to make this
conversion as soon as possible.
Mr. Rogers. Well, you are, I think, in effect asking us to
earmark monies for the Corps of Engineers to go toward Fish and
Wildlife.
Dr. Gould. It is their funds. These funds are, at least in
the Corps case, for those hatcheries that are affected by the
Corps, Wolf Creek and Arkansas Hatcheries. I just had a
conversation with Senator Pryor yesterday about this very same
issue. The fact of the matter is the money to fund those Corps
hatcheries is, in effect, in the President's budget, and we
would like there to be support for their continued funding.
Mr. Rogers. Well, you know we cannot earmark. So what are
we to do?
Dr. Gould. It is in the President's budget right now.
Mr. Rogers. Not fully.
Dr. Gould. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Moran.
Mr. Moran. Suggest to the chairman of the full committee
that if he wants to change that policy, I think he would find
some receptivity on this side. I think the only guy that really
wants it is the guy in the White House because it works to his
favor and against ours.
CONTINUING RESOLUTION IMPACTS
But, anyway, moving along. So, Dr. Gould and Mr. Ashe, you
have been running the Fish and Wildlife Service now for 6
months on the series of continuing resolutions. I would like to
have you explain some of the practical impacts of what is a
toll-booth kind of funding of the Federal Government. Are you
able to hire summer temporaries, for example, engaging
contracts with local rural businesses? What are some of the
practical implications for this process that we have been
putting you through for 6 months?
Dr. Gould. Well, obviously, I can go through all kinds of
examples.
Mr. Moran. Well, just give us some of the more glaring
ones, if you would not mind.
Dr. Gould. Well, I can list a few because I have a few of
them listed right here in front of me.
Mr. Moran. Okay.
Dr. Gould. Hiring Youth Conversation Corps employees has
been postponed. Our Challenge Cost Share Projects, which we
accomplish with partners, had to be put on hold because we do
not know exactly how much money we have to deal with. Our
wetlands and grassland restorations have been postponed in
several regions because we have to deal with contracting and
dealing with landowners so we meet uncertainty.
Literally hundreds of maintenance projects have been
delayed because we do not know exactly what we have to work
with. We have been careful about our travel. In law enforcement
there have been some special assignment projects that have been
put off because we do not know exactly what we have in terms of
funding to support those agents in investigation situations.
Another very specific example is that $2.4 million of
invasive species control activities have been postponed on
Florida refuges. This impacts the Service's ability to meet
licensing and agreements with the State of Florida regarding
Loxahatchee Refuge, which is actually owned by the State of
Florida.
So there are just a few very specific examples, and we do
look forward to, as soon as possible, some certainty in our
budget so that we can get on with our work.
CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS
Mr. Moran. Thank you. The fact that our climate is changing
appears to be a contentious point for some segment of this
Congress. Could you summarize some of the changes that your
land managers are already seeing on the ground such as rising
sea levels destroying refuges, drought leading to wildfire and
disease, disruption to ecosystems that might be caused by
invasive species?
Dr. Gould. Well, first of all, before I came here, before I
came to DC for my third time, I was the Regional Director in
Alaska, and I am not ascribing it to any cause, but I know the
ice is going away. I know that there is an incredible amount of
erosion on the Bering Sea front. We are dealing with some of
our Native Alaskan communities that literally, just in the last
few years, had their houses washed out from underneath them.
This is due to the open ice and open water situation causing
erosion along the shore. We are seeing sea level rise.
There are several examples of changes that are related to
differences in temperature regimes across the country. Water
obviously is a big issue in the southwest and California. These
are all real issues of changes going on.
We know change is going on, and we have to take steps to at
least try to understand those changes. We then take adaptive
actions where we can, working with our partners to deal with
the situation.
Dan, any other examples?
Mr. Ashe. I think across all kinds of ecological regimes we
are seeing change that is correlated to observed changes in
temperature and in climate. Changing migration for birds and
waterfowl, changes in the timing of green up in especially the
higher latitudes, changes in flowering plants, and those all
cascade through ecological systems.
Everything the Fish and Wildlife Service does and all the
things we and our partners are responsible for are being
affected at some level by changing climate. That is one of the
reasons we have placed an emphasis on learning more about the
changing climate system and what it means for the type of work
that we do and the things that we are responsible for. I think
our partners appreciate that.
The work that we have been doing has been right in the
mainstream of the conservation community with partners like
Ducks Unlimited, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies,
National Wildlife Federation, Wild Turkey Federation, and
others, because all land managers and resource managers see the
same kind of changes happening and know that we have to be
smarter about dealing with that. We have to be smarter if we
are going to use the taxpayers' dollars in the most responsible
way, because the decisions that we are making today are going
to produce the waterfowl that our hunting constituencies depend
upon 20, 30, 40, and 50 years from now. So we have to make the
right investments today.
CHESAPEAKE BAY
Mr. Moran. That was a long answer, but it was an important
one. I appreciate that. I just have one last issue, Mr.
Chairman, but it does not necessarily require as extensive an
answer.
You mentioned in your statement the restoration efforts on
the ecology of the Chesapeake Bay as being important. To what
extent does the Goodlatte amendment to H.R. 1 affect the Fish
and Wildlife Service's ability to work on the Chesapeake Bay
restoration?
Dr. Gould. The short answer if you broadly interpret----
Mr. Moran. Well, it said no federal funds. It did not
specify EPA or anything like that.
Dr. Gould. Right. We have a lot of restoration work going
on related to point-source pollution and coordination and
restoration work related to wetlands habitat. Very broadly
interpreted that work could have something to do with water
quality. We obviously could not do that work, even though it is
not directly----
Mr. Moran. It was not intended, but it would include Fish
and Wildlife Service. You would just have to stop your
operations.
Dr. Gould. If you broadly interpret.
Mr. Moran. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Lewis.
SANTA ANA SUCKER
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sure that you will
have anticipated at least a piece of that which I would like to
discuss, but the critical habitat designation that relates to
the Santa Ana sucker is very important to the Southern
California region, but in a broader sense, my concern is one of
making sure that we do not repeat the kind of fiasco that took
place in the Bay Delta that so undermined the credibility of
our work in this entire region. And on every side of that issue
people quit talking to each other and began yelling about what
the other was doing, and we need to make sure that we are
preserving elements of our environment as well as endangered
species, et cetera, in a sensible way that allows us to do the
kind of planning that is necessary.
I am very concerned that this designation, critical habitat
for the Santa Ana sucker, could take us down that same pathway
if there is not some really sensible effort to communicate with
each other about where we ought to be going.
And so in connection with that last week when we were
discussing this, it was suggested that maybe Fish and Wildlife
tends to want to take those analyses that agree with their
conclusions and reject analyses that might go in a different
direction, and in that discussion the sucker came to mind, and
so I am interested in knowing has Fish and Wildlife on occasion
sent economic analyses back to the contractor for additional
work if it was found to be wanting?
Dr. Gould. We do that often is the short answer.
Mr. Lewis. You do that often?
Dr. Gould. Yes, we do.
Mr. Lewis. All right. I kind of thought that might be your
response.
Dr. Gould. Yes. In this situation, we understand there are
concerns. To fully discuss the Santa Ana sucker issue you have
to recognize it has been listed for a long time. We do not
think this critical habitat designation is going to have a
major effect on the ongoing discussions and collaborative work
that has been going on there in the past.
We have, however, talked to our Regional Director about the
issue, and we are committed to sitting down with the county and
the stakeholders and developing the kinds of working
relationships that are really going to be necessary to avoid
any of these concerns that we understand you have.
Mr. Lewis. Would that include participating in or sharing
information from independent local economic analyses to make
sure that their input is directly a part of whatever policy and
decisions we finally make going forward?
Dr. Gould. Yes. That would include that kind of
development.
Mr. Lewis. Otherwise we could find disaster in the region.
The Santa Ana River basin was developed as a result of the 1938
flood, and it starts in the San Bernardino Mountains and goes
all the way to the ocean. It is a magnificent area of
potential, and if we can get the communities to really work
together, I think it could be a display of the best. But if we
find ourselves hung up on something like this sucker, and I do
not see the Section 7 process going forward in a sensible way,
it might destroy the following.
We have recently completed the Seven Oaks Dam. There is a
flood channel that goes down all the way to the ocean that
probably is 300 yards across. During much of the Santa Ana, on
my odometer right at the San Bernardino Mountain, there is a
mile across of land, and it is my view that with the right kind
of planning and cooperation between communities and the
environmental community and so on, that could become a park all
the way to the ocean, if we could sensibly get people to work
together.
If we start throwing time bombs in the middle of it, that
dream will never become a possibility. So I really need
assurance that this Section 7 designation or process will go
forward here in a sensible way, and I would hope you keep me
right in the middle of those discussions.
Dr. Gould. We will, sir. We have got a problem. The Santa
Ana sucker is not in good shape as you are aware, so it is
important that we work together to get to where you want to be
and do what we can to benefit the sucker itself.
I am sure if we continue to work together, or if we set up
better mechanisms to work together, we will avoid any problems.
Mr. Lewis. If we had not really forced the Corps to change
the way the Seven Oaks Dam would be used----
Dr. Gould. Right.
Mr. Lewis [continuing]. It would be more than just a flood
control project. If we had not had an opportunity to build in
preservation of water or holding water back there, et cetera, I
would suggest that all the way down the Santa Ana many a
species would have been dramatically and negatively affected.
So I would certainly like to preserve that opportunity for
cooperative spirit in the months ahead.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Ms. McCollum.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all
of you in the Fish and Wildlife Service for all the work that
you do. It has been real important to the Minnesota loon, who
is calling out a great appreciation and thanks for all the work
that you did down in the Gulf. Our state bird appreciates that
and so do all the kids who have been watching on websites about
what is going on.
You have talked about creating a national network of
landscape conservation cooperatives to collaborate landscape,
biological planning, the whole works. Your testimony, if you
would have given all of it, was going to talk about what is
going on in the Chesapeake Bay, which brought up the California
Bay-Delta, the Gulf Coast, and the Everglades.
MISSISSIPPI RIVER
But there is one of our Nation's biggest landmarks, and
that is the Mississippi River. It is one of the world's largest
bodies of water. It is internationally recognized as well as
treasured here nationally, and the mighty Mississippi River,
which is getting ready to be real mighty in my neck of the
woods and do a lot of flooding shortly, it goes all the way
from Minnesota, as you know, all the way down to the Gulf.
It is a large source of drinking water for over 18 million
people, and my hometown of St. Paul probably would not have
turned into the place that it is today, as well as Minneapolis,
without the river.
I am very proud of the work that the Upper Mississippi
Natural Wildlife Refuge is doing, and I want to just kind of
hone in here a little bit and ask you is the landscape
cooperative going to touch on the Mississippi River to help the
river achieve its healthy watershed? It continues to be a
working river, and if it is going to be a working river and
also support the wildlife and the recreational aspects of it,
there has to be a well-calibrated balance between barge
traffic, locks and dams, Asian carp coming in, everything else.
You do not mention that watershed, and I know it is broken
down into regions. Regions are fine, but what is the overall
big picture plan for Mississippi protection?
Dr. Gould. You mentioned LCCs, landscape conservation
cooperatives. Those cooperatives are a system of shared
scientific expertise and money that provides science
information to management entities, allowing them to make the
most efficient and most effective use of their money to do what
they need to do.
As you are aware, that area is covered by Joint Ventures
for birds and many kinds of agreements with the Native American
community in terms of management responsibilities and
requirements. We work very closely with the states, especially
with the refuge, in determining what kind of restoration
activities can be most efficient and effective for wildlife
values, while taking into consideration, obviously, the
economic value of that area.
So the landscape conservation cooperatives are going to
provide the science information so people can make the best
decisions based on the best science. I would like to say, they
are not conservation delivery. Each of the entities involved
have their own responsibilities, but if we can agree on the
science, you can make individually and collectively the best,
most-efficient decisions on how you use the money available.
Our Great Lakes region is one of the Service's leaders in
working in partnership with all of the interested stakeholders
to come to management approaches to solving ecological problems
in a very efficient and effective manner and transparent way.
So overall, that is an area of focus, obviously because it
is so important, and we have a lot of base money going into
that area.
Dan.
Mr. Ashe. If I could just add, especially with the
Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico, I think what we
envision with the landscape conservation cooperatives is, as
Rowan said, trying to build shared capacity.
And so LCCs become a mechanism for the Fish and Wildlife
Service, our state partners, the Corps of Engineers, the
Natural Resource Conservation Service, and others to come
together to build a shared science capacity. This is going to
allow us to make investments in a much more coordinated fashion
so that we are starting to link the solutions of problems like
hypoxia in the Gulf to farm bill incentive programs. This will
allow us to get much more bang for the buck in terms of the
public's investment in improving the river water quality,
attacking challenges like Asian carp, and doing that in a much
more coordinated fashion.
So that is exactly what we are trying to do.
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair, I would like to sit down and
follow up with you folks on what is the big picture timeline
here? What do people have to agree on? I think I stressed it
pretty well, this is a working river. When I grew up, if it was
quiet enough, I could hear the guys on the barges talk up the
hill in my bedroom back in the day before we had air
conditioning.
It is a working river, and it will continue to be a working
river, but we are going to work the river to the bone, and we
are going to destroy opportunities if we do not have an
aggressive timeline here. I look forward to working with you to
see how this works.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Cole.
TRIBAL PROGRAMS
Mr. Cole. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know we have got
limited time and so some of these I may just submit for the
record, but I wanted to, number one, first ask you just broadly
speaking, I want to focus on the interaction between Fish and
Wildlife Service and Indian Country. What is the impact of the
2012 budget on Indian Country, and what are the impacts
specifically on tribal-related programs?
Dr. Gould. One of our hallmark programs that we are very,
very proud of in the southwest specifically is our ability to
work with tribal entities to develop youth involvement
programs. There is a big emphasis in this budget on putting
more youth to work and that includes a very sizable program
working with Native American youth.
The other program that we are supporting is our State and
Tribal Wildlife Grants program, which we are proposing
somewhere around $90 to $95 million. The largest portion of
this money goes straight to the states, but also a portion of
it goes directly to tribal restoration and recovery projects.
Mr. Cole. Now, I was going to ask you actually about that
specific program.
Dr. Gould. A $1 million increase.
Mr. Cole. It is my understanding that the state funding is
both formula and grant-driven.
Dr. Gould. Right.
Mr. Cole. Tribal funding is only grant-driven.
Dr. Gould. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Cole. Is there any reason why there would not be a
formula component to tribal funding as well?
Dr. Gould. It is difficult to do. Tribes have different
capabilities from one tribal entity to another, and as you are
aware, there are over 500 recognized tribal entities out there.
So what has to happen in a situation like that is we work
through our tribal liaisons and the region to identify the
highest priority areas where the most work can be done working
with the entire community.
And then there is the submission of project proposals.
Mr. Cole. Just out of curiosity, and I do not know, and you
may not know off the top of your head. When grants come in,
what is the percentage of them that actually are ultimately
funded and looked on favorably? I am just trying to get a feel
for----
Dr. Gould. I do not know that. We will have to get that
information for you, sir.
[This information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.123
FISHERIES PROGRAM
Mr. Cole. I would appreciate that. Just one more, and,
again, I know Mr. LaTourette has some questions and cannot get
back, so I just want to ask one more. I learned a great deal
about fisheries thanks to Mr. Dicks. We do not do a lot of
fisheries in Oklahoma, but you have a $12 million cut in the
Fisheries Program, and that is a big deal to a lot of tribes
actually, in different parts of the country.
What kind of impact that has on them, and was it
disproportionate to the tribes as compared to the states,
because I have heard some concern that when these cuts
happened, the state programs tend to remain funded, the tribal
programs are not funded, and they take the bigger hit.
I would like your observations on that.
Dr. Gould. To the best of my knowledge, I do not know any
specifics, but to the best of my knowledge the cuts that were
taken beyond the hatchery cuts were earmarks.
Mr. Cole. Well, of course, that does not mean it was a bad
idea. I yield back my time.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Hinchey.
Mr. Hinchey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. I am going to try to get through both you and
Steve before we go over. We have one vote.
EVERGLADES
Mr. Hinchey. We will go very quickly. Thank you all very
much for everything you are doing, and nice to have you down
here from Alaska.
I thought I would mention something way down south and very
warm. It is the Everglades and the Restoration Act that is
going on in the context of the Everglades, which is very
important. The Everglades is one of the most fascinating places
that we have, a whole host of species of all kinds, and I
understand a great number of species that are endangered there
may not continue unless the work that you are doing is going to
be successful. And, of course, the Everglades has been badly
treated in the past, almost disappeared in some way in the past
century, almost wiped out.
So the situation that you are engaged in there is very
important. So I just wanted to ask you about it. I noted that
in your budget that the Service has plans to establish a new
wildlife refuge, as well as a new headwaters conservation area.
So can you tell us about that, what the intentions are,
what those plans are, and what you think they are going to
achieve, and what we might do, what this subcommittee might do
to participate with you in the help of bringing about this
completion?
Dr. Gould. Well, as you are aware, the overall goal is to
create or recreate the river of grass, which allows all kinds
of water quality and the kinds of economic benefit that comes
from a very solid ecological environment. In the Everglades
area, we are planning for expanded refuge capability up there,
but they are not the kinds of refuges you really see normally.
These are large areas where we work with private landowners and
have conservation easements where we work with especially the
large ranching community. These conservation easements allow
them to do what they do on their ranch and still keep them in
the kind of condition that allows the country to have the kind
of ecological benefit that is going to be important from the
overall Everglades point of view, especially for endangered
species that really count on that kind of environment for their
existence.
This is a high priority for Secretary Salazar, extremely
high priority. In fact, Dan has been involved in several
projects with the Secretary. He might want to comment.
Mr. Ashe. I would just say we are intimately involved in
Everglades restoration, and it is probably one of the best
examples of government agencies working together: us, the Corps
of Engineers, the U.S. Geological Survey, the EPA, the NRCS,
the State of Florida, and the South Florida Water Management
District. Just excellent cooperation and a couple of weeks ago
I was down there to a groundbreaking of a 55,000 acre wetland
restoration project at the Picayune Strand, so lots of
innovative, impressive work going on there.
The northern Everglades or the Everglades Headwaters Refuge
Proposal is one of those exciting proposals where we are
looking at the core of fee acquisition, a relatively small core
of fee acquisitions, surrounded by easements that will protect
working landscapes. That is a model for conservation, and it is
reflected in our budget proposal for this year. In proposals
like the Flint Hills and the Rocky Mountain Front, we are
really looking into that to be a model for conservation in the
21st century, with much more reliance on easements to protect
working landscapes and working ways of life that also provide
important opportunities for habitat conservation. So proposals
like the northern Everglades or Everglades Headwaters are very
exciting, and I think take us in a very positive direction.
Mr. Hinchey. And so this is one of the main focuses of
attention right now, and is something that is going to be
upgraded to some extent by the end of this year and then over
the course of the next years.
Mr. Ashe. The success of that depends upon our partners in
the Department of Agriculture. If that vision is going to
become a reality, certainly the Land and Water Conservation
Fund as a traditional source of funding for a project like
that, but also continued support for the Farm Bill Conservation
Programs. The USDA is going to be an absolutely essential
element of that entire proposal.
Mr. Hinchey. Well, thank you very much.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. LaTourette.
ASIAN CARP AND LACEY ACT
Mr. LaTourette. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will
try and be brief. I just have two Great Lakes questions. One is
the Asian carp. Courts in Ontario now are fining people up to
$50,000 for transporting live Asian carp over the U.S./Canadian
border, and we are being urged to take a re-look at the Lacey
Act and perhaps strengthen it.
The reason for that call is that, we are being told anyway,
that it can take up to 4 years as the average, I guess, to put
something on the list, and one, I would ask if that is true,
and if it is true, why does it take so long, and if it is true,
what can we do about it to take a little less time?
In 2007, I think the agency listed the silver, the black,
and the large-scale silver carp, but it was not until last
December that the big head, you know, if I was in charge I
think I would go big head first before the sort of benign
things.
Dr. Gould. Right.
Mr. LaTourette. But the big head was added in December.
Clearly the Asian carp has the potential to be one of the
biggest ecological disasters in the Great Lakes ever, so what
can you tell me about the Lacey Act, should we give you
additional resources, do you need additional resources, and can
you speed up putting these bad things on lists?
Dr. Gould. I am not specifically aware of exactly where we
are in the process, but I know that it is a priority for the
Fish and Wildlife Service to get that species on the injurious
species list, and unless Dan knows specifically where we are in
the process, we will have to get that information for you.
[The information follows:]
asian carp: status of bighead species under lacey act
The Asian Carp Prevention and Control Act (Pub. L. 111-307) was
signed into law on December 14, 2010, amending the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C.
42) by adding the bighead carp to the list of injurious animals
contained therein. The statutory prohibitions and exceptions for this
species went into effect upon signature into law. The Service will
publish a final rule in the Federal Register on March 22, officially
adding the bighead carp to the federal injurious wildlife list.
But it is a priority for the Service, and we agree with you
100 percent about the need to take that action. We are putting
lots of resources, both resources from EPA and our own
resources, in place to try to deal with keeping that species
out of the Great Lakes.
Mr. LaTourette. Right.
Dr. Gould. With the electric barriers and the monitoring
that is going on. But we see this as a big, big problem for
that area. It could be an ecological disaster, and we have got
to do all we can do to stop it.
Mr. LaTourette. Well, I read some place that the Asian carp
eats like 40 percent of its body weight a day, you know. I did
that for awhile. It was not very good, but, obviously, it can
destroy the sports fishing industry.
The other thing that we heard and maybe you can get back to
me on another day is that, I think you have $2.9 million in
this budget request to deal specifically with this issue. The
other story that we are being told is of the money that is
available for Asian carp efforts, only 5 to 8 percent of that
actually makes it to the boots on the ground, taking care of
the problem. So I would like to be dispelled of that rumor if
it is not true, and if it is true, obviously, that is
disturbing.
Dr. Gould. That is disturbing. I was not aware of that, but
we will make some telephone calls, because you are right.
[The information follows:]
ASIAN CARP: USE OF FUNDING
The Service is unaware of the basis for the rumor that only 5 to 8
percent of funding for Asian Carp control makes it to on-the-ground
projects. Most of the funding the Service has for Asian Carp control
comes from the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative within the
Environmental Protection Agency's budget. This funding has a cap on how
much can be used for administrative overhead. Furthermore, the Service,
along with the other Federal and State agencies, has been very mindful
of the need to react quickly to this threat and maximize on the ground
efforts. The Service is a member of the Asian Carp Regional
Coordination Committee, which is made up of Federal and State agencies.
The Committee has developed a framework strategy for the control of
Asian Carp and approves each agency project to ensure effective use of
the funding and prevent overlapping efforts. The 2011 list of projects
can be found at www.asiancarp.org.
Mr. LaTourette. Yes.
Dr. Gould. Most of those resources need to either get to
the barriers themselves or the active monitoring that is going
on or the sciences necessary to be more effective in
identifying where a problem area may be and then attacking that
area as quickly as possible.
Mr. LaTourette. I thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. We have about 4 minutes to get over and vote,
so we are going to do that right now. We are going to recess
for a few minutes. We only have one vote, so it should not take
us too long to get back, and I have a whole series of questions
which should not be too tough.
We will be in recess for approximately 10, 15 minutes.
[Recess.]
Mr. Simpson. We will be back in order. Mr. Moran has to go
to a VA hearing, I think, Appropriations hearing, and obviously
members are headed off to different hearings. We got to do the
first round of questioning, at least those members had the
opportunity to ask their questions.
Ms. Lummis, I have got a series that I am going to ask but
go ahead if you are ready.
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for joining
us today. My questions are going to be focused on the
Endangered Species Act, and I am from Wyoming, so you can just
about guess what I might want to discuss.
But let's start with a general question. I would like to
ask the acting director, over the life of the Endangered
Species Act how much money has been spent on management? Do you
know?
Dr. Gould. I do not have a specific answer to that
question. We will have to get back to you.
Mrs. Lummis. Okay. Thank you. I would appreciate it if you
would. I will submit these questions in writing so you have
them in front of you.
What has been the practical result for your agency of the
spike in listing petitions in terms of the employee hours spent
and the funds expended as well?
Dr. Gould. As you are aware, we have been focusing a lot of
our effort on litigation-driven decisions. That is based on the
fact that we have a lot of involvement in the court system with
the Endangered Species Act. There has been a considerable
number of listing petitions that have been submitted in the
form of multiple requests at one time. This, in effect, puts us
in a position where we cannot deal with these requests nor have
any hope of being able to deal with them in a timely manner.
ENDANGERED SPECIES PETITIONS CAP
Mr. Ashe. I would just add that I think it has been more of
a kind of redirection of effort as opposed to more hours. There
are only so many hours in the day to work, so it has been a
significant redirection of effort within the Service. But one
of the things we are asking the subcommittee for in this year's
proposal is to consider a cap on the amount we can spend to
process petitions, and that would be an important aspect of
helping us manage our endangered species more closely.
Mrs. Lummis. Would it work better if the decision to pursue
a potential listing or at least to further a study regarding
listing could be generated only by the agency itself rather
than by the public?
Dr. Gould. Of course, the Act is configured the way the Act
is configured.
Mrs. Lummis. I might mention, though, that the
authorization for this act expired in 1992, and that the
authorization level that is the ceiling for authorization for
the ESA is $41,500,000, $41.5 million, and the fiscal year 2012
request is $282 million.
So here we are on a five X multiple of the total
authorization amount with no end in sight. So I am wondering
whether this committee should be working with the authorizing
committee to authorize or reauthorize in a way that allows the
agency to better manage listing requests and so these multiple
requests at one time that overwhelm the agency's budget and
personnel will not be dominating or driving the expenditure of
funds. Rather you will be able to concentrate dollars and human
resources within your agency on species that are actually
recoverable.
Any comment on that?
Mr. Ashe. I would reiterate that the purpose of the listing
cap we requested is to help us better allocate workload among
basic endangered species activities such as listing,
consultation, and recovery. We believe a petition cap would be
helpful for us in managing that.
I think that the petition process itself is very compatible
with American government in that the public has the opportunity
to petition its government to take an action. In this case, for
us to consider listing an endangered species. I think, in
recent years, we have seen that the petition process has been
beyond our ability to manage effectively, and we are asking the
subcommittee to help us in part by considering a petition cap.
Mr. Simpson. Would the gentlelady yield for just a second?
How would a petition cap work? I mean, right now if there
is a petition and it exceeds what you have appropriated for
that amount, you have to take resources from other areas and
look at the petition?
Mr. Ashe. Gary Frazer is our Assistant Director for
Endangered Species, and perhaps Gary would be best able to give
you the specifics about how that petition cap might work.
Mr. Frazer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Gary
Frazer. I am the Assistant Director for Endangered Species. The
way it works, because there are statutory deadlines associated
with how we must process a petition, within 90 days we must
make a determination as to whether the petition is substantial.
Then if it is substantial, we must make a determination as to
whether the petition action is warranted or not warranted or
warranted but precluded within 12 months.
Those are deadlines that can be enforced. They frequently
are enforced, and so the petition cap would serve to help us
defend against lawsuits that are driving us to meet those
deadlines. We can only do so much. We can only do as much as
the funds appropriated by Congress allow us to do. By having a
cap saying that Congress allows us to spend up to this amount
of money for petition work, we would work up to that. Then we
would essentially use that as our defense for not doing more,
so that we can balance among the various duties that we have.
Mr. Simpson. If you do not change the underlying law, the
authorization law, how would a court look on that? Any idea?
Mr. Frazer. To the extent that we have had experience in
this in the past, we have had caps in place for our listing
program and for critical habitat designation within our listing
program for a number of years. It has never really been brought
to a head, but it has been lodged as a defense before. We view
that as our most successful line of defense for maintaining
balance among all of our endangered species program activities.
So the Appropriations Committee has been very helpful for
us.
Mr. Simpson. If you do a listing as listed but precluded,
that is essentially saying I do not have the money to do it.
Right?
Mr. Frazer. That is what it means. Yes.
Mr. Simpson. Has that ever been challenged in court?
Mr. Frazer. We do have many challenges to our precluded
findings. Most of those challenges are still pending.
ENDANGERED SPECIES LAWSUITS
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and a follow up to
that comment.
About how many lawsuits is the agency currently engaged in
on ESA-related matters?
Mr. Frazer. Right now, on what we call a Section 4 of
listing program activities, we have approximately 41 pending
lawsuits.
Mrs. Lummis. No, you may not know the answer to this
because it seems a mystery to a lot of people in government,
but when your agency loses or settles an ESA case that results
in a judgment or the payment of attorneys' fees, does the
payment come from your budget or from the Treasury?
Mr. Frazer. It depends upon what statute is the basis for
filing the complaint. If the complaint is filed under the
Endangered Species Act, the provision in the Act is that
providence for citizen suits to be filed and explicitly
provides for reasonable attorneys' fees to be awarded. Those
fees are paid out of the Claims and Judgments Fund, and DOJ
administers that fund.
If the lawsuit is brought under another statute that does
not explicitly authorize attorneys' fees to be awarded such as
the Administrative Procedure Act, then the attorney fees, if
they are awarded, come out of the agency funds, out of the Fish
and Wildlife Service budget.
Mrs. Lummis. And are you able to track those payments? Do
you track those payments both under the ESA citizen suits and
that APA type of case?
Mr. Frazer. DOJ administers the Judgment Fund, so we do not
separately track those awards. We track the funds that we
ultimately have to pay out of the endangered species budget,
and for the last 9 years they have averaged about $200,000 per
year. We do not lose many cases, but when we do, they can
amount to substantial costs. Attorneys get paid well.
GRAY WOLF
Mrs. Lummis. Question for either Dr. Gould or Mr. Ashe. Do
you believe the gray wolf in the Northern Rockies is a
recovered species?
Dr. Gould. I will just start out by saying, yes.
Mrs. Lummis. Perfect. That is the answer that I was hoping.
Now, what do you need from this committee to support
negotiations taking place between yourselves and the governor
of Wyoming?
Dr. Gould. As you are aware, we have withdrawn an appeal
regarding the lawsuit, regarding this very issue, because we
truly believe that we can come to a common understanding of the
kind of management plan that is necessary to deal with a wolf
population that we all agree is in good shape.
So what we are committed to doing, the Secretary and Dan
Ashe, who has been very, very instrumental in dealing with the
wolf situation, is to sitting down with Governor Mead and the
State of Wyoming. We are confident that in a reasonably short
period of time we can come up with a plan that will make
biological sense and meet the needs of the State of Wyoming.
Mr. Ashe. Patience, maybe, is the one thing needed because
the governor, as you know, Congresswoman, has to work with the
legislature in this case. Our immediate discussions with the
governor are going very well, but then he will need to work
with the legislature and then we will need to work within our
administrative process.
So it is not going to happen overnight, but I think we are
making very good progress. I think we are on a good track.
Mrs. Lummis. I appreciate that, and I strongly, strongly
encourage you to devote a great deal of time to that as
frequently and as soon as possible, because in the long run it
will save your agency money, it will save my state money, and
it will save a huge amount of aggravation and frustration
within the State of Wyoming. So I cannot more strongly stress
my hope that you will make that a priority.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Simpson. Just out of curiosity, in Wyoming if a state
management plan is approved, it has to be approved by the
legislature?
Mr. Ashe. Yes. The legislature has approved the previous
Wyoming plan, and would have to enact any new plan that the
governor might develop in cooperation with us. It is going to
take an action by the state legislature to get to a submission
of a new plan.
Mr. Simpson. As you know, in H.R. 1 we added language to
effectively, essentially overturn Judge Malloy's decision,
which the Administration supported. It did not address Wyoming
because they have not come to an agreement yet with Fish and
Wildlife Service.
Mrs. Lummis. Mr. Chairman, I would beg to differ with that
statement, but go ahead and continue.
Mr. Simpson. If they come to an agreement on a state
management plan with Wyoming, would that effectively overturn
Judge Malloy's decision? Because did his decision not say, no,
you cannot just separate Idaho and Montana, you have to include
Wyoming also?
Mr. Ashe. Your legislation would allow us to get back to
where we were in April of 2009.
Mr. Simpson. Right.
Mr. Ashe. With Idaho and Montana wolves de-listed and
Wyoming wolves still listed.
Mr. Simpson. Right.
Mr. Ashe. And so as soon as Wyoming develops a plan that we
can approve, then we can de-list the entire Northern Rocky
Mountain distinct population segment of wolves. That is why we
are, as we speak, engaged with the State of Wyoming to move in
that direction. Governor Mead has been very forthcoming in
working with us and expressing his concerns, but we have had
very good dialogue. I think we are moving in a positive
direction in Wyoming.
Your legislation would set the stage. It would get wolf
management back into the hands of Montana and Idaho, where we
have previously-approved state plans, and then put us on a
course to get a new plan from Wyoming that we could approve.
Mr. Simpson. And once the three states have an approved
plan, then it is time. Okay.
Mrs. Lummis. I do have a follow-up, Mr. Chairman. I would
reiterate that Wyoming submitted a plan that was approved by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Dr. Gould. That is correct.
Mrs. Lummis. And so the subsequent disapprovals were not by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They were done in the
courts pursuant to litigation.
So the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pronouncement on the
plan that the Wyoming legislature passed was to approve it, and
by all measures the wolf is recovered. All measures, all three
states. So that is why this issue continues to be a burr under
the saddle of the State of Wyoming, as well as your states
because of Wyoming's opinion of our plan, as reflected by the
acting director and the deputy here today, was approved by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service based on sound science.
Mr. Simpson. But subsequently challenged in court.
Mrs. Lummis. Correct.
Mr. Simpson. And ultimately what I am trying to get back to
is a state where Idaho can manage its wolves, and ultimately I
think that is what we all want.
Dr. Gould. That is correct.
Mr. Simpson. The states can manage the wolves.
Dr. Gould. Just one additional layer of complexity, we
approved the Wyoming plan in 2007 that was stricken down. Our
approval of that plan was stricken down in a decision by Judge
Malloy in the Montana District. We disapproved Wyoming's plan
in our 2009 de-listing rule and that was challenged by the
State of Wyoming.
Mr. Simpson. And this is the one you have chosen not to----
Dr. Gould. We got an adverse ruling in that case also from
Judge Johnson in the Wyoming District, and so we essentially
have two judges kind of telling us different things about
Wyoming's plan.
That is why we decided not to carry this issue any further
in court. We decided to get this out of court and get back into
a discussion between professionals at the state and federal
level. We believe we can get a plan that is acceptable to both
Wyoming and the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Mr. Simpson. Good, because I think we all want the same
thing here and that is to be able to have state management of
the wolves, and anybody that believes we were going to
reintroduce wolves into Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming and were
not going to have some management of the wolves was living in a
world that just does not exist.
There are people who do not want us to do anything with the
wolves, and that, unfortunately or fortunately, is not going to
be the situation, that we are going to have to manage them.
So I appreciate you working on that with me.
LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION COOPERATIVES
In your opening testimony you talked about the Cooperative
Landscape Conservation Initiative as being about biological
planning and information gathering. What concerns me is that
the messaging reflects the policy that somehow biological
planning and information gathering are simply two more tools
that the Service is adding to its toolbox, while offsetting
cuts elsewhere in the budget suggests that other tools are
being taken out of the toolbox.
It seems to me that this initiative should be about the
entire package of adaptive management, that is the application
of science for biological planning conservation, project design
and delivery, and outcome-based monitoring, all feeding back on
one another.
Please take just a few moments to comment on that, and if I
am correct in what I just said, and I know that this initiative
is still in its infancy, but can you give me just an example of
how landscape conservation is changing the Service's approach
to endangered species recovery?
Dr. Gould. Based on your question, you understand very well
what the Service calls strategic habitat conservation, which is
landscape conservation with adaptive management attached to it,
exactly as you described it. In that process, the landscape
conversation cooperatives provide us the initial information
and planning to start making decisions. We will then monitor
actions taken and make any kind of course corrections that are
necessary. This approach will allow us to keep circling good
decisions, good outcomes, monitor the outcomes, make better
decisions. That is the adaptive part you were talking about.
The LCCs help us with the kind of initial good science
information, monitoring and modeling that allows us to make
decisions that we can eventually see if they work. It is not
conservation delivery per se, but the beauty of the LCCs is the
information that is developed. The money that goes into the
LCCs is for information. The information gathered is driven by
the input from the steering committee for each LCC. They are
our stakeholders. Our primary stakeholders are other federal
agencies, the states, and other entities like Ducks Unlimited,
who have a seat at the table.
The LCCs at least have a common understanding of the
information needed. That is the beauty of the LCCs, because
when you do make management decisions that you are going to
adaptively monitor, everybody at least agrees on the science.
Very often in the past that has been a stumbling block. You
have got that common basis.
Mr. Ashe. Specifically with regard to endangered species, I
do not know so much that this approach will change the way we
are dealing with endangered species. What it will do is allow
us to take some of the very best examples and duplicate that
much more consistently across the landscape.
A good example is the grizzly bear. You are aware that this
is another area where we are having momentary difficulty. I
think the general notion of establishing a population objective
across a large landscape and then doing the science that we
need to understand the issues is needed--where do we need
conservation, where are the threats to that species, and how
are we going to address those threats, for example, female
mortality in the grizzly bear population. How do we deal with
that? One way is by educating outfitters and then another way
is by dealing with the hot spots in terms of habitation
mortality.
This LCC approach will allow us to do this more
consistently across the landscape so that we are going to be
much more effective at dealing with issues like sage grouse and
lesser prairie-chicken and golden eagles. Some of these issues
we can see coming. We can see those storm clouds on the
horizon. The LCCs are going to allow us to do that much more
consistently and much more effectively in the future.
Dr. Gould. In cooperation with our stakeholders and state
partners.
Mrs. Lummis. Mr. Chairman, may I interject.
Mr. Simpson. Sure.
ENDANGERED SPECIES LISTING AND RECOVERY
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you. With regard to what you just said,
under what authority can the agency move the goalposts? When
there is a recovery plan put forward, there are criteria which
determine objectively when a species is recovered, and yet with
the grizzly bear and the wolves and others, those goalposts get
moved as time goes on.
So species that by the objective criteria which were
adopted at the time of listing have already been met, are no
longer valid, and those species stay listed when they have, in
fact, recovered by all criteria that were scientifically vetted
at the time of the listing. How can that happen, and why does
that happen, and under what authority does that happen?
Dr. Gould. We have the authority to update recovery plans
based on the best available science. The authority for a
recovery plan is a local plan. Our regional directors sign
those recovery plans, and if there is new information
available, scientifically-valid new information, they are
required to take that into consideration in listing decisions.
In fact, to the best of my knowledge, with wolves, that has
occurred. New information based on genetic population, moving,
and other factors has caused other recovery criteria to become
important. That has not diminished the fact that they are
recovered, but there is new information, new considerations in
the recovery planning process.
Mr. Ashe. I think in the case of, you know, our favorite
subject, wolves, it is not so much that the bar has changed.
Our recovery objective has remained the same, ten breeding
pairs and 100 wolves per state by managing for at least 15
breeding pairs and at least 150 wolves per state. The recovery
objective has remained the same.
What has happened is that people disagree with that
recovery objective. As we have tried to de-list the wolf, we
have to essentially put the machinery in reverse. We have to
disprove and work backwards through the five listing factors in
the endangered species list. People will challenge, and you
know, have challenged the science on which we are basing those
decisions.
ADAPTIVE SCIENCE
It is not so much that the recovery standard has changed,
rather there are a lot of people out there that disagree that
that is a valid recovery standard. That is the crux of the
debate we have been having. The science that we are talking
about, that we hope to develop through this landscape
conservation cooperative network, will help us to better defend
our decisions in the future.
Another example with grizzly bear is the effect of climate
change on the availability of white pine nuts as a critical
food supply for the grizzly bear, and one of the reasons we
lost----
Mr. Simpson. Grizzly bears eat nuts?
Dr. Gould. Yes, they do.
Mr. Ashe. Yes, they do.
Mr. Simpson. Oh, I thought they ate people.
Mr. Ashe. The science that we are talking about developing
will put us in a better posture to defend our actions in the
future.
Mr. Simpson. We are hearing from some of your partners who
are concerned about budget cuts to Service programs that do the
conservation, design, delivery, and monitoring so vital to the
entire initiative. How much of the Service's funding under this
initiative is returning to other Service programs as opposed to
being outsourced to partners? How much of the funding is going
into helping partners come to the table, particularly the
tribes, and are Service programs having to write grant
proposals or otherwise compete with external partners for
Service funds?
Dr. Gould. I do not have any specific dollar figures that I
can really point to. If we can pull that information together,
we will.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.124
Mr. Simpson. Okay.
Dr. Gould. For 2012, we are planning on $10.2 million to
complete the LCCs and $7.2 million for science. We are not
putting a specific earmark on that money at all. The best
person, entity, university, or coop unit, that can collect that
information, that is who the funding will go to.
It could be the Service collecting that information. It
could be a coop unit. It could be Boise State. It is wherever
the best expertise is for that sort of information. Only by
doing that can we have, among the steering committee members
some comfort. Comfort that the data collected is being
collected in a way that is not biased and people can use and
rely on it for a long period of time. We have not put any
specific earmark for the Service on that money.
Mr. Ashe. Our people do not have to write grant proposals.
The whole idea behind this is we are asking people to bring
capacity and to manage that capacity as partners. When we bring
our money to the table, we are essentially saying we are going
to form a steering committee with our partners, and we are
going to set shared priorities.
The Service has a voice in how those monies will be
directed, but we are asking the Forest Service, the BLM, the
NRCS, and our state and NGO partners to bring resources to the
table, too. It would be inappropriate for us to say we want our
money spent on this or that. We are looking for shared
priorities, and we think the Service will do very well in that
context.
This is a model that we borrowed from the Joint Ventures.
The Service has been a tremendous beneficiary from the work of
the migratory bird joint ventures, and we have done that by
relinquishing some degree of authority over the resources that
we bring to the table.
Mr. Simpson. Okay. As many of you know, the Service tried
and failed on a similar ecosystem effort back in the 1990s. In
speaking with your partners my sense is that part of the
problem back then was that new geographic assistant regional
directors were hired in addition to existing program assistant
regional directors and that there was no longer clear lines of
authority.
With the addition of the headquarters and regional science
advisors that report directly to the director and regional
directors respectively, what is different administratively
about this initiative such that it will succeed where the other
ones seem to fail?
Dr. Gould. The geographic ARDs, as they called them back in
that time, were eliminated because it did not work. They were
really focusing on conservation delivery, and you need to
remember that conservation delivery is the responsibility of
not just the Fish and Wildlife Service. It is also the
responsibility of the state, other federal agencies, and so on
and so forth.
The primary difference between this new initiative is we
are avoiding the turf battles that would result from us
creating jobs that, on the face of it, would be usurping, at
least in the views of others, the responsibility for them to do
their work. We are avoiding that whole concept by saying
everybody maintains their responsibility. The state still has
to make the decision the states are responsible for. We are not
presupposing we are going to cooperatively have a
responsibility for their work.
What we are saying is at least we are working with a common
scientific base. That is the basic difference and one of the
reasons why geographic ARDs did not work in the past.
Mr. Simpson. Do you think this new LCC will break down the
stovepipes that traditionally exist in government agencies, and
is everyone on board with this within the agency? What have the
fisheries got to gain from this that are seeing, as Mr. Rogers
said, a $12.2 million reduction in their budget? What is the
benefit to them? What do they get out of this?
Dr. Gould. I will turn that question over to Dan Ashe. I
have to give him credit. This guy, as far as I am concerned, is
kind of the father of this kind of concept. He really is the
person that came up with the basic concepts of avoiding
tensions between stakeholder partners based on creating the
best science, then working forward on that premise, using the
strategic habitat conservation process that you described. Dan
has developed the Scientific Advisor role to the Director for
the last few years.
This is an innovative process. It is the way we are going
to have to approach conservation for the future. After I have
tooted his horn a little bit, let me answer the question by
saying that the Fisheries program, as you are aware, has
created these kind of fisheries joint ventures, and these joint
ventures have seen an advantage in working with the LCCs. They
see it as a way to obtain science so that we can do
conservation delivery.
Many of the major joint ventures have actually adopted LCCs
as a way to get the information they need to make their
decisions. Fisheries are now looking at it the same way.
National Fisheries Habitat Boards and other joint ventures and
similar entities that are developing across the country are now
seeing LCCs as a resource. A resource to collect the
information they need so that they can collectively talk about
setting resource priorities, not doing projects by random acts
of kindness. This allows for the focusing of resources where
they need to be. That is the beauty of the process.
Mr. Ashe. The concept requires everybody to give a little,
but with the idea that you are going to get more than you give.
As we think about an issue like sage grouse, if we develop the
capacity to see that 11-state landscape and work with our state
partners, we could send work randomly across the landscape and
not achieve our end objective and still see sage grouse in
decline.
What we need to do is hitch everybody to the same wagon so
that we are all working together across that landscape to
identify those core areas that are really going to be critical
for the persistence of the sage grouse on the landscape and
make the investment in those areas.
If you look at it from just the Fish and Wildlife Service
perspective, you might say, well, we would rather spend the
money at the national wildlife refuge, but the more important
investment is for Dave White at NRCS to put investment in some
of the key private landscapes or Bob Abbey at the BLM, to make
necessary investments within the BLM land base.
What this is going to allow us to do is identify where the
real priorities are, and then as a government make the
decision. As partners we will make the decisions about who is
going to make those investments, and with aquatic resources I
think that is absolutely essential. We are dealing with a group
of species which on a whole are the most imperiled group of
species in the world. We have to start making decisions much
more collectively, not looking at those decisions from within
the footprint of the Fish and Wildlife Service or the Corps of
Engineers or a state fish and wildlife agency, but in a much
more collective capacity.
Especially given the difficult financial situation that we
are having, it is more important than ever that we are doing
that. It does require everybody to kind of let go a little bit
and not look at it from the standpoint of the Fish and Wildlife
Service or the Fisheries Program or the Refuge Program or the
Endangered Species Program within the Fish and Wildlife Service
but look at it from the standpoint of what is the resource
objective that we are trying to accomplish. Maybe the BLM is
where we need to put the resources and get people to the place
where they can actually make those kind of decisions.
LAND ACQUISITION
Mr. Simpson. Good. Let's talk about land acquisition for
just a minute. We have got a $53 million, 64 percent increase
in land acquisition. Are the agency's acquisitions for parcels
already fully or mostly bordered by other federal lands?
Dr. Gould. Yes. Our land acquisitions where we are doing
fee title is primarily, almost exclusively, within the refuge
boundaries as they exist. Only in one case, I think the Flint
Hills, are we actually establishing a new refuge, and that
project is, to the best of my knowledge, all easements work.
So this land acquisition budget or LWCF money, which, of
course, comes from offshore receipts, does not go against the
budget deficit obviously, is going to make us more efficient in
the work we do. We actually can be more effective dealing with
access issues, prescribed burns, that sort of thing, when we do
not have a checkerboard square way of our refuges being
configured.
Now, what is important to remember also is that as we move
forward with this process we are never, ever pursuing this
approach without willing sellers. That is just the way we are
doing business, and we are staying within our lines.
Mr. Simpson. As you are I am sure well aware, westerners
get a little bit concerned when we start talking about land
acquisition in states that are 64, 80 or whatever percent
federal land already.
Dr. Gould. Yes.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE FUND
Mr. Simpson. The impact that has on the state and the tax
base of the state. National Wildlife Refuge Fund was
essentially kind of a PILT payment for the National Wildlife
Refuge.
Dr. Gould. Yes.
Mr. Simpson. Sort of like the same thing?
Dr. Gould. It is not quite the same thing, but the fund
itself is zeroed out, and I think that is what you are getting
to.
Mr. Simpson. Yes.
Dr. Gould. But our position is that the existence of those
refuges is an incredible economic boom for that local area, and
in these tight budget times we had to deal with that reality.
PILT money, I think the counties are getting approximately 5
percent of the authorized amount, somewhere in that area.
Mr. Simpson. PILT runs out in 2012? Expires at the end of
2012? And I am concerned that this is foreshadowing what might
be happening with PILT payments by the Administration saying,
well, gee, you have such a benefit of having Forest Service
land or BLM land or whatever federal land in your area. That
far offsets any negative aspect of it.
But I will tell you Mr. Moran and I had a discussion on the
Secure Rural Schools funding, and he was wondering why people
in Virginia are paying for schools in the western United
States, and so I just brought him some maps that showed the
percentage of federal land owned in the east versus the west.
It also showed what we would receive if those federal lands
were actually paying the very minimum in tax that they could
pay, how our per-pupil expenditure is less than it is here, and
our tax burden of what we tax ourselves to pay for those
schools is actually more than it is here. It is because we do
not have a land base.
And so we get very, very concerned when we start looking at
fully funding Land and Water Conservation Fund and acquire new
lands and that kind of stuff. And, this fund, as I understand
it, it is a little different as you said than PILT, but would
essentially pay those counties, but the argument that while
they benefit so much from having that wildlife refuge there
that we should not have to make up the difference, I think is
going to fall on some very skeptical ears among western
members.
That program was $14.5 million last year and is terminated
this year. We will find that money somewhere. It might be in
land acquisition funds or something.
Mrs. Lummis. Mr. Chairman, I could not agree more. Every
county I know in Wyoming would be happy to have taxes in lieu
of payments.
Mr. Simpson. Yes, and they would be substantially better
off, but I am not one who is opposed to public lands. I think
public lands provide a benefit to people, and Idaho loves
public lands. That is how we hunt and fish and outdoor recreate
and everything else, but there is a balance here that when
people want to tell us how we are going to manage public lands
that never see them from the east, you know, and say these are
all public lands, and we should have some say in it, well,
there is some responsibility to also pay for it.
Mr. Ashe. I would say I think over the years this refuge
revenue sharing has been very positive for the Fish and
Wildlife Service and the Refuge System. I doubt there is a
manager in the National Wildlife Refuge System who does not see
the kind of transfer of that check every year as a positive
with their local communities.
I think that, however, we have been asked in the context of
the budget to look for things and to think outside the box.
With that, our options are always limited and I know you are
aware of that. But it is definitely one of those things where
we have done numerous studies on the economic benefits of
national wildlife refuges. They all indicate that refuges are a
benefit to local economies considering the loss of income tax.
So, it is an attempt to look at some new ways of thinking about
public lands.
Mr. Simpson. I hope this is not a precursor to what the
Administration is looking at in the reauthorization of the PILT
payments or elimination of the PILT payments, because in some
counties, you know, when you have got a county that is 96
percent federal land, what the heck are they going to do?
Mr. Ashe. I am not aware that this is connected in any way
to any larger Administration policy. In fact, in the past we
had the opposite discussion about should the Refuge System be
included in the PILT System as opposed to having an
appropriated fund.
Mr. Simpson. Right. That is a legitimate discussion to
have, I think.
Dr. Gould. Just with the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act, and I
do not know the date, this is very specific to that particular
action.
LAKE LOWELL
Mr. Simpson. Okay. I want to bring your attention to a
situation that is particular to southern Idaho and ask for your
assistance in resolving what seems to be a completely
unnecessary dispute between the people of Idaho and Fish and
Wildlife Service.
As you know, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Deer Flat
National Wildlife Refuge in Idaho's Canyon County is in the
process of creating a new comprehensive management plan. The
Deer Flat Wildlife Refuge is located on Lake Lowell, a manmade
lake in southern Idaho. Lake Lowell was created over 100 years
ago as an irrigation reservoir and remains in service for this
purpose to this day. It has a long history of being utilized
not only for irrigation purposes but as a recreational lake
where water skiing, fishing, boating, and other uses are not
only permitted but encouraged. Needless to say, Lake Lowell is
an integral part of the social and economic life of southern
Idaho.
Despite the fact that Lake Lowell is manmade, an irrigation
reservoir, and a long-time recreational destination, Fish and
Wildlife Service continues to hold onto the possibility that
Lake Lowell could be closed to recreational uses in the future
as part of a comprehensive management plan. The failure or
unwillingness of Fish and Wildlife to take recreational
curtailment off the table has caused a great deal of concern
and controversy in Idaho's Treasure Valley and rightfully so.
In fact, I have got in my possession a letter from the
area's four state senators asking me to intervene in this
matter legislatively if necessary to make sure that your agency
does not move to end recreational uses on Lake Lowell.
As a result of this hearing I would like to be able to tell
these four senators that you will--I know that at a hearing
like this I cannot ask you to commit to anything specific like
that--but I would like to ask you to work with me to try to
solve this problem in southeast Idaho because it is causing a
great deal of consternation that does not need to be caused.
Do you believe that recreation and species conservation are
compatible?
Dr. Gould. Absolutely, and we will commit to work with you
on this particular issue. It was actually a surprise to us that
we had authority over the surface uses of that lake, and we
came to that conclusion when we started into the CCP process.
We have no intention of going through a process without
recognizing the fact that this has been a recreational lake for
as long as it has been in existence.
We will work with you to both recognize that fact and get
to a position and get to a place where the local folks are
comfortable with the management of both the refuge and how it
is dealt with and from a recreational perspective.
Mr. Simpson. We need to do that as quickly as possible
because if you want to get a lot of people upset at a hearing,
just bring up the issue, and it will bring up a lot of
recreationalists out there that think that it is nuts. I am not
saying that you have been unreasonable. I am just saying that
they believe that.
Dr. Gould. Potential. I understand.
Mr. Simpson. Yes, and so we want to work with you to solve
this problem so that it can be used for the recreational uses
it has for years and years and years and also serve as the
wildlife refuge that is important to the area.
Dr. Gould. Sure.
Mr. Simpson. I think we are pretty much finished here. I
thank you for being patient and waiting during the voting
process. Thank you for the work you do. I look forward to
working with you in the future, and if there is anybody we can
call on the other side of the rotunda, let us know. We would be
happy to do so.
Thank you.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.160
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.162
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.163
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.164
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.165
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.166
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.167
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.168
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.169
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.170
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.171
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.172
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.173
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.174
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.175
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.176
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.177
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.178
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.179
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.180
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.181
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.182
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.183
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.184
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.185
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.186
Thursday, March 17, 2011.
THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY FY 2012 BUDGET
WITNESSES
DR. MARCIA K. McNUTT, DIRECTOR, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
SUZETTE KIMBALL, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
CARLA BURZYK, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF BUDGET, PLANNING, AND INTEGRATION,
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Opening Remarks of Chairman Simpson
Mr. Simpson. Good morning. The committee will come to
order.
Good morning, Director McNutt. I would like to welcome you
along with the deputy director and the budget director, and
thank you for being here today. We have a lot to talk about, so
I will be relatively brief, not entirely, but relatively brief.
The 2012 budget request for the USGS is one of those where
I wish we could have someone from the White House come up,
place a hand on the Bible, raise his or her right hand, and
proceed to explain him or herself, because this is a budget
that does four things as I see it. First, by cutting $89
million and 230 FTEs from core science programs, this budget
runs counter to the President's commitment to restore science
to its rightful place.
Second, by proposing Washington Monument-type cuts to
programs like endocrine disruptor research and streamgages that
the American people deeply care about, the budget shows that
this Administration is willing to play games with this Congress
by testing our resolve during these serious fiscal times.
Third, by inheriting the full funding responsibilities for
Landsat 9 and 10 from NASA without any of NASA's $19 billion
budget, and by offsetting the $48 million increase for Landsat
from other core science programs, this budget is a sign of the
untenable situation we are likely to be in two years from now
when the Administration sends up a budget request for Landsat
that is nearly 10 times the increase proposed in fiscal year
2012. We might just as well rename USGS to National Land
Imaging Agency.
Lastly, water is life. How is it that the Nation's premier
science agency can claim that climate change is real and is
happening rapidly, and that these changes are having profound
effects on our Nation's water supplies, and then go and cut its
own water budget by 10 percent? What does this say about the
Nation when our priorities do not even include one of the most
basic ingredients to human survival?
With the United States borrowing 40 cents on every federal
dollar we spend, there is near-universal, bipartisan agreement
that we need to cut back on spending. But there is a right way
to go about it, and there are ways that make absolutely no
sense at all. This budget is one of those problems.
The Administration has sent to this Committee a budget for
the USGS that is simply, in my view, unacceptable. We have a
lot of work to do between now and October 1st. I look forward
to our discussions today and appreciate your help in providing
this Committee with the information it needs to do its job.
With that, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from
Virginia, Mr. Moran.
Opening Remarks of Congressman Moran
Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to
associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished
chairman. I did not find anything that you said that I would
disagree with. In fact, I agree strongly with the points that
you have made, Mr. Chairman, with regard to this budget.
Before I start, though, I do want to thank Dr. McNutt for
her important work on the scientific response to the BP
Transocean Deepwater Horizon oil disaster in the Gulf, and Ms.
Burzyk and Dr. Kimball and all of the staff of USGS, you do a
great job. Dr. McNutt's experiences as a distinguished
geophysicist and expert in marine sciences made her
contributions to the Gulf oil response vital. I hope we do have
time to talk about lessons learned from that oil disaster
because there is an important role for both enhanced federal
regulation and enhanced federal science.
As I say, though, Mr. Chairman, I could not agree more with
you that this budget request is deeply troubling. It does
include a large funding increase but for new responsibilities,
the cost of future Landsat rockets. There is an overall
increase of $50 million for Landsat but many of the core,
reliable and necessary science programs at the USGS have been
cut to make room for Landsat. That does not make sense. So I
hope we can work together to figure this out and to rectify I
think the wrongheaded decision, frankly, that the
Administration has made.
The Nation does need Landsat but it also needs the
research, as the chairman says, on water quality, on
groundwater streamgages, mineral science, mapping, biology,
earth sciences. All of those are cut in this request. The
budget requires the loss of 230 full-time-equivalent positions,
the most of any Interior bureau and the second only in this
whole subcommittee bill to the 1,760 FTE reduction at the
Forest Service, which of course is in the Department of
Agriculture. So here we are, an Administration that has
committed itself to the advancement of science cutting 230
people in an agency that frankly is anything but a large
bureaucracy. These are scientists that are highly skilled and
deeply committed. So we should not allow this reduction and
loss of scientific talent.
Land management government activities at all levels and a
wide range of industrial activities all rely on the science and
inventory work accomplished by the USGS. We need to support our
Nation's physical and biological sciences if we are going to
make the right decisions. So it is pennywise and pound foolish
to cut these research and development programs.
With that, I again thank you for chairing and holding the
hearing, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. I appreciate your comments and
agree with them.
Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Dr. McNutt, welcome today and we look forward
to your testimony and working with you on this budget.
OPENING REMARKS OF MARCIA K. MCNUTT, DIRECTOR
Dr. McNutt. Thank you very much for your statements, and
good morning, Chairman Simpson, distinguished members of the
subcommittee, and happy St. Patrick's Day to all.
I would like to begin my testimony with a passage from a
forthcoming book by Washington Post reporter Joel Achenbach
that is entitled, ``A Hole at the Bottom of the Sea: The Race
to Kill the BP Oil Gusher.'' In the book's prologue, he
describes how a critical breakthrough in stopping the oil spill
occurred in an obscure USGS lab. He ends the prologue as
follows: ``In crunch time, call in the nerds as well as the
cowboys. You never know when someone's fantastically esoteric
expertise may be called upon to save the country.'' And then he
dedicates the book to the Horizon 11, not forgotten, and to all
the people everywhere who do the hard work unseen.
So why am I telling you this story? Well, the President's
2012 budget for the USGS is a delicate balancing act between
executing the Administration's top priorities while still
maintaining the USGS core mission, all within an austere budget
cap, so that the USGS will be able to respond no matter where,
no matter how, whenever we are called upon to do our job to
help save the Nation unseen.
In a particular example from the Macondo well, one of the
heroes in the story is a groundwater researcher, because not
only water flows in reservoirs. His timely work avoided $3
billion in additional oil pollution to the Gulf. We have to
maintain talent like that despite tough choices in our water
programs.
As another example, Japan was just hit by a tragic and
devastating 9.0 earthquake and tsunami, and shame on us if we
do not learn from their misfortune. Japan is the most advanced
nation in terms of seismic hazard, and their earthquake early
warning system saved thousands of lives.
With ARRA funding, USGS got a big leap up on our own early
warning system in the Advanced National Seismic System. Funding
to implement a prototype is now caught up in the uncertainty of
the 2011 budget but we continue to plan for it when our funds
become available.
The President's 2012 budget does include provision to begin
the National Land Imaging Program, as you mentioned. It is a
home for a Landsat series of satellites. Landsat, over its
nearly 40-year history of continuous monitoring of Earth from
space, has become the gold standard for revealing land use from
space on a planetary scale at 30-meter resolution. Users
include educators, government at all levels, agribusiness,
water managers, the commercial sector and NGOs and they have
downloaded more than 4 million scenes.
The advent of Google Earth has lowered the technology
threshold to data usability for all. While NASA will still be
our partner with responsibility for spacecraft instrument
integration and launch by aligning budgetary authority with the
USGS, major programmatic decisions will be made with the best
interest of the user community in mind. Landsat belongs with
the USGS just like weather satellites belong with NOAA.
USGS is also benefiting from another Administration
priority, America's Great Outdoors. Funds will allow us to work
with existing partners on the landscape level in places like
the Great Lakes on invasive Asian carp or on the Chesapeake on
endocrine disruption in fish populations. In many cases, these
funds are helping to maintain key capabilities in mapping, GIS,
toxic-substance hydrology, water quality and other core
functions that are suffering from cuts to our programs
elsewhere in the budget.
Finally, in closing, thank you to this subcommittee for
your support in the USGS recent realignment in our management
structure. The budget you have before you reflects the new
structure which aligns our management with our performance
metrics, with our strategic plan, and with our budget. The
mission of the USGS has in no way changed and our programs are
intact. Rather, I can now be more accountable to you and the
American public for the important science and science services
we provide in natural hazards, energy, minerals, water, land
use, climate change adaptation, mapping and ecosystem science.
I want to thank you for the strong, bipartisan and very fair
support of the USGS you have provided, and I am happy to answer
your questions.
[The statement of Marcia K. McNutt follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.187
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.188
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.189
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.190
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.191
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.192
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.193
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.194
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, and let me echo what Mr. Moran said
in his opening statement, for the great work that you did
during the crisis in the Gulf. There are a lot of people
willing to point fingers and everything else about what went on
there but there were a lot of good people working on it that
did a tremendous job, and we appreciate the work the USGS did
in that regard.
We are going to have some votes, I guess about 10:15 or
something like that, and I understand that you have a Defense
Committee----
Mr. Moran. We have General Petraeus at Defense.
Mr. Simpson. So I am going to turn over my time to you to
start with if you like so you can get your questions in.
Mr. Moran. That is extremely considerate of you, Mr.
Chairman. I hope I acted like that when I was chair. I do not
know.
Mr. Simpson. You did.
Mr. Moran. I owe you big time.
OUTYEAR COSTS OF LANDSAT
Well, let's focus first of all on the $48 million increase
for outyear Landsat missions because it is coming from base
programs that we feel are vital, and that is clear on both
sides of the aisle. I have seen a chart that shows that the
plan is for the USGS share of Landsat 9 and 10 missions to
skyrocket. Now, of course, that is a pun that the staff put in
there deliberately. But here we are with zero in fiscal year
2011, it goes to $48 million of course in this new budget, in
fiscal year 2012, but then to $159 million in fiscal year 2013
and $410 million in fiscal year 2014. I mean, just two years
from now, $410 million to a $1 billion agency. That is
obviously over 40 percent of the entire agency. Are we going to
lose all of the biology and hydrology parts of the USGS or lose
all of the geology and mapping parts of the Survey? I think you
should give us a sense of if this trend continues, if the
budget goes in the way that the White House has recommended, it
looks like they are going to wipe out major roles and
responsibilities that USGS has today. Can you address that, Dr.
McNutt?
Dr. McNutt. Well, certainly we need to work with the
Administration on what the outyear costs are and we would
certainly not support a model in which Landsat erodes the core
mission. I do not think the Administration supports that nor
obviously does this committee. We have been assured by OMB many
times in conversations with them that the cuts to the USGS
program even in the 2012 budget should not be associated with
the growth in Landsat, and that is what we were told.
Mr. Moran. That is untrue though, unfortunately. I know it
is what you were told.
Mr. Simpson. OMB lies.
PROGRAM QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE
Mr. Moran. It has been known to happen. It appears that
some of your highest performing programs such as toxic
substances, hydrology and the National Water Quality Assessment
Program are slated for large reductions. To what degree did
USGS and OMB use program quality and performance criteria when
determining which programs to reduce? Because the information
we have been getting is that these are the last programs you
would want to cut because they have been performing so well and
efficiently.
Dr. McNutt. To the extent that we could, we did use program
quality, and let me give you an example. The Climate Effects
Network was created before the establishment of the Climate
Science Centers and the establishment of the Landscape
Conservation Cooperatives. It was a program that seemed on
track and to be a high-performing program but then it got
overtaken by events. The Department of the Interior went a
different direction in terms of how it was going to be doing
data integration and providing data services for climate
programs and so it no longer seemed that the CEN was the way
that we should be going about it, and that is why we offered up
that program as a cut. However, the cuts that we had to offer
up, and USGS was asked to offer a variety of scenarios--a 3
percent cut, a 5 percent cut, a 7 percent cut, and at one point
a 9 percent cut--and the cuts we were asked to offer up had to
go so deep into our budget that not all of the scenarios
included simply low-performing programs or programs that were
simply no longer needed. We just did not have enough of those,
I am sorry to say--well, I am happy to say.
HAZARDS PROGRAMS
Mr. Moran. Sure. The world's attention has been focused on
the earthquake and tsunami in Japan but I see this request has
a $2 million reduction for earthquake grants. We just heard
about BP Deepwater Horizon. That was not a lot of money USGS
had but they did perform a major role. What will be the impact
of that? Are those grants not very relevant to what we just saw
happen on the other side of the planet?
Dr. McNutt. Well, let me give you a very real----
Mr. Moran. Let me throw this in too because you have got a
reduction for the National Volcano Early Warning System, which
falls in the same kind of situation. Why?
Dr. McNutt. Let me give you a very specific example. Again,
all of our programs had to take cuts so there is basically no
part of our portfolio that is unscathed when we have to take a
7 percent cut overall in our science investigations. So
unfortunately, tough choices had to be made. But as a real
example of the effects of these cuts to our external grants
programs and earthquake hazards, yesterday the president of
Caltech, Jean-Lou Chameau, paid me a visit to talk about areas
of common interest, and as he was leaving, he happened to let
drop, he said I have to thank the USGS because, he said, the
fact that I am here in this country and the fact that I am
President of Caltech is thanks to the USGS because, he said, I
came here to the USGS on a one-year fellowship to do a master's
degree at Stanford University, and after that one year I was in
danger of being deported and I was saved to complete a PhD here
thanks to a USGS earthquake research grant that allowed me to
stay and complete a PhD at Stanford. His earthquake research
grant was to do a detailed study of strong ground motion
shaking in the Marina District of San Francisco just years
before that area was strongly hit by the Loma Prieta
earthquake, and his analysis of the shaking in that district,
the Marina District, actually very well matched the actual
damage that was done and allowed planners in that area to
prepare infrastructure in advance of that earthquake. So that
is the kind of work that is done. That is the kind of person
that is supported and that is the kind of leader we have in
this country now, thanks to USGS earthquake grants.
Mr. Moran. That is a great story. I do think that I will
mention to the ranking member of the full committee that in
looking down the cities that are at highest risk for active
volcanoes, Seattle and Tacoma, Washington, are at the top of
the list. Mr. Dicks may have some interest in that fact.
WATER RESOURCES PROGRAMS
The chairman mentioned water quality. You won a $9 million
increase for this WaterSMART initiative to do a census of water
but your proven water programs, like the National Water Quality
Assessment Program, you have cut almost $7 million, the
groundwater resources cut $2 million. I mean, it is nice to
know where they are but if you are not doing anything about
what you are aware of, then it does not seem to be the best use
of resources. I will conclude with that. There is a lot of
stuff I would like to ask about endocrine disruptors and so on
but I want to consider the chairman's generous latitude to go
first. But do you want to say anything about the water quality?
Mr. Simpson. If you have other questions you would like to
ask, because I know you have to go to the Defense hearing.
Mr. Moran. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will just bring
then the other issue because it does have a relationship to
water quality, and that is endocrine disruptors. I know you
have been working on this. We are finding out more information.
We are finding that the small-mouth bass that not only do we
have a situation where 90 percent of the male small-mouth bass
in the Potomac River right outside the doorway really are
intersex. They have both testes and eggs. But this is a
situation that apparently exists in many rivers throughout the
country. Can you just share a little bit of what you are
finding in the context of the water quality programs that you
operate?
Dr. McNutt. Well, Mr. Moran, you have been a strong
supporter of this program, and one thing that has been really
heartening to our scientists at the USGS is to the extent that
you have really embraced the science of this, and I remember
talking to you about this last year, how much we felt it was
important to make this a national issue, not just a Potomac
issue, and the cuts to this program, unfortunately, while we
will continue with the funding to Chesapeake through America's
Great Outdoors, we will lose the national focus, and I think I
mentioned to you last year, one thing we were learning from
broadening it with the national focus was that some of the
drivers that we were focusing in on that we thought we know the
answer from focusing in on the Chesapeake, and then once we
broadened it to a national focus, we realized, oh, wait, we are
finding places that are completely far away from any human
influence and still finding some of the same problems. This is
causing us to look more broadly at some of the drivers. Now
that we are losing that national focus, that is going to, I
think, cause us to lose some of that ability to again look more
broadly at some of the wider issues that could be causing this
behavior, and that will be a loss for science.
Mr. Moran. Thank you. The more people that learn about
this, the number of fish and crustaceans we have apparently in
rivers all over the country, the more concerned they are about
eating them, but it obviously would concern anybody when you
know that a species has both male and female reproductive
sexual characteristics. It is disturbing. There is something
wrong obviously. But apparently there is no reason to believe
that you cannot eat them. They may be safe to eat. It is just
that this water is in many cases the same water we are drinking
and it may be having a similar effect although longer term in
the human body. Is that kind of what you are coming up with?
Dr. McNutt. The questions we need to ask are exactly the
questions that you are asking now because this is an
environmental effect in the water, in the environment that
these fish are spending their lifecycles. To what extent is
this a human health issue, and the entire reason why the USGS
is concerned about it is for exactly that reason.
Mr. Moran. Thank you very much, Dr. McNutt, and thank you,
Mr. Chairman. Thanks very much. I really appreciate your
consideration.
LANDSAT
Mr. Simpson. Again, thanks for being here today. We
appreciate it. I think as our opening statements and our
comments suggest, there are areas where even in this climate of
trying to reduce budgets, Republicans and Democrats agree, and
one of them is that the USGS is one of the valuable science
agencies in this government, and we have some real concerns
about the direction that the budget is heading, whether it is
from OMB or whomever. It causes us all a great deal of concern
when we are reducing the resources for water management and
water science, and for them to suggest that--and I guess what
they were saying is, your budget would have taken these cuts
regardless of whether Landsat went over to USGS or not. I have
a hard time believing that, and I think the USGS is probably an
appropriate place for Landsat to go, but when you shift it over
there, you need to take the money that goes with it and shift
it over there also, which causes me a great deal of concern.
Landsat 8 goes up in December of 2012?
Dr. McNutt. December 2012, yes.
Mr. Simpson. When are 9 and 10 scheduled to go up?
Dr. McNutt. According to the funding wedge that we have put
together, if the funding came on schedule, it would be in the
2017 time frame, so sort of a five-year launch window, assuming
that the satellites are designed for a five-year lifetime,
mission lifetime.
Mr. Simpson. Designed for a five-year mission lifetime?
Dr. McNutt. Right.
Mr. Simpson. Is that how long they typically last or can
they be extended? Could you extend out or delay, if you will,
the launching of 9 and 10 if that were necessary in order to
get the budget in line?
Dr. McNutt. You know, we could look into that. Right now
the way that the satellites have been designed in terms of
their components and things like that, they do carry fuel for a
10-year lifetime and so that is the expendable on board, which
is the important thing in determining their lifetime. In terms
of the components on board, they are designed for a five-year
lifetime. We could do a study on what it would take to extend
the component lifetime for a design lifetime that would be
longer. Of course, our experience in terms of the lifetime of
these satellites has been that, thanks to the good work of the
people at NASA and their contractors, the experience has been
that barring a launch failure or something of that sort, they
have been pretty hearty spacecraft and have actually exceeded
their design lives.
Mr. Simpson. We may have some language within this
appropriation bill directing a study of just that and the
impacts of delaying it for a year or two in order to try to get
the fiscal part of it in place too, because I am concerned that
we are shifting it all over there, and I have seen this happen
in federal agencies before where they take on new
responsibilities shifted from another agency which the other
agency loves to shift over there. They just do not want to
shift any of the money with it, and that becomes problematic.
So we would like to work with you on that.
Dr. McNutt. And we would be happy to look at that.
CLIMATE CHANGE
Mr. Simpson. I do think the appropriate place for Landsat
is in the USGS. Along those same lines, you and I have
discussed and had conversations about the money being spent on
climate change both within our Interior budget and
governmentwide, and I still have the same concerns that I have
had for the last couple of years about the coordination of the
amount of money we are spending on climate change. What we are
trying to find out is if agencies are duplicating efforts and
so forth and if we need a government agency--I do not know how
to say it but that oversees the scope of climate change
funding. I am not sure if that is the smart way to go or what,
but if you had a line item that was climate change money and a
federal agency that then looked at who could do what and
agencies like the Forest Service, the Defense Department or
whoever spends money on climate change actually apply to them
with proposals. Someone could look and see, is this already
being done within the Federal Government, is it a duplication
of what we currently have, is it a high priority as opposed to
something else that some other agency is proposing. The
coordination of all the money we are spending on climate change
is more of a concern to me than the amount of money we are
spending on studying climate change, and I am trying to figure
out if there is a better way to do it. Do you have any thoughts
on that?
Dr. McNutt. You know, I have been thinking about this since
you first mentioned it, and what I was trying to do was take
out the word ``climate change'' and put some other word in
there just for almost historical record or reference. Climate
change is something that is relatively new in terms of a topic
in the Federal Government and so the other word I put in there
was ``water'' because we know that there are many federal
agencies that have purviews in water, and they have stakes in
water that have grown up in sort of a hodgepodge way over many
decades in an uncoordinated way because of the histories of
those agencies. I was thinking, because climate change is new,
we have an opportunity now to avoid some of the issues that we
have with water by intervening early on, and some of the issues
right now with climate are that because it is an early stage,
most of the issues with climate are research and they have not
really gotten into the real issues of applications and policy
and that sort of thing. So, could there be an opportunity to
say okay, if we do the research part right and then apportion
out the policy and management to the right agencies as they
have their jobs to do when the time comes, will that simplify
things and avoid some of the issues that we have had with
water; could we do that right. And I was thinking yes, maybe
that does make sense, because we see that for example, NSF has
a huge role to play with research in climate change for the
academic community, maybe we could have better federal
coordination for the research that goes on, and if that could
be done for federal research, then perhaps yes, we could not
have some of the issues that we have with water now.
Mr. Simpson. Well, as I have said before, after the events
of
9/11, everyone that came into my office whenever they wanted
anything, whether it was a federal agency or whether it was a
group outside that wanted funding for whatever program, they
always tied it to the issue of homeland security because that
was the key phrase at the time. Now the key phrase is climate
change and I think there are agencies trying to rebuild science
programs that were actually taken and given to the USGS years
ago under, I think, Secretary Babbitt did some of that, and now
those agencies, you know, they want their own science program.
What I want is an efficient program where we know what we are
doing and we are not duplicating, we are spending taxpayers'
dollars wisely, and if there is a better way to do that, I look
forward to having some conversations with you about this and
how we might be able to reorganize it. As I look at different
agencies, I have kind of thought if there is an agency, if this
were a smart idea, and I am not saying it is because I thought
of it, but if this----
Ms. McCollum. It is a very smart idea.
Mr. Simpson. If this were a smart idea, where would you put
it, and I thought of different agencies. There is talk about
NOAA, but NOAA really deals with oceans and the atmosphere, not
with the ground that we live on, more than anything else, and
it keeps coming back to me that the agency that seems to have
the role and mission would be the USGS, but again, I would not
want that to displace the important work that you currently do.
STREAMGAGES
Last question before I turn over to Ms. McCollum. We are
going to have votes, I guess, in about 10 minutes or 15
minutes. What happens under this proposal in your budget with
streamgages? They are very important to the West, and all over
the country, really.
Dr. McNutt. Yes. Well, we do have some funding reduction in
that area but we are trying to absorb it all in administration
and not take any actual cuts to streamgages, but of course you
know that it all is predicated on cooperators in many cases, so
we have----
Mr. Simpson. States are having a hard time getting their
resources.
Dr. McNutt. Yes, states are having problems, and we have
issues with of course many cases where we are vulnerable
elsewhere in the federal budget with what happens with Army
Corps' budget and other places too. We do have $800,000 in
reductions but we are absorbing that in administration.
Mr. Simpson. Ms. McCollum.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
WATER RESOURCES PROGRAMS
It is good to see you, and you were busy Friday and I was
busy Friday. I was busy as a mom and you were busy as a
scientist. So I want to thank you for all the work that you
folks are doing, and I just got this e-mail this morning from
Japan. I am just going to quote part of it. ``It is hard to
sleep when you are thinking about the next quake that is
coming. The possible nuclear meltdown is something we have all
been really upset about. Thank God for the American government
telling us to get at least 80 kilometers away.'' He is fine. He
is five hours away. But I have to tell you that the American
citizens not only dialed in on what our press was saying
because our press was saying what our government scientists
were saying, and so thank you for all the work that you did not
only for Americans overseas, people here who care about what is
going on in Japan but for English speakers all over the world.
Thank you for your work.
So if you take a second after I ask my question, maybe kind
of let us know what your role is, and I know you are going to
do lessons learned from this as well, but I would like to talk
about water. Minnesota takes its water very seriously. In fact,
our citizens taxed ourselves for a legacy amendment to make
sure that we are doing the right thing with water. In 2009, I
was given the privilege of giving a speech to the Water
Resources Center at the University of Minnesota on sustaining
clean water as a public trust, what do we do to make sure that
it is there for the next generation, so the next mom or dad
when they take their child to a drinking fountain is not
worried about it, and people in this country know that they are
going to have access to potable water.
Now, USGS has outstanding scientists and they played a
critical role in Minnesota being able to move forward with what
it is doing, but as you have heard, we do have concerns about
the proposed budget cuts and maybe one of the ways to do that
is to take the money along with the program that they have been
assigned, Mr. Chair. Count me as an ally. But there are a few
programs I just want to highlight for the committee where small
investments by the USGS have made a big impact on Minnesota,
and these programs are now, I believe, threatened by the
proposed reduction. The first is the Water Resources Institute.
The head of the Water Resources Institute this year happens to
be Dr. Deborah Swackhamer, a professor who heads up the
Minnesota Water Resources Center. The doctor has just authored
a landmark water sustainability framework report that is the
first of its kind in the entire Nation and I believe other
states should be looking at doing the same thing. It helps give
us a 25-year roadmap. It points out all the work that we still
have left to do to make sure that we have an adequate, safe
drinking supply, and I am going to give you a copy of this when
we are done.
Now, you have kind of explained why you have chosen, not
you personally but why you are faced with the tough choices
that you have been making as you did across-the-board cuts, but
this is a great report and it kind of highlights a lot of
things, and I am going to quote from the report because this
just kind of, to use a term, blows you out of the water:
``Completion of the Minnesota geological survey should be
accelerated. At a minimum, the current investigation should be
doubled to allow completion by''--and you are thinking, well,
doubled, you know, two, three years--``doubled to allow
completion by 10 to 12 years'' to find out what is going on
with our aquifers, to find out what is going on with our
groundwater. So I was going to give this to you on Friday. I
will give this to you now.
Dr. McNutt. Thank you.
WATER SHORTAGES
Ms. McCollum. So here is my question. The GAO has put out a
study showing 36 states are at the risk of water shortages
within the next 10 years. I am not one of those states. I want
to make sure my water is clean and drinkable but I am not one
of those states, but I care about our country. That is my job.
How can states be prepared for such a crisis if you are not
able to invest in state water research like this? What do we
need to do to make ourselves really knowledgeable about the
water that we all take for granted? And I think that that is
part of our problem. Even in this country where there are
limited water shortages, we still take it for granted.
Dr. McNutt. Okay. Well, Congresswoman McCollum, you asked
some pretty tough questions, and first of all, let me start by
saying I am not sure if you know this but I am a Minnesota
native. My family is from Minnesota from before the Great Sioux
Uprising, many, many generations in Minnesota. I know how much
Minnesotans love their water. They swim in it and play in it in
the summer. They ice skate on it and fish on it in the winter.
Minnesotans actually do not take their water for granted even
though it is in plentiful supply. I remember as a child how the
lakes in Minnesota were suffering from eutrophic conditions
because of all the runoff from fertilizer on people's lawns and
how the University of Minnesota started some important studies
on how to improve water quality in the lakes, and the
predictions were that it was going to take generations to
improve it and yet with simple steps within years lakes
improved dramatically and people saw that by doing simple
things, they could within their lifetimes see their lakes
improve and it made a difference. So the lesson I took from
that as a child was, never underestimate the power of people
taking their actions into their own hands and understanding how
their life choices can make a difference.
So what I think is important is the USGS as the great
integrator across the country between the states that are haves
like Minnesota and the have-not like Arizona and Nevada, the
consistently water-starved states, and how we can provide the
important information through things like WaterSMART, the water
census, and I know that there is concern about WaterSMART but
we have not done a water census on water availability and use.
As our population is changing, people are moving from many of
the water-available states to the water-starved states and we
need to know how that is changed and we have to know what the
projections are for the future. So WaterSMART is an important
program, and it is a tough choice that we are having to cut
back on a lot of this groundwater monitoring. The analogy I
make is that with our streamgages, it is easy to go out if you
are an average citizen and see how my water is flowing but it
is not easy to go out and see how my aquifer is doing. You
cannot say oh, how is that aquifer doing without someone who
really knows what they are doing.
Ms. McCollum. But my point is, in Minnesota where we have
started doing things, we are saying it is going to take us 10
to 12 years. What is the timeline for the Federal Government to
even be able to collect information or work in conjunction?
Because many states are not doing anything.
Dr. McNutt. Well, I know, and with the cuts in our
groundwater program instead of having 11 percent of it done on
schedule, it is going to be 2 percent.
Mr. Simpson. One of the things that--and this is not really
a question for you because I know you have to do what OMB says.
But when I look throughout the Interior budget, I have some
questions about where they place priorities. Land acquisition
for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, they fully funded at
$900 million while they have cut some important programs in
USGS for water and other things, and that is something that is
within the jurisdiction of this Committee to look at how those
funds are being spent, so I am sure that we will be looking at
some of those things.
Do you have any other questions you would like to ask? We
are going to have a vote here in about a minute.
THE INTERNATIONAL ROLE OF THE USGS
Ms. McCollum. Just maybe, I mean, we are focused on things
here nationally but the international cooperation between
scientists and what we are learning and sharing, because you
have a national role that is very, very important to all of us
but you also have an international role as part of the
international scientific community. And then when the bell goes
off, we will go vote then, Mr. Chair.
Dr. McNutt. Yes. Our international role especially comes to
play in something like this latest disaster in Japan, and our
hazards program has worked internationally on many fronts. A
good example is the VDAP program, the Volcano Disaster
Assistance Program, which is credited by the State Department
with saving thousands of lives through early warning when
volcanoes are set to erupt and cause volcanic landslides and
these lahars that are going to come down and destroy villages.
In the case of Japan, given Japan's intrinsic homegrown
community, which is very advanced, we will work hand in glove
with the Japanese seismological community in responding to this
disaster and work with them and with USAID in the aftermath of
this to learn what we can that will improve our disaster
preparedness. For example, initial things that we are learning
from this is that amazingly enough, buildings came through the
earthquake itself very well. The death toll from the earthquake
is probably going to be maybe hundreds, where as the death toll
from the tsunami literally thousands. And what is interesting
about that is, if you look at the three major earthquakes to
strike Japan in this century, there was the Kanto earthquake
in, I think it was 1923, that was near Tokyo but before Tokyo
was the size it is today that killed something like 140,000
people and then there was the Kobe earthquake in 1995 that
killed 6,800 people. Those two earthquakes were both in the
magnitude 7 range. The difference between 140,000 people and
7,000 people was earthquake engineering. The difference between
the 7,000 people that Kobe killed and the couple hundred that
were killed by this earthquake is the earthquake early warning
system, and this was a magnitude 9 earthquake. So that is what
earthquake early warning can do for you.
But now the tsunami, I mean, talk about sea-level rise on
steroids, you know, a 30-foot tidal wave coming in wiping
everything out in its wake. People literally, you cannot outrun
it. We often talk about vertical evacuation being the preferred
route for a local tsunami and there were not enough solid
structures for people to vertically evacuate into because they
would go to the upper story of homes and the entire homes would
be swept out from underneath them. Some people were able to get
to sturdy bridges or overpasses, and if they were taller than
30 feet, then that might be enough. But, how many bridges are
taller than 30 feet? It was truly tragic. So we will definitely
be learning a lot of lessons from this.
Now, we are much more fortunate here because when you look
at Japan, there are very few places in Japan that are not prone
to a local tsunami. The entire east coast of Japan is prone to
this kind of disaster whereas we only have a limited part of
the United States that will have a local tsunami hazard--part
of Alaska and the Pacific part of Oregon and Washington, but
that is the only part that will have a local tsunami, so we are
much more fortunate than Japan.
MINERAL RESOURCES PROGRAM
Mr. Simpson. Let me ask one other question. The fiscal year
2012 budget proposes to cut the Mineral Resources program by
$9.6 million, or 18 percent, with a corresponding reduction of
52 FTEs. Give me an overview of the program and why it is
important to America's economic and national security
interests.
Dr. McNutt. This is a unique program in the Federal
Government. There is no duplication here, no other program like
it. The USGS provides a service to the Nation by taking input
from all of the mineral industries around the country,
stripping off any industry proprietary information and
assembling all that information, rolling up into statistics
that are useful for the industry itself as well as the Federal
Government on commodities, on what is useful on supply, demand,
what is being mined, what is being processed, et cetera, and
provides that to everyone in the public domain in a way that is
extremely helpful. No one in the industry could possibly trust
anyone else in the industry to do that. They would not provide
the data. And our minerals experts are geologists who are
trusted to do this in a way because they understand the entire
periodic table basically, so they are able to do this in a way
that is extremely valuable.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. We have got votes going on now, and
I am sorry--I mean, some of the members on both sides of the
aisle had hearings in Defense this morning and some other
things going on. It is a crazy time around here when we are
trying to get all the hearings in.
Dr. McNutt. Well, thank you all for your time.
Mr. Simpson. But I appreciate you being here. As you can
tell, I think among both Republicans and Democrats, you have
got some fans in Congress for what the USGS does and the way
they do it, and we want to work with you on this budget to try
to address some of the concerns that we have as we move into
the 2012 budget, if we ever finish the 2011 budget. I
appreciate it. Thank you.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.195
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.196
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.197
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.198
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.199
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.200
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.201
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.202
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.203
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.204
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.205
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.206
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.207
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.208
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.209
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.210
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.211
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.212
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.213
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.214
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.215
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.216
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.217
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.218
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.219
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.220
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.221
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.222
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.223
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.224
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.225
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.226
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.227
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.228
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.229
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.230
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.231
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.232
Thursday, March 17, 2011.
BUREAU OF OCEAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT, REGULATION, AND ENFORCEMENT (BOEMRE)
AND OFFICE OF NATURAL RESOURCES REVENUE (ONRR) FY 2012 BUDGET REQUESTS
WITNESSES
MICHAEL BROMWICH, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF OCEAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT,
REGULATION, AND ENFORCEMENT,
GREGORY GOULD, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF NATURAL RESOURCES REVENUE
DEBORAH GIBBS TSCHUDY, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF NATURAL RESOURCES
REVENUE
Opening Remarks of Chairman Simpson
Mr. Simpson. The committee will come to order. Today we
meet to discuss the fiscal year 2012 budget for the Bureau of
Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement and the
Office of Natural Resources Revenue.
The transition of the MMS has been a large and expensive
but also a necessary undertaking. In light of the numerous
problems MMS had with the royalties and last summer's BP
Deepwater Horizon oil spill, I supported funding increases to
better manage our offshore mineral resources and federal
royalties. There is no doubt that we need to improve workplace
safety, drilling safety, and royalty collection and
accountability. It will take a larger staff and more resources
to do this.
At the same time there will be no blank check coming from
this subcommittee. We expect results from appropriated dollars
and will continue to rigorously conduct oversight at BOEMRE and
ONRR. Did I say those right?
Mr. Bromwich. Perfect.
Mr. Simpson. Recently two permits have been issued for
offshore drilling. I understand that it may take some time
after the tragedy last summer to review and revise the agency's
procedures and actions, but it has been almost a year. Since
then oil prices have increased dramatically, and people in the
Gulf have been without good-paying jobs in a terrible
recession. Purchasing leases and scheduling crews and rigs for
development of offshore is no easy task and requires a great
deal of investment.
Worse, because of recent policies many of the jobs that
should have been American have been exported to foreign
countries. There needs to be a balance, and all of these issues
need to be considered. Two permits in almost one year is not,
frankly, going to cut it.
The fiscal year 2012 budget asks for increases in several
areas, many of which I agree. You ask for additional
inspectors. Clearly you need them, and we support this request,
but we also need to ensure that we have adequate staff for
environmental reviews and permitting. We need certainty that
the funding we provide results in inspections, appropriate
environmental analysis, and permits issued.
I commend you for doing this in the renewable energy
category but urge you to also do this in the conventional
energy category. As has been discussed in our GAO and IG
hearings several weeks ago, I am very concerned about royalty
collections and accountability. I applaud the efforts of this
budget to ask for the funding necessary to drastically improve
this program. We will be asking for progress updates and how
appropriated dollars are being spent on this important issue.
Finally, I want to thank you for being here today. This
reorganization has been no easy task, and I look forward to
working with you on many of these issues, and thank you and
your staff for their hard work and assistance.
And before I yield to Mr. Moran for his opening statement I
would like to take just a moment to thank Chris Topik who is
here with us today. This is going to be his last hearing after
many years of service to the Interior Subcommittee. Chris came
to the Interior Subcommittee on Appropriations as a detailee
from the Forest Service in the mid 1990s, and since that time
he has worked on a non-partisan basis to address many of the
most critical issues facing our land management agencies.
Chris is one of the most knowledgeable, professional, and
widely-respected individuals on the Appropriations Committee
staff, and he will be greatly missed. Chris, we appreciate your
dedication and commitment over the many years of public service
and wish you all the best in your new endeavors, and I look
forward to working with you in whatever they are.
Mr. Simpson. And I yield to Mr. Moran for any opening
statement he might have.
Opening Remarks of Ranking Member, James P. Moran
Mr. Moran. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for recognizing Chris. He has just been a tremendous asset for
all of us. I think everyone knows that, and you know, I know
you share my feeling as does Mr. Hinchey that, you know, so
much of our success or failure rests on the backs of the staff
that do so much of the work, and Chris does wonderful work. He
is also invariably the source of the quotes that we are going
to miss, but he has been wonderful. He is going to go to the
Nature Conservancy. He eventually wants to make his way back
out west. He loves those states like Idaho and California and
Montana, but he is a wonderful person, and we will miss him
greatly, and I know the agencies that we deal with will miss
him as well.
I will begin with some other comments with regard to this
new organization, and Mr. Bromwich, thank you for taking it
over. You have a very strong reputation for integrity and work
ethic and a real commitment to seeing that things are done
right, so I think that is a real stroke of good fortune that we
have been able to have you take this over, what is really an
awesome responsibility.
Mr. Gould, thank you, and all of the staff that supports
your work.
Almost a year ago, 11 months ago, April 20, news of that
explosion on Transocean's Deepwater Horizon drilling rig broke
and took the lives of 11 crew members. We all watched as one
attempt after another failed to cap that spewing well.
Between the explosion and the completion of the capping
operation on August 2, almost five million barrels of oil
spewed into the Gulf of Mexico, much more than had originally
been suggested by BP and others. I mean, it was over 200
million gallons a day emptying into the Gulf.
Now, needless to say, it has been a very tumultuous year
for regulating offshore oil and gas drilling as the Chairman
has said. The Interior Department had to restructure this
bureaucracy that operated with what appeared to be some
inherent conflicts of interest with the culture that many
believed was just too subservient to the oil and gas industry.
The new Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and
Enforcement has had a challenging tenure, trying to ensure that
another Gulf disaster does not occur, while, of course, being
attacked by oil and gas interests in Congress. And those who
represent those interests and the people whose jobs are
dependent upon that industry are naturally speaking out,
wanting those jobs to be restored.
But I do not think, and I want to make this case, that I do
not think that this is why we have rising gasoline prices. As
we all know, the price of gasoline is set in the international
market, and our net production, even with deep water drilling,
opening up our conservation areas in Alaska and the Atlantic
and Pacific coast would have no immediate impact on world oil
prices and a minimal impact over the next decade.
The Deepwater Horizon blowout proves beyond a doubt that
there are inherent risks to drilling offshore, and it really
undermines the drill, baby, drill mantra that we have heard
from some. Drilling at all costs to satisfy this Nation's
rapacious energy needs is both reckless and costly. When you
think that we are using up more energy than China and Japan
combined, 25 percent of the world's energy for just 4\1/2\
percent of the world's population. That puts it in context.
The truth is that we will never achieve energy independence
by drilling for more oil within the United States. Under the
friendliest, most pro-oil industry Administration, and I think
that, you know, most would acknowledge that, that both
President Bush and Vice-President Cheney were really part of
the industry before getting into politics. But during their
Administration U.S. oil production declined between 2001, and
2008, and that is with generous tax subsidies and lax
regulation.
In 2001, the U.S. produced 2,118,000,000 barrels a year. In
2008, we produced 1,812,000,000 barrels a year. So it actually
declined, and ironically during the Obama Administration's
first year, I know some people would think this was ironic, we
saw domestic production actually increase to 1,957,000,000
barrels of oil per year. So, you know, about 2 billion barrels
a year. We are back up to where we were in 2001. Average
monthly production, which did decline during the temporary
moratorium and issuing new deep water drilling permits was
174,344 million barrels for December. That is the latest date
that we can find. During the last month of the Bush
Administration domestic production average was 156,751 million
brands.
So, you know, there is a difference of 20,000 barrels
roughly that we are producing over and above what we were doing
the last month of the Bush Administration. I say that, not so
much Mr. Simpson, but there have been a number of people,
colleagues, who are putting forward a point of view that I do
not think is supported by the facts. We are less than 5 percent
of the world's population, as I say, consuming 25 percent of
the world's oil. There is no way we can drill ourselves towards
energy independence or lower pump prices.
Given the overwhelming scientific consensus that fossil
fuel combustion is damaging our environment and damaging the
economic prospects of future generations, there is a legitimate
interest in carling what really has to be seen as a profligate
use of fossil fuels.
We are not going to settle this debate today or in this
hearing, but the ghost of Deepwater Horizon should chasten
those who now call for relaxing the permitting and inspection
process.
So, Mr. Bromwich, you are a former federal prosecutor and
associate counsel in the Office of Independent Counsel for Iran
Contra. You have got a great background. You always come
through when you were needed. You are needed now because we
need a tough and thorough prosecutor of this issue, and I know
you will be that. So thank you for being here as a witness.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Mr. Bromwich.
Opening Remarks of Director Michael Bromwich
Mr. Bromwich. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Moran,
and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate this opportunity
to testify today on the fiscal year 2012 budget request for the
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement.
This budget request supports the President's commitment to
implement the most aggressive and comprehensive reforms of
offshore oil and gas regulation and oversight in U.S. history.
Our fiscal year 2012 request is $358.4 million, an increase of
$119.3 million over the fiscal year 2010 enacted budget, after
adjusting for funds transferred to the Office of the Secretary
as part of the ongoing reorganization of the former MMS.
This request is offset by $151.6 million in eligible OCS
rental receipts, $8.6 million in cost recovery fees, and $65
million in inspection fees, resulting in a net request of
$133.2 million.
These additional resources are essential to carry out our
important and diverse mission. As Mr. Moran has said and as
Chairman Simpson has said, on April 20, 2010, explosions rocked
the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, leading to the sinking of
the rig, the tragic deaths of 11 workers, serious injuries to
many others, and the release over the course of almost 3 months
of nearly five million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
As you know, it was the largest oil spill ever in American
waters.
The Deepwater Horizon blowout and spill brought to light
serious deficiencies in the regulatory framework for offshore
drilling. Over the past several months we at BOEMRE have worked
hard to address these deficiencies and to restore public
confidence in offshore oil and gas drilling.
Our ongoing reorganization and reform efforts are informed
by the results of multiple investigations and reviews,
including inquiries conducted by the Department of Interior
Safety Oversight Board appointed by Secretary Salazar, the
Presidential National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon
oil spill, the National Academy of Engineering, and the DOI
Office of Inspector General.
Consistent with the findings of the Safety Oversight Board
and the DOI OIG, the President's Commission concluded that
there were profound weaknesses in the regulation and oversight
of offshore drilling, stemming largely from conflicting
missions, a lack of authority, a lack of resources, and
insufficient technical expertise.
The reorganization and related reforms that would be funded
by this fiscal year 2012 request are intended to address these
shortfalls, while at the same time allowing for continuity of
operations and ongoing exploration and production.
The centerpiece of the reorganization is the creation of
three strong independent entities to carry out the missions of
promoting energy development, regulating offshore drilling, and
collecting revenues. In the past these three conflicting
functions resided within the same bureau, MMS, creating the
potential for internal conflicts of interest.
This reorganization process began on May 19, 2010, when
Secretary Salazar signed Executive Order 3299, which dissolved
the MMS and called for the establishment of three new entities
consisting of, number one, the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management, which will be known as BOEM; the Bureau of Safety
and Environmental Enforcement, which will be known as BSEE; and
the Office of Natural Resources Revenue, which is known as
ONRR.
Now, the new BOEM will be responsible for managing
development of the Nation's offshore resources in an
environmentally and economically responsible way. Its functions
and responsibilities will include leasing, plant
administration, environmental studies, NEPA, or National
Environmental Policy Act, analysis, resource evaluation,
economic analysis, and the Renewable Energy Program.
The new BSEE will enforce safety and environmental
regulations. Its functions and responsibilities will include
permitting, inspections, offshore regulatory programs, and oil
spill response, as well as newly-formed training and
environmental compliance functions.
As you know, ONRR, which was the revenue collection arm of
the former MMS, has already become a separate entity within the
Office of the Secretary.
The fiscal year 2012 budget request supports the effective
reform and reorganization of BOEMRE and consists of a number of
critical investments, which are detailed in my lengthier
statement. These include, just to touch on the highlights,
first, an increase in inspection capability that will enable us
to conduct additional inspections and oversee high-risk
activities. This part of the request will allow the development
of a sufficiently-staffed inspection program that will enable
offshore oil and gas exploration and production to continue
while protecting the environment and improving worker safety.
BOEMRE has begun to increase this capability with funds
provided in the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolutions.
Second, in investment and permitting resources, to sustain
increased oversight and efficient review and processing of
various kinds, including development activities such as permit
processing and approval.
These are simply two of a large number of areas in which
capacity needs to be dramatically improved and enlarged. Other
areas include an expansion of NEPA and environmental studies
staff, funding for environmental compliance and investment in
engineering studies and an increase in oil spill research.
As I have discussed and as you have from others, the
Deepwater Horizon tragedy exposed significant weaknesses in the
way this agency has historically done business. A consensus has
formed around the bottom-line conclusion that this agency
historically had insufficient resources to provide an
appropriate level of regulatory oversight of offshore oil and
gas development.
These shortcomings have become more pronounced as
operations have moved into deeper and deeper waters. We believe
the substantial budget increase contained within the
President's fiscal year 2012 budget request is an extremely
important step towards bridging the gap between the resources
the agency currently has and the resources it needs to properly
discharge its important responsibilities.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Moran, other members, this concludes my
statement. I would be happy to answer any questions you may
have.
[The statement of Michael Bromwich follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.233
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.234
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.235
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.236
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.237
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.238
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.239
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.240
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.241
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.242
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.243
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.244
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.245
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.246
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.247
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.248
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.249
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.250
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.251
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.252
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Gould.
OPENING REMARKS OF DIRECTOR GREGORY GOULD
Mr. Gould. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Moran, and members of the
subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on
the fiscal year 2012 budget for the Office of Natural Resources
Revenue or ONRR.
ONRR's 2012 budget is $148 million, which represents a
significant but necessary increase over the 2010 enacted level.
It is also important to view this request within the context of
the economic benefit ONRR provides to the Nation and the recent
challenges we have faced as an organization.
On average ONRR disperses $10 billion a year to American
Indians, states, and the U.S. Treasury. The budget request
provides the necessary resources to implement the revenue
management reforms highlighted by recent GAO and OIG reports
and the reorganization announced by the Secretary. Our request
provides the funding needed to improve the Department's revenue
management activities.
Last year Secretary Salazar spearheaded an aggressive
effort to reform the Department's offshore energy and renewable
revenue management programs. On October 1 of last year ONRR was
established in the Office of the Secretary under the Assistant
Secretary for Policy Management and Budget. With the support of
Assistant Secretary Rhea Suh and Director Bromwich the
reorganization of ONRR took place as planned and without
disruption, eliminating prior conflicts of interest, mitigating
the risks of organizational change, and allowing a greater
focus on opportunities for improvement.
Following a transition to PMB, ONRR initiated a top-to-
bottom strategic review to concentrate our efforts on the
continued improvement of the Department's revenue management
activities. Through this effort ONRR assessed potential
improvements and developed the framework for implementing
current and future initiatives. ONRR is now proactively
investing resources to implement initiatives that will allow us
to achieve the organization's three priority goals: collecting
every dollar due, disbursing accurate revenues and information,
and restoring ONRR's credibility with the public.
The 2012 budget will enable us to implement the initiatives
identified during a strategic review in response to the
numerous recommendations ONRR has received. Since 2003, ONRR
has been the subject of more than 100 internal and external
evaluations, and we have implemented over 1,000
recommendations. The 2012 funding is critical to ensure the
closure of many of the remaining internal and external
recommendations.
Recently the GAO testified before this committee on their
annual high-risk report. The report cites three deficiencies
and stated that the Department's revenue collection policies
needed to ensure that, one, the Federal Government receives a
fair return on its oil and gas resources, also known as the
government take; two, Interior completes its production
verification inspections; and three, Interior's data on
production and royalties are consistent and reliable.
BLM and BOEMRE are working to address the first two
deficiencies, and ONRR is supporting them as they conduct
studies of government take under different management
structures. ONRR's budget request also provides funding for
additional production meter inspectors and a feasibility study
on the use of automated production metering systems.
The GAO's third deficiency relates to the accuracy of
royalty and production data that ONRR collects from industry.
We agreed with GAO when they first raised this issue in 2008,
and we have been working diligently to implement improvements
in the quality of company-reported data.
Several of ONRR's 2012 budget initiatives relate directly
to implementing GAO's recommendations. The GAO identified 50
DOI recommendations in their high-risk report. ONRR is
responsible for implementing 11 of the recommendations. We have
made significant progress on all 11 of these recommendations.
In fact, five have been implemented, and the funds we are
requesting will allow us to fully implement the remaining six.
It is important to note that although companies report
their own data, ONRR has a sophisticated accounting and
detection system and a comprehensive risk-based audit and
compliance program to target underpayments and to ensure that
royalties do not go uncollected. Our audit program has been
strengthened in recent years as a direct result of funding from
this committee. In fact, over the last 5 years our Audit and
Compliance Program has detected and collected more than half a
billion dollars in companies' initial underpayments.
In addition to our Audit and Compliance Program, ONRR has a
strong partnership with the Inspector General and the U.S.
Attorney's Office to jointly pursue companies that
intentionally underpay royalties on federal and Indian lands.
This is a very exciting time for us here at ONRR as we
continue to develop, implement, and improve the Department's
revenue management activities and move forward on implementing
critical reforms.
I would like to thank the committee for all the support
they have provided.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement, and Debbie
Tschudy, the Deputy Director of ONRR, and I are happy to
respond to any questions that you may have.
[The statement of Gregory Gould follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.253
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.254
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.255
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.256
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.257
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.258
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.259
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.260
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.261
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.262
ROYALTY COLLECTION
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, and again, thank you for being here
today.
One of the issues that I think our entire committee was
concerned about when we had the GAO and the IG up here was the
collection of royalties and whether the government could be
confident that it was getting what it was due, and as they said
I think during the hearing, they were not suggesting that there
was fraud going on out there, they just had no way of being
confident that actual, accurate reporting was going on.
How is this going to change this?
Mr. Gould. We are doing a number of things. We just
finished a comprehensive strategic review of our organization,
and during that review we looked for a number of ways to
improve our revenue collection capabilities.
One thing that in recent years and thanks to the support of
this committee, we have been able to improve our computer
systems. A lot of the information comes in electronically, and
our computer systems now are upgraded so that we can actually
have more upfront edits. So when the companies submit their
data to us, we can do a quick company check from the
information and the oil and gas operator information.
After the computer does its work and with those
improvements we also have an initiative in this budget request
for 12 additional employees to actually then look at the
exceptions. Every time the computer system kicks out
information, we need somebody to look at that information and
the discrepancy. This budget will allow us to hire 12 new
people to enhance the data mining effort that we are currently
undergoing.
Mr. Simpson. You get your information that you count
regarding the royalties that are going to be paid from the
production records of the company. Right?
Mr. Gould. There are two types of information that come in.
We have information that comes in from the companies that pay
the royalties. Then we have information that comes in from the
producers that includes the volumes and information related to
the production.
So those two pieces of information then are compared to
make sure that we are getting all the money that is due for
production. And, as Debbie just pointed out, we also have a
third-party verification process where we actually get the
source information from the meters themselves.
RETAINING PERSONNEL
Mr. Simpson. Okay. One of the things that was brought up
also, Mr. Bromwich, during the IG's report was the difficulty
that the Department is having with personnel because qualified
experienced personnel are being hired by the oil companies, and
we are having a hard time retaining them.
What are we doing about that?
Mr. Bromwich. We are doing a number of things about it.
Part of it is a generational thing. Many of our employees are
approaching retirement age, and so they are not surprisingly
heading for the exits.
We are doing several things. Number one, I have done, I
think I mentioned to both of you when I met with you,
recruiting tours. So I went in October and early November to
some of our best engineering and petroleum engineering schools
in the Gulf, LSU, University of Houston, Texas A&M, University
of Texas, other schools, to try to recruit some of the best and
the brightest of the engineers who were in school, telling them
that their country needs them working for us, regulating this
terribly important industry offshore.
And the result of that recruiting tour with a very narrow
jobs announcement, narrow in terms of time, was overwhelming,
and so that was very rewarding, and we are bringing people on.
Mr. Moran. I would be curious. How many people were you
actually able to hire? Because the process of actually hiring
somebody in today's Federal government seems impossible. Of all
those people that tried to get hired, Mr. Chairman, would you
mind my asking, how many did you actually hire?
Mr. Bromwich. Well, we brought on 70 new people since June
1 of last year. Now, many of those are backfills, so I do not
want to suggest that those are net adds, but 70.
Mr. Moran. But they are new people?
Mr. Bromwich. They are new people.
Mr. Moran. Okay.
Mr. Bromwich. That is right.
Mr. Moran. That is good.
Mr. Bromwich. That is exactly right.
Mr. Moran. Excuse me for the interruption.
Mr. Bromwich. No, not at all. And in addition to the
engineering people that we are bringing on, we obviously have a
great need for environmental scientists and people with
environmental backgrounds. So we are going to be doing the same
kind of thing that we did in October and November in 2 weeks.
We are starting to go out to various environmental studies
programs in our universities across the country, again, trying
to recruit them and make them aware of the important public
service opportunities that are available for them in our
organization.
But, Mr. Chairman, you are quite right in identifying the
problem of having our people recruited away either before we
get them or after we have them by industry, because there is a
significant salary disparity.
Mr. Simpson. Do you have any idea what the disparity is?
Mr. Bromwich. I do not, but it is enormous, and it grows
over time in terms of the seniority of the people. We have
anecdotal information, but we can try to collect that for you.
One of the things we are trying to do, and this mirrors
what other countries that do offshore regulation do, we are
trying to get exceptions and exemptions from the normal federal
salary scale in recognition that we are competing with an
industry that can pay far more. So we have a package that is
currently pending at the Office of Personnel Management that
would help to narrow the gap between what engineers and other
specialists can make in private industry versus what they can
make in long-term careers with us.
I do not know the way that is going to turn out. I hope
that the need is so dramatic that it will be granted, but it
just gives you a sense for some of the levers we are trying to
use, some of the tools that we are trying to use to get the
best people and keep them.
REORGANIZATION
Mr. Simpson. Okay. You mentioned during your testimony that
at the end of this fiscal year BOEMRE will be split or divided
into BOEM and BSEE.
Mr. Bromwich. That is right.
Mr. Simpson. Given the lack of coordination between many
agencies within the Department of Interior, are you concerned
that these two agencies might not work well together and
further reduce the efficiencies and delays in oil and gas
development, and how will you prevent this?
One of the things that I hear from industry is that what
they need more than anything else is predictability, and while
there was criticisms of the old MMS and you are right, there
was sometimes too close a relationship between the regulators
and the permitees at least it was some predictability. And that
is what they need, and they are saying, you know, it used to be
we would submit an application for a permit, and it might come
back to us two or three times for additional information. Now
they are seeing permits come back to them 20 and 30 times for
additional information, and it is just delaying the permitting
process.
How are we going to get these agencies to make sure they
work together and that while we do the proper oversight and
environmental reviews it is not just a continual foot-dragging?
Mr. Bromwich. Let me answer two parts to that question.
One, how do we make the process efficient? I think as both you
and Mr. Moran mentioned in your opening statements, Deepwater
Horizon was a shocking event for everyone, and not surprisingly
it prompted a lot of activity within the agency in terms of
developing new rules, new processes, new procedures.
As those were rolled out to industry, they were
complicated, and it took some time for industry to absorb them,
and frankly, it took some time for our people to absorb them,
understand them, explain them, and understand how to evaluate
new permit applications that contained the new information.
I think that has dramatically improved over the last few
weeks. I think if you ask industry as I do almost every day
whether we are doing better now, the answer is yes, because we
have settled into, I will not say a pattern but, more of a
regular course of doing business, where most of the questions
related to the new rules and guidance we put out had been
answered and answered in a way that is clear to industry.
So I think we are in a much better place now than we were
in June or July or August or September, and I think things will
continue to improve.
Getting to the core of your question, though, how do we
make sure that operational efficiencies are not impaired by the
split. We focused on that risk since day one, and in fact, we
have teams of personnel that are focusing on the inter-
dependencies between the functions that will now be the
separate agencies, and they are identifying ways to make sure
that the operations remain efficient and whole and that the
split into two separate agencies does not cause impairment of
operational efficiency. It is a terribly important issue. We
are focusing on it very intently, and I think we are going to
solve the problem.
Mr. Simpson. I hope so because that is probably the primary
complaint that I hear from people. As you know, any business
that plans, they need to have some predictability with these
permits. They need to be able to predict when they are going to
be able to drill in order to keep the refineries going.
Mr. Bromwich. That is absolutely right, and I think that we
have come a long way. We now have since last June when new
requirements first went into effect, we granted 38 shallow
water permits, and the pace has been pretty steady recently.
And then we started as you noted in your opening statement to
grant deep water permits. Now, it is not really accurate to say
there were no deep water permits that were issued, because that
suggests that industry was ready.
In fact, until February 17 there was no containment
capability that existed for deep water drilling. That is when
the two containment groups, the Helix Group, and the Marine
Well Containment Company, which is composed of the majors, that
is when they announced that they have the capacity ready, and
they were able to provide the containment resources in the
event of a sub-seas spill.
So I think, and industry, I think, agrees with me on this,
that that is the date from which to measure the issuance of
deep water permits, and we were able within 11 days of that
readiness announced by industry to issue the first deep water
permit. And then as you know, we issued another one just last
week, and there will be more to come.
So in terms of predictability, which I completely agree
with you is so important, I think that with these first two
deep water permits that have been approved and with my having
said and Secretary Salazar having said that there are more to
come, we are providing the kind of predictability that industry
craves and needs.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Mr. Moran.
GENERAL ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE: HIGH RISK REPORT
Mr. Moran. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
thank all the witnesses for their service.
The chairman conducted a very good hearing a couple weeks
ago with the GAO on the Interior Department, and GAO identified
Interior's onshore and offshore oil and gas management as being
on of the highest-risk list for fraud, waste, and abuse.
I want to ask Mr. Gould first of all, because in the GAO
testimony they said Interior collected lower levels of revenue,
in other words, you, your organization collected lower levels
of revenue for oil and gas production in all but 11 of 104 oil
and gas resource owners, including states and other countries.
Do you agree with GAO's assessment of the U.S. Government's
take of oil and gas revenue compared to other countries, and
can you give us a feel for the kind of revenue loss that the
taxpayers are bearing? And can we rectify that?
Mr. Gould. We are working very closely with BLM and BOEMRE
on a government take study. When we get the results of that
study, we will all be ready to implement it.
But until that study is done I do not think we are in a
position to know what type of revenue structure is the best.
Mr. Moran. Mr. Gould, before you move it over to Bromwich,
how long have you been working in the area of natural resources
revenue for the Interior Department, Mr. Gould?
Mr. Gould. For 29 years.
Mr. Moran. For 29 years. And so we get a GAO assessment
that you are on the highest-risk list for waste, fraud, and
abuse, that the share of the taxpayers' revenue from oil and
gas is at the very bottom in terms of what other oil and gas
resource owners are getting.
And your response is that you are going to commission a
study and then look at the issue. After 29 years of
professional experience in this. So it is fair then, I think,
after 29 years to ask you, do you personally think that the
taxpayers are getting the fair share of the revenue that is due
them from these natural resources that belong to them, their
children and grandchildren?
Mr. Gould. Congressman, respectfully, I am a geologist, not
an economist. I am in charge of the collection part of that
process. In terms of the collection part of that process and
GAO's criticisms, we did agree with GAO in 2008, when they said
that the data needed to be cleaned up. And we have done a lot
since 2008. Right now we have a sophisticated accounting
detection system to make sure that we are collecting everything
that is due.
So in terms of the third part of GAO's criticism of what we
are doing, I believe we are doing a lot right now. The budget
request that we have in front of us is going to help us to
ensure that we do collect every dollar due.
In terms of the fair return, we need to let the study go
through and get the information. I honestly do not have an
opinion on government take.
Mr. Moran. No opinion. You have been involved in the
industry for 29 years. Now, we obviously have not been, and Mr.
Simpson knows a lot more about it than I do, but you know, we
form some opinions pretty readily when we see some of the
numbers. The states get half of the royalties. You wonder if
they would not feel shortchanged.
I want to continue to focus on Mr. Gould and Ms. Tschudy
because Mr. Bromwich, you were doing other things for the
public interest while this stuff was going on.
DEEP WATER ROYALTY RELIEF
What is the situation with regard to the royalty-free deep
water oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico, and I am sure
you must have had some opinion on the discussion that has taken
place on the Floor and in press conferences and Mr. Markey,
certainly he has a loud-enough voice to reach your ears I would
think, that there is billions of dollars in revenue that is
being foregone that should be going to the taxpayers because of
what can only be described, well, what has been described as a
screw up on the part of the professionals in this area when
they put together the contract.
You know, we try to delve into it, they say, well, it was
one person's responsibility, that person says, well, it was
their responsibility. The fact is that this is a situation
where the contract that was made when oil was very cheap was
supposed to yield appropriate revenues to the Federal
Government when the price of oil went up. The price of oil went
up, and they tried to collect, and McGee said, well, wait a
minute. The staff messed up, and we are not legally obligated
to pay this money, which amounts to billions of dollars, and
the court upheld them saying that the staff messed up.
So what happened? I mean, it is a serious issue, is it not?
Mr. Gould. Yes, a very serious issue.
Mr. Moran. Yes. Tens of billions of dollars of taxpayers.
Mr. Gould. As of January 31, $7.2 billion is what we
estimate to be the foregone royalties. But it is important to
note that the Supreme Court did not hear that case, did not
accept that case. It was determined that the law itself
actually prevents us or prevents BOEMRE from applying a price
cap or price limit.
So right now the way the law is written, a certain volume
has to go royalty free, and we have no control over that based
on the Supreme Court action.
Mr. Moran. So this is going to continue, and what would you
say is the total cost to the federal taxpayer of this mess up?
Mr. Gould. We are working closely with Director Bromwich
and his staff and we have estimates of $15.21 billion.
Mr. Moran. Fifteen point two billion dollars that should be
going to the taxpayers in reimbursement for the oil and gas
they own but instead is going to enhance the profit margin of
the oil and gas companies. I am not exaggerating here. That is
the case, is it not?
That is an expensive mistake, you would agree.
Mr. Gould. Well, I do want to make sure it is clear that it
was not a mistake we made in our office.
Mr. Moran. Who made the mistake? I do not want to belabor
this except for the fact we are talking about $15.2 billion of
taxpayers' money. I mean, you know, we cut $1 billion out of
Head Start Programs, we are cutting here, we are cutting there
to save a million here and there, and here is $15.2 billion we
gave up in revenue.
Mr. Gould. I truly understand your concern, and again, as a
taxpayer I agree with you.
Mr. Moran. Yes.
Mr. Gould. But we do not have any legal mechanism to put
any type of price caps on this.
Mr. Moran. But did there not used to be price caps? When
the price of oil went up, then the--no?
Mr. Gould. No, it was not.
Mr. Moran. Now, so how do we protect the government's
interest in this oil and gas that they own?
Mr. Gould. At this point these are the same questions, and
I am sorry to say, but I am going to ask the leasing office.
Mr. Moran. All right. Earn your pay such as it is, Mr.
Bromwich.
Mr. Bromwich. I am not thoroughly familiar with these
issues, but hearing you describe it and hearing the magnitude
of the dollars, it is a serious problem, and I will learn more
about it and get back to you with fuller answers.
Mr. Moran. Okay. Well, you know, I do not really want to
just give up at this point, but okay. Well, you need to get
back to us. This is not going to go away.
Mr. Bromwich. Absolutely. We understand.
Mr. Gould. There is no prohibition. When they put the law
into effect, they put the law into effect that up to certain
production levels would go royalty free, and that was the only
thing that the law said. It did not provide any other
mechanism. The law does not allow it.
Mr. Bromwich. It sounds like the legislation does not
permit it.
Mr. Gould. That is correct.
Mr. Bromwich. So the legislation would have to be changed.
Mr. Moran. So it is the Congress's fault. Well, the
Congress put it in with the clear impression that this was low-
priced oil now. When it goes up higher, then we will collect
royalties, but we want to keep the industry going because the
price of oil was $20, $30 a barrel. Now that it is over $100 a
barrel, everyone assumes that there should be, in fact, the
head of Chevron says, yes, we ought to be paying this, but we
are not.
AUDITING AND COMPLIANCE
Okay. I just have one last question, and Mr. Gould, 29
years, it is fair to keep asking. Over the past 5 years your
Audit and Compliance Program has collected $110 million from
companies that underreported. The GAO told us in this excellent
hearing that Chairman Simpson called that really you just take
the numbers that the oil and gas companies give you. So you can
deal with that with GAO, but that is what we are being told.
And in fact, they get on time reporting, because they need
to know what the value of their inventory is, but you are less
interested, was the implication.
So you would think, though, that the Federal Government
might invest in more careful auditing on the industry. In the
IRS for every dollar we spend on program integrity, in other
words, going after people who it looks like have not paid their
fair share, we collect $10. So one to ten is a pretty good
ratio.
Do you know what the ratio is? In other words, if we put
more money into more careful auditing of the oil and gas
industry, would it yield more revenue to the taxpayer?
Mr. Gould. Yes, it does, and actually our Audit and
Compliance Program historically averages about $1 to $4.
Mr. Moran. One to four. So for every dollar you put in you
get back about $4.
Mr. Gould. From our Audit and Compliance Program, that is
correct.
Mr. Moran. Collections. Okay. Mr. Chairman, thank you. It
is a good hearing.
Mr. Simpson. Ms. Lummis.
OPENING REMARKS OF CONGRESSWOMAN CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In Wyoming's experience the auditing really does improve
collections for a period of time, and then it declines for
obvious reasons. Compliance improves and so that collection
declines because compliance has been ramped up. So we had that
experience as well.
WELL CONTAINMENT
A couple questions. Mr. Bromwich, this goes back to the
Marine Well containment and the Helix containment devices that
have now been approved. Is the word, approved, correct?
Mr. Bromwich. No, and I am glad you asked the question. We
do the evaluation as to whether containment resources are
sufficient in the context of individual applications that are
submitted by operators, and the operator has discretion which
of these two containment groups to designate, or it does not
have to designate either of these two groups.
So the best way to describe it, these are resource
alternatives available to individual operators that they can
then include in their individual applications for permits. They
can designate one, they can designate another, they can
designate both, or if they have resources of their own, they do
not have to designate any.
And so we have reviewed and reviewed the test results of
the capping stacks, the devices that can actually be put on top
of runaway wells, and we are satisfied that those have the
capabilities that the groups have said they would. But each
assessment needs to be done in the context of an individual
application, which has its own water depth, its own pressure
configuration, and everything else.
Mrs. Lummis. Okay. Great. Thank you. That is informative.
PERMITTING
Now, how many permits are ready and awaiting approval now
that February 17 has passed, and I assume that they are
included as part of the permit now?
Mr. Bromwich. Right. The individual operator designates the
containment resources that they are designating as available to
them, that they have contracted for.
Mrs. Lummis. Got it.
Mr. Bromwich. That are available in the case of a blowout.
Mrs. Lummis. Okay. How many permits fit that description?
They are ready and awaiting approval now that February 17 has
passed?
Mr. Bromwich. We have granted two.
Mrs. Lummis. Yes.
Mr. Bromwich. We have a relatively small number of permits
that are pending. My best estimate is that we will have
additional permits that will be granted in the next few days.
Responsive to Chairman Simpson's comment about
predictability, what we are seeing now, now that we granted the
first two deep water permits, is more coming in. So the number
of pending permits now exceeds ten for the first time since
Deepwater Horizon. And so I think that shows that industry
says, okay, this agency is going to approve permits,
containment capabilities are now available, so we are going to
move forward.
So looking around the corner the thing that I am concerned
about, frankly, given our lack of resources, is whether we have
sufficient permitting personnel who are going to be available
to process what I anticipate will be a surge in permit
applications. We were obviously hopeful with the President's
$100 million supplemental request for fiscal year 2011 that
that kind of help would be on the way, but you know better than
I that through the series of continuing resolutions that help
has not been forthcoming.
So we are working on various alternatives to try to bridge
that gap to make sure that we have the resources that we need,
and one of the things that I have done recently is reach out
and try to see whether we could get retired petroleum engineers
from industry who would be willing to come in on a temporary
basis to help our permitting personnel. They would be under the
control of our people, no retired people from industry would
have the final authority to approve permits, but they would be
manpower that would help us do that.
So that is just one alternative that we are considering,
but it is our effort to act and to think about these issues
before a crisis hits and before a bottleneck develops. And so
we are working on that. I have talked to top executives of some
companies asking them to reach into their ranks of retirees to
see if we can get some help.
NON-PRODUCING LEASE FEE
Mrs. Lummis. Good. Now, I note that you are proposing a $4
per acre fee on non-producing wells, so I have some questions
about that. For example, what does an industry pay on average
for a lease at auction?
Mr. Bromwich. Well, it can be millions or billions of
dollars. I do not have a per acre figure for you.
Mrs. Lummis. Okay, and those leases are usually 10 years?
Mr. Bromwich. Generally.
Mrs. Lummis. Okay, and what is the annual rental on those
leases?
Mr. Bromwich. The annual rental I guess it would depend. It
is a sliding scale. The rental, just to be clear, I am sure you
know this, is only paid until production begins, and then a
royalty rate is assessed.
Mrs. Lummis. Yes, and the royalty rates are?
Mr. Bromwich. I do not have the percentages in front of me.
I can get back to you on that.
Mrs. Lummis. When you issue a lease at auction, do the
royalty rates vary?
Mr. Bromwich. Yes. They have.
Mrs. Lummis. And do they vary based on seismic data?
Mr. Bromwich. I am not sure. Let me get back to you on
that.
Mrs. Lummis. Okay. I know in Wyoming, you know, we usually
put them out at, oh, 16 percent. If nobody picks them up, then
we have an over-the-counter leasing process at a 12\1/2\
percent royalty, but even that is subject to change. So I was
just curious about what the federal system did.
Mr. Bromwich. I would like to turn the tables on Mr. Gould
who does the collection. I think he probably has a better idea
and Ms. Tschudy about the royalty rates that we collect.
Mr. Gould. Eighteen and three-quarters percent offshore.
Mrs. Lummis. Okay. Well, that is pretty generous, and in
the private sector, leasing that is going on in the Niobrara
formation in Wyoming, which is shale oil, royalties are running
between 15 and 20 percent. The highest I have ever heard in the
last few months is 20 percent and almost no one is getting
that. But that is better than most people are getting onshore
in Wyoming on private land in the Niobrara.
Of the leases still held have the leasees continued to pay
their annual rent even on leases awaiting permits to drill?
Mr. Bromwich. Yes.
Mrs. Lummis. Okay. Does your legislative proposal to charge
a $4 per acre fee on non-producing wells include wells that
have been waiting on you over the last year?
Mr. Bromwich. I am not sure. I think it is one of the
subjects of discussion, and we certainly recognize that
interruptions in the process that had been caused by the need
for regulatory changes and the subsequent slowdown in the
permitting process should be recognized in this process. So I
think those issues are in the process of being worked through.
CIVIL PENALTIES
Mrs. Lummis. Okay. Very good. Regarding civil penalties, as
I understand it the Bureau levies a civil penalty of $35,000
per day per incident.
Mr. Bromwich. That is right.
Mrs. Lummis. Okay.
Mr. Bromwich. Which I think is terribly inadequate.
Mrs. Lummis. Too low. Okay.
Mr. Bromwich. Yes.
Mrs. Lummis. And you might be right, but I am curious to
know what criteria for levying civil penalties should be. So
under what circumstances are civil penalties levied?
Mr. Bromwich. There is a complicated system, frankly, a
too-complicated system within the agency for referring
violations for consideration of civil penalties and then a
decision on civil penalties. One of the things that we are
doing in response to the various reviews and reports on us is
to look at this whole structure of civil fine referrals and
civil fine assessments.
My own impression, my own view is that it is terribly
inefficient, and it is quite inadequate. So we have one of our
implementation teams that was formed in response originally to
the Secretary's Safety Oversight Board report looking at
exactly that issue, that is, enforcement issues and civil fine
issues.
So my view that the $35,000 ceiling is inadequate is based
on my intuitive sense that when we have serious violations for
companies that are making large revenues, that $35,000 at its
peak is completely inadequate to deter violations.
Mrs. Lummis. Okay.
Mr. Bromwich. Completely inadequate to deter serious
violations.
Mrs. Lummis. And are these subject to rulemaking, the
criteria under which a civil penalty is issued?
Mr. Bromwich. Yes. They are subject to rulemaking, but the
ceiling, although we can make cost-of-living adjustments within
narrow limits, a broader raising of the ceiling requires
legislation.
Mrs. Lummis. Okay. What additional Congressional authority
would be required?
Mr. Bromwich. I think legislation specifically raising the
fine ceiling.
Mrs. Lummis. Okay.
Mr. Bromwich. Which is enshrined in law.
Mrs. Lummis. Just raising.
Mr. Bromwich. Right.
Mrs. Lummis. Okay.
Mr. Bromwich. Yes.
Mrs. Lummis. All right, and you have an up to criteria in
your rules right now?
Mr. Bromwich. We have criteria right now. Again, those are
subject to review, and my own view is that that will probably
substantially change over the next several months.
Mrs. Lummis. Do you have a right number in mind in terms of
a per day, per incident penalty?
Mr. Bromwich. I do not.
Mrs. Lummis. Okay, and when I was on Natural Resources you
came in when you were new, and we talked about your background,
and it sort of, if I recall, forensic. Do you not have a kind
of forensic background?
Mr. Bromwich. Oh, I have dabbled in forensic science but
only as someone running investigations. I never did forensic
science.
Mrs. Lummis. Okay.
Mr. Bromwich. My background as Mr. Moran noted was in law
enforcement.
Mrs. Lummis. Okay. Well, very good. My time is probably up,
is it not, Mr. Chairman? Thank you.
OPENING REMARKS OF CONGRESSMAN MAURICE D. HINCHEY
Mr. Hinchey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want
to thank you very much. Thanks for being here, thanks for
everything that you do. I also want to thank and applaud you
basically for something that is very important that you did
last year, of course, the Deepwater Horizon management, how
that spill last year was taken care of, how you managed it, how
you did all of the necessary work dealing with it. It was an
exemplary set of circumstances, and we applaud you and thank
you very much for what you have done.
A lot of progress has been made, but there are a lot of
things that really need to be done, conflicts of interest,
conflicting missions that plague the former Minerals Management
Service. All of these things that really need to be taken care
of.
Just as a curiosity, in the context of what Mr. Moran said
a moment ago, he was asking something, and you said you could
not do it because there was a restriction in the rules. Would
you be kind enough, not now, I am not asking you to do it now,
but would you provide me with a play on that restriction, the
details, how that is set up, when it got set up, what the
restrictions are that you have to deal with? I think this is
something that, you know, that we should really be looking into
and trying to address.
Mr. Gould. Yes. We will coordinate with BOEMRE to provide
you with a detailed summary.
Mr. Hinchey. Thank you. Thanks very much. I appreciate it.
ENCOURAGING LEASE DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Bromwich, I wanted to ask you a specific question. As
the price of oil continues to increase we are, once again,
hearing the call for more drilling on public lands and in
public water. Yet before we go down that road it is important
for us to understand just exactly what is being done, how much
has been allocated for them, what is being done on the land
that they have in their control.
Oil and gas companies, as I understand it, currently hold
80 million acres under lease, yet the industry is only
producing on 12 million of the 80 million of those acres. For
offshore, specifically, there are a total of 38 million acres
under lease, but the industry is producing on only 6\1/2\
million of the 38 million acres.
That means that less than 25 percent of the acres leased on
federal lands and water are actually being used and actually
producing. All the rest is just staying aside, and apparently
it has been aside for some time.
Before we rush to open up new tracks for oil and gas
exploration and criticize the pace at which the Department is
issuing new deep water drilling bases, and I think that that
has been put out, that criticism has been put out, which to me,
frankly, does not make any sense. I think we need to make sure
companies are taking advantage of the permits that they already
have.
So your budget proposes a $4 per acre fee on non-producing
oil and gas leases to incentivize current lease holders to
utilize existing permits. However, that is going to require
legislation here, and it is very questionable as to whether or
not this operation here is going to be willing to do it. We
will see how that goes.
But in the meantime what else can your department be doing
to make sure these companies actually develop the leases that
they have?
Mr. Bromwich. Well, as you probably know, the President
addressed this in his press conference last Friday.
Mr. Hinchey. Yes.
Mr. Bromwich. And he directed the Department of the
Interior to report back to him within 2 weeks on the potential
policy alternatives that might be available to further
incentivize industry to develop the lands that are already
under lease. So at the Interior Department we are busily at
work trying to put together that report that will be delivered
to the President. We are exploring a wide range of options, and
we expect that report will be delivered on time at the end of
next week.
Mr. Hinchey. What do you think so far?
Mr. Bromwich. Well, I think that there are a variety of
techniques that we might use. We have already tried to work
with developing incentives through the lease process. For
example, the notion of shorter leases so there is not as large
a risk that companies will not work aggressively to develop the
properties under lease. They have a shorter period of time.
There is obviously an incentive for them to do it faster.
Another possibility that we have talked about and
experimented with is changing the royalty rate and charging a
lower rate if the property is developed very quickly so that
they pay rental rate for a shorter period. The royalty rate
starts kicking in sooner because the development is sooner and
to try to incentivize that you could reduce the royalty rate in
the first couple of years of development.
So those are examples.
Mr. Hinchey. I wonder about that, but the $4 is not a very
high rate for them.
Mr. Bromwich. No, it is not.
Mr. Hinchey. And I think reducing that is not going to be
an incentive for them to do anything positive. I think there
are other ways of doing that.
Mr. Bromwich. Well, there is no alternative that is beyond
consideration. We are trying to look at the full menu of
alternatives that are out there that will incentivize
development.
Mr. Hinchey. I hope that one of the considerations that
might go under an alternative would be the reduction of the
price there, because it is a very low price.
Mr. Bromwich. Yes.
Mr. Hinchey. And one of the things that we are seeing, of
course, is a very high success of the drillers in terms of the
economic circumstances. So this is something that we need to be
paying a lot of attention to.
Mr. Bromwich. Absolutely.
Mr. Hinchey. Because these are materials that are owned by
the people of this country.
Mr. Bromwich. Absolutely.
Mr. Hinchey. They are owned by the general public.
Mr. Bromwich. Yes.
Mr. Hinchey. And the general public is not really getting
any advantage of the drilling process. In fact, they own it,
somebody else comes in and drills it, takes it up, and then
spends it for them.
Mr. Bromwich. Right.
Mr. Hinchey. You know, so there is something that really
needs to be done here that is going to be much more effective
on behalf of the general public of this country, not just for
the oil companies but for the people here who are now spending
so much of their income on the price of gasoline particularly.
Mr. Bromwich. Right.
Mr. Hinchey. So I appreciate that. I am looking forward to
that, and I am hoping that we get a copy of what you sent to
the President as well.
Mr. Bromwich. That will be up to the President.
Mr. Hinchey. Well, all right then. We are asking you for
the same thing.
Mr. Bromwich. Okay.
Mr. Hinchey. We are asking you to provide for us the
routine that you think and the circumstances that you
understand in the context of the examination that you are
engaged in now, and if you would be kind enough to provide us
with that information that you come up with as a result of the
investigation that you are engaged in, we would deeply
appreciate it.
Mr. Bromwich. Very good. Thank you.
Mr. Hinchey. When do you think we will get it?
Mr. Bromwich. I think you will get it soon after the
President gets it is my guess.
Mr. Hinchey. Okay.
Mr. Bromwich. I do not usually say this, but that is a
decision above my pay grade.
Mr. Hinchey. Okay. Well, no. I mean, it is not really
because you have an obligation to the President, of course, but
you have an obligation to the Congress here.
Mr. Bromwich. It is not my report. Let me just be clear. It
is a Department-wide report.
Mr. Hinchey. Well, make it clear to the Department wide
that this Department here has asked for this.
Mr. Bromwich. Okay.
Mr. Hinchey. And we would like to get it as soon as they
have the information that they have been able to put together.
Mr. Bromwich. I will definitely pass that along.
Mr. Hinchey. Thanks very much.
Mr. Bromwich. You are very welcome.
Mr. Simpson. Just out of curiosity, does every acre that is
under lease contain resources, or are some of them actually
dry?
Mr. Bromwich. Some of them are dry.
Mr. Simpson. That is shocking.
Ms. Lummis, did you have other questions?
Mrs. Lummis. You know, I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
PERMITTING
I do not understand this discrepancy, and I just want to
ask you if you can account for it. The DOJ filed in federal
court in Louisiana a claim that you have 270 shallow permits
pending and 52 deep water permits pending, and this information
is as I understand current as of yesterday. Do you know why
there is that difference?
Mr. Bromwich. Yes. The information included in the
Department of Justice filing was in connection with Judge
Feldman's directive for us to process a small number of
designated permits in the context of a lawsuit. The affidavit
filed by one of the people in our Gulf of Mexico region was
done to demonstrate that focusing on those permits out of
sequence as the Judge directed would divert our permitting
personnel from other tasks that they had.
The 270 number was designed simply to capture the larger
universe of work that permitting personnel do, including
relatively small but still meaningful adjustments or
modifications of permits that are already granted.
So included within the larger number are not drilling
permits. They are adjustments or modifications. So I know there
was a press release put out yesterday. It was extraordinarily
misleading because the numbers that Members of Congress and
others have focused on are new applications. If we wanted to
start talking about applications to modify, we have granted
thousands of those. Thousands.
But some of them can be for relatively minor things, and so
we thought it was inappropriate and misleading to cite those
numbers because those are not the numbers that, Mr. Chairman,
you and your colleagues have been interested in.
Mr. Simpson. We would have criticized you if you would have
done that.
Mr. Bromwich. Yes, you would, and rightly so. And rightly
so. So to have this alleged discrepancy pointed out when it is
not a discrepancy at all and a simple turning to our webpage
which shows these numbers on a daily basis and identifies what
categories they are in, that would have been the appropriate
way to handle it rather than to blast it out and suggest that
people are not being candid about numbers.
Mrs. Lummis. Okay, and so you did explain the 270 shallow
permits. Now what about these 52 deep waters that this press
release mentions?
Mr. Bromwich. Same thing.
Mrs. Lummis. So they are just requests to alter existing
permits?
Mr. Bromwich. Well, the 52, I do not have the release,
Senator Vitter's release with me. Do you?
Mrs. Lummis. I do.
Mr. Bromwich. Okay.
Mrs. Lummis. It just says because there are actually 270
shallow water permit applications pending and 52 deep water
permits.
Mr. Bromwich. Yes. It is the same principle. They are
things like applications to modify as opposed to applications
for new wells or sidetracks or bypasses, which are the
meaningful substantive reviews that our agency does and that
takes so much time.
Mrs. Lummis. Okay. So it is around ten when you look at
brand new permits to drill?
Mr. Bromwich. That are pending. Correct.
Mrs. Lummis. That are pending. Okay. Great. Thank you.
Mr. Bromwich. Does that help you?
Mrs. Lummis. Yes, it does. It clears that up.
Mr. Chairman, do I have time for one more question?
Mr. Simpson. Yes.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you.
INVESTIGATIONS AND REVIEW UNIT
The IRU. I want to ask a question about how that differs
from the inspector general, and I know you are requesting $5.8
million in 20 full-time equivalents for the IRU, so I am trying
to understand what the IRU will do that is different from what
the inspector general does.
Mr. Bromwich. It is a very good question. As you know and
as the chairman knows, there has been a history of allegations
of corruption and misconduct within the agency as well as
mismanagement of certain issues. In my experience, and I have a
lot of experience in a lot of different organizations, in order
to have a healthy organization you need to have the ability to
handle certain kinds of allegations and investigations
yourself.
The Inspector General in Interior, the Inspector General in
any Department, does not have adequate resources to do all of
that. When I was at the Justice Department and I was the
inspector general, all of the different components of the
Justice Department, Bureau of Prisons, at that time the
Immigration Service, DEA, FBI, all had their own internal
affairs units. And so the inspector general would get
allegations and then those that he did not have the resources
or for some other reason did not want to handle would be
flipped back to internal affairs. That is exactly the principle
that we are talking about here.
Mrs. Lummis. Okay.
Mr. Bromwich. To create an internal affairs type
capability, which will also have the ability to do aggressive
enforcement actions of oil and gas companies that are violating
our rules and have been cited for violations of our rules.
Mrs. Lummis. Okay.
Mr. Bromwich. So we work in close coordination with the IG,
we do not go out on our own without checking with the IG. The
IG welcomed my creating this entity, and I think it is serving
the intended function already.
Mrs. Lummis. And I am not going to disagree with that at
all because, you know, I know two former MMS directors that
asked for IG investigations when ethical lapses at MMS arose,
and it took 3 years to complete.
Mr. Bromwich. And that is exactly the sort of problem this
is designed to address.
Mrs. Lummis. Okay. Great. Now, would the IRU have authority
to halt production on a well based on allegations if it was an
investigation for a specific episode of misconduct?
Mr. Bromwich. The IRU itself would have no authority to
stop production.
Mrs. Lummis. Okay.
Mr. Bromwich. No.
Mrs. Lummis. Okay. Great, and one more question, Mr.
Chairman, switching gears. You are so kind.
STATE AUDIT PROGRAM
Onto state partnerships for audit programs, that program
relies on states to perform compliance activities on an
estimated $3.3 billion in royalty payments. I know the State of
Wyoming has been doing that for years with federal mineral
royalties in this state. I know you have agreements with ten
states and eight tribes.
And generally speaking when I was in state government in
Wyoming and I felt like the states were doing a really good
job, especially the State of Wyoming, on some of these
compliance audits, and my question about this is since we have
got such tight budgets, and we are not going to be able to fund
everything here at the federal level that is being requested,
do you think it would make sense to rely on states with which
you currently have agreements to collect revenue as well?
Obviously states like Wyoming are collecting a tremendous
amount of state royalty, ad valorem royalties, severance tax
royalty based on a lot of the same production from the same
companies on the same formulas, and it might be a cost saving
issue.
Mr. Gould. The partnership we have with the states is
excellent, and it is something we are working on during our
strategic review. We are including the state and tribal
auditors in all our reviews that we are doing within our
program right now for the creation of our new office. We have
an excellent relationship with state auditors, something that I
think is a win for both sides. We have the federal collection
system with computer systems in place that can handle all of
the revenue coming in. It is a system where the revenue comes
in and goes into the Treasury and then it is disbursed.
So I do not see that there is any immediate efficiencies
gained by turning that part of it over to the state, but I do
see that we have had a lot of efficiencies by using the state
auditors.
Mrs. Lummis. Final question, and I think I know the answer
to this. I hope I do.
TRIBAL ROYALTIES
Did Interior finally get tribal royalties on the same
mineral valuation formula as non-tribal royalties?
Mr. Gould. Right now we are looking at all of our valuation
regulations, and we are just starting the process on a
valuation rule for Indian oil. We completed the Indian gas rule
and now we are working on Indian oil.
Mrs. Lummis. Oh, so they are not on the same formula.
Mr. Gould. No, we are working on that right now.
Mrs. Lummis. Oh, my gosh. I cannot believe it is taking
this long.
Ms. Gibbs Tschudy. One of the reasons they are not the same
is the lease terms are different. We did revise the Indian gas
valuation regulations in 2000, and we are still continuing to
work on revising the Indian oil valuation regulations, and we
are convening an Indian-negotiated rulemaking in order to
revise that regulation.
Mrs. Lummis. And the Navajos in Arizona, are they pretty
deeply involved?
Ms. Gibbs Tschudy. Very much so.
Mrs. Lummis. They seem pretty sophisticated back when I was
on that committee.
Ms. Gibbs Tschudy. Absolutely.
Mrs. Lummis. Thanks.
Mr. Gould. Yes. We are working very, very closely with the
Navajo Nation on that particular issue.
Mrs. Lummis. Great. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you for
your patience.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Hinchey.
Mr. Hinchey. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
LEASES WITH VIABLE RESOURCES
When you provide that information to the President and a
copy of it to us, would you kindly include the number of acres
that are not likely or that you know did not have any value in
them? As you said, there are some.
Mr. Bromwich. I said there are some. We will do our best to
collect that data. It is obviously relevant data.
Mr. Hinchey. Yes.
Mr. Bromwich. I do not know whether we currently have
access to it, but I will make sure that that is focused on as
something that should be in the report.
Mr. Hinchey. Okay. Whatever extent that you know that some
of them just do not have any oil in them.
Mr. Bromwich. Yes.
Mr. Hinchey. Let us know what percentage that might be.
Mr. Bromwich. Yes.
Mr. Hinchey. That would be interesting.
Mr. Bromwich. Okay.
Mr. Hinchey. I just wanted to ask another question, Mr.
Bromwich, if I may.
Mr. Bromwich. Sure.
ARCTIC DRILLING
Mr. Hinchey. And it is about the drilling in the Arctic,
and as I understand it Shell recently announced that it would
not be drilling in Beaufort, and they would not be drilling
there this summer anyway, but they are going to be planning on
drilling there some time perhaps next year.
The plans that they have include up to three wells, as I
understand it, in Chukchi Sea and up to two wells in Beaufort
Sea, which is a pretty large expansion of activities there. The
operation there is concerning because of the whole set of
circumstances that they are going to have to deal with and the
experience that we have seen from other activities up there.
So there has been a number of tragedies. We saw in the Gulf
last year and more recently with an Icelandic oil tanker that
ran aground I think off of Norway, off the coast some time just
recently, last month.
So despite the bad things that have been going on up there
and the context of those circumstances, Shell intends to rely
on spill response plans that were written before the BP oil
spill and the Norway spill for the Arctic operations. And that
seems a little ridiculous looking at operations that they plan
to take to be preventive but based upon not the most recent
things that took place, which were much more tragic and much
more damaging and dangerous. And I think that they should be at
least upgraded in the context of what the present set of
circumstances knowingly are.
So in addition to all we have learned since those two
incidents, Shell's spill response plans for the Arctic are
completely, seemingly inadequate, and in some cases not at all
based on the real set of circumstances that they are going to
have to deal with there.
Shell's plans assume it will remove upwards of 90 percent
of an oil spill in the open water, a number which has never
come close to being achieved in practice, any time. Offshore
mechanical containment and recovery rates for the Deep Water
Horizon spill were 3 percent, and somewhere between 8 and 9
percent for the Exxon Valdez spill.
Shell's plan even fails to consider a potential
uncontrolled blowout under their worst case scenario, despite
what happened in the Gulf, and there are many more examples
like these.
So I am just hoping that given this information and all we
have learned whether or not we should even allow Shell and
drilling in the Arctic on the basis of this set of
circumstances. But at the very least should not the company be
required to develop a new oil spill response and be prepared to
deal with this in a much more reasonable, much more effective
and rational way?
Mr. Bromwich. Thanks for asking the question. The Arctic is
obviously one of the most significant set of issues that we
have to deal with. It is a frontier area as people describe it,
and it contains various kinds of challenges because of the
temperatures, because of the ice, because of the relative
absence of infrastructure, because the Coast Guard is not right
there that are unique.
We were working with Shell to understand the plan that they
had submitted for 2011, for just the Beaufort, and at that time
the proposal was just to drill one exploratory well, and before
we were too far down the road and doing that evaluation and
assessment and they had provided quite a bit of additional
spill response-related information to us, because of problems
with getting an EPA permit they changed their plans and
announced that they would not be looking to move forward in
2011.
We obviously heard the same things that you have about
their intentions to move forward in 2012. I think they are
going to have to obviously satisfy us that all elements of
their plan and their individual permit applications are
adequate, including with respect to containing a sub-sea
blowout and dealing with other spill response issues.
Now, as I said, the application for 2011, that is now off
the table, was just for the Beaufort. If, in fact, they go
forward with plans for the Chukchi, that is obviously another
set of issues for us to address.
To anticipate that and to help us with that we are doing a
supplemental environmental impact statement in the Chukchi that
goes beyond what the court had directed us to do, precisely to
look at spill response-related issues in the wake of Deepwater
Horizon.
So we agree with you that there are lots of important and
significant issues that need to be addressed and that we will
address if we get exploration plans filed as Shell says they
will be and applications to drill along with those plans. We
will not rubber stamp them. We will give them close scrutiny,
and we will look at every aspect of their proposals.
Mr. Hinchey. Well, thank you very much, and I deeply
appreciate what you have just said and the way you are looking
into this, and I think it is very appropriate and just exactly
what needs to be done. So thank you very much.
Mr. Bromwich. You are welcome.
Mr. Simpson. These are shallow water permits. Right?
Mr. Bromwich. I think they are all shallow water. I know
the ones in the Beaufort were. I do not know exactly what Shell
is going to propose in the Chukchi, but as you know, there is
not a lot deep water in the Beaufort and the Chukchi, so I
assume that they are shallow water.
Mr. Simpson. So far Shell has done everything that has been
asked of them, have they not, except for the EPA and their
review panel?
Mr. Bromwich. Shell has done everything we have asked of
them, has been very cooperative with us in supplying the
information that we have requested. I have got no complaints or
criticisms about Shell.
LEASES WITH VIABLE RESOURCES
Mr. Simpson. Just out of curiosity, sometimes to find out
whether an acre that you have leased actually has oil in it or
not, you actually have to drill. So it would be kind of hard to
say how many acres are and why would you lease something if you
knew there was not any oil down there or something? The number
I have is that probably one out of four acres that are leased
probably show no resources there.
Mr. Bromwich. I have been told as recently as yesterday
that if the companies bat one out of three, they are doing
well.
Mr. Simpson. Okay. Well, I appreciate it. I appreciate all
you have done. We look forward to working with you to make sure
that BOEMRE and BOEM and BSEE and ONRR I will get used to those
eventually that they come into existence and do the job that I
think all of us want them to do, and we look forward to working
with you on this year's budget.
Mr. Bromwich. Thank you very much for your support, Mr.
Chairman. I appreciate it.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.263
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.264
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.265
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.266
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.267
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.268
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.269
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.270
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.271
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.272
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.273
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.274
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.275
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.276
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.277
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.278
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.279
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.280
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.281
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.282
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.283
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.284
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.285
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.286
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.287
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.288
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.289
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.290
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.291
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.292
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.293
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.294
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.295
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.296
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.297
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.298
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.299
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.300
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.301
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.302
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.303
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.304
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.305
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.306
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.307
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.308
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.309
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.310
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.311
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.312
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.313
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.314
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.315
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.316
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.317
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.318
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.319
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.320
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897A.321
Wednesday, March 30, 2011.
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 2012 BUDGET REQUEST
WITNESSES
LARRY ECHO HAWK, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, INDIAN AFFAIRS
MICHAEL S. BLACK, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
KEITH MOORE, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION
Opening Remarks of Chairman Simpson
Mr. Simpson. The meeting will come to order. Good
afternoon, Assistant Secretary Echo Hawk. I would like to
welcome you along with BIA Director Black and BIE Director
Moore to the House Appropriations Committee hearing for the
fiscal year 2012 Budget for Indian Affairs. Assistant
Secretary, you and I go back many years to our days in the
Idaho State Legislature, and I have always held you in the
highest regard. I hope I am able to continue to work with you
for years to come in our respective current capacities as we
attempt to make a difference in the lives of over 1.4 million
Native Americans and Alaskan Natives.
As you may have gathered by now, particularly from looking
at H.R. 1, honoring this Nation's commitments to Indian Country
is a high priority for this Subcommittee in this Congress.
Fiscal year 2012 budget for Indian Affairs concerns us as it
calls for a $119 million reduction from 2010. I cannot help but
note the irony of the request in light of the fact that this
Subcommittee is still fighting tooth and nail just to keep
Indian Affairs level funded for 2011. I have no doubt that you
share our concerns about the 2012 budget request as those of us
here today are painfully aware of the unmet needs in Indian
Country.
While our collective attention on international affairs is
aimed squarely at current events overseas, here at home we
continue to have people who live in third-world conditions. If
you want to see real poverty in this country, go visit an
Indian reservation, as I know you have many, many times.
If only it were true that increasing public awareness or
increasing the Indian Affairs budget alone would solve these
problems. Earlier this year the Acting Inspector General
testified before this Subcommittee that she could spend her
entire budget in Indian Country issues and still not address
every problem. To me that suggested the system in place now is
fundamentally broken.
I have no doubts about the Administration's collective and
genuine commitment to Indian Country and about your skill in
identifying problems and adaptively managing those solutions.
What I am interested in is where the Department goes from here,
how it gets there, how it measures success. I look forward to
our discussions on the budget today and in the context of those
questions, I look forward to working with you to solve some of
these problems.
Mr. Simpson. With that, I am happy to yield to the
gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Moran, for any opening statement
he might have.
Opening Remarks of Mr. Moran
Mr. Moran. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have got to
thank you for something else as well. I do want to say a few
words since this is the first hearing this year we have had
with regard to Native American programs.
Chief, nice to see you. Nice to see you, colleagues, and
thanks for all you are doing. I would like to put in a little
quote, and since we have--I was not sure whether Rick Healy was
going to get into this like Chris Topic did but he has come
through.
Voice. You got a quote book, too?
LEGAL AND MORAL OBLIGATIONS
Mr. Moran. I got a quote book. So Chief and Indian Wise
Man, Shinguaconse, is that the correct pronunciation for
Shinguaconse? I think it is. It translates to Little Pine. But
he said, ``My father,'' referring to basically the U.S. Federal
Government, ``you have made promises to me and to my children.
If the promises had been made by a person of no standing, I
should not be surprised to see his promises fail. But you, who
are so great in riches and power, I am astonished that I do not
see your promises fulfilled. I would have been better pleased
if you had never made such promises, that you should have made
them and not performed them.'' And that has been the legacy, at
least for the vast majority of the existence of this Republic,
but it is changing and has to change. And it is one thing that
we do have bipartisan agreement on, at least on this committee,
that it will change.
So I just want to underscore the fact that I know we feel
on both sides of the aisle that we have a legal obligation
because of our treaties with Indian tribes, but also we have a
moral obligation to enhance the economic, the social and the
cultural well-being of Native Americans. Tribes and individual
Indians are not looking for a hand out but rather a hand up. I
know it is a cliche, but it certainly does apply here. Great
nations should keep their commitments and especially because of
the long history the Federal Government has had with Native
Americans. We need to back our promises with concrete actions.
It is not to say that we do not need to carefully look at the
funding for our Native American programs, and at times I have
been very disappointed with some of the bureaucracy of the BIA,
and for many years BIA was not on the side of the Indians,
frankly. But while we need to make sure that the funds are
providing the services and the programs and that we have
concrete results for the money that is invested, we know that
we have to make this a priority, whether we have Indian tribes
in our district or not.
But we have a strong, as I say, bipartisan tradition on
this subcommittee, and while I obviously do not support so many
of the provisions, almost all of the provisions of H.R. 1, I
want to commend----
Mr. Simpson. The dump truck.
H.R. 1
Mr. Moran. Dump truck? Riders and everything else. But I
want to take this opportunity to commend the Chairman and the
majority. And I know Mr. Cole was particularly influential in
this. They protected Native American programs. Where everything
else was on the chopping block, they protected Native American
programs in the fiscal year 2011 bill.
FY 2012 BUDGET
So as we develop the fiscal year 2012 budget for the BIA,
our goal remains putting the BIA in a better position to move
forward in helping tribes and Native Americans address the
educational, social and the economic developments that the
Indian Country faces, the challenges that they face. And that
is why it is important to have BIE as well, and we are going to
do the same, I trust, for the Indian Health services.
During the 111th Congress, we addressed a number of
significant issues affecting Indian Country, including the
Cobell settlement, law enforcement, particularly the treatment
of women on reservations, Indian healthcare, Indian water
rights settlements. And so we very much look forward to the
testimony of our Assistant Secretary, Chief Echo Hawk. Thank
you for your service again, and we are determined on this
Subcommittee to do the right thing. So thank you again for
being here, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for all you have done.
Testimony of Mr. Echo Hawk
Mr. Simpson. Secretary Echo Hawk.
INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Echo Hawk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member
Moran and Subcommittee members. Let me first of all just
express my appreciation for the work that has been done on the
fiscal year 2011 budget to this point. I appreciate that very
much.
The President has requested a $2.5 billion budget for
Indian Affairs, and through the work of the Tribal Interior
Budget Council, this budget has been crafted after careful
consideration with American Indian and Alaskan Native
government representatives. The President has called upon
members of his Administration to meet important objectives
while exercising fiscal responsibility, and consistent with
that directive, difficult choices have been made in formulating
the 2012 Budget Request for Indian Affairs.
As already mentioned, this request reflects a $118.9
million reduction, in other words, 4.5 percent below the fiscal
year 2010 enacted level, and we have tried to make strategic
cuts in order to fund tribal priorities. Thus, this proposal
has $89.6 million of targeted increases for tribal programs
that are proposed, and I would like to just highlight some of
those targeted increases.
ADVANCING INDIAN NATIONS
Under the category of Advancing Indian Nations or nation-
to-nation relationships, there is a $42.3 million increase, and
I want to spotlight that includes Contract Support, which is a
very high priority of Tribal Nations. That figure is an
increase of $25.5 million, and there is also $4 million
proposed for the Indian Self-Determination Fund which would
assist Tribes to further contract or compact additional
programs.
SMALL AND NEEDY TRIBES
And we have also included $3 million to support small and
needy tribes. This helps the very small tribes carry out the
very basic responsibilities of tribal government, and this
would affect about 114 tribes in Alaska and about 17 in the
lower 48 states.
PROTECTING INDIAN COUNTRY
Under the initiative of Protecting Indian Country, we are
proposing an increase of $20 million which includes $5.1
million for law enforcement operations and also a total of
$11.4 million for detention center operations and maintenance.
And there is an additional $2.5 million proposed for tribal
courts.
IMPROVING TRUST LAND MANAGEMENT
Under the initiative of Improving Trust Land Management,
there is an increase requested of $18.4 million. I just want to
spotlight that $2 million of that would go for grants to tribes
directly for projects to evaluate and develop renewable energy
resources on their tribal trust lands. And there are a number
of initiatives under the Trust, Natural Resource Management to
support the $7.7 million proposed increase.
INDIAN EDUCATION
With regard to a fourth category of improving Indian
education, we have requested an increase of $8.9 million which
spotlights initiatives to have safe and secure schools and also
allocates $3 million for Tribal Grant support costs. This is
similar to the Contract Support cost requested for tribal
governments, but these are for the elementary and secondary
schools that we have responsibility for and basically covers
administrative overhead. They are operating now at about 62
percent of what would be full tribal grant support. And there
are a number of decreases in the program.
TRIBAL DISTRIBUTION
I do not think in the interest of time--I know the
Subcommittee has some votes. I am not going to go through all
of those decreases, but I did want to just spotlight that
almost 90 percent of all of the appropriations requested are to
be expended at the local level and 63 percent of the
appropriations would be provided directly to Tribes. And this
would amount to a 4.99 percent increase in the Tribal Priority
Allocation which is the core program for tribal governments.
So I know the needs in Indian Country are very great, but
under the present situation, President Obama's budget
faithfully seeks to meet those needs by following the
priorities set by tribal leaders. So we would be very happy to
respond to questions, and as the Chairman noted, I have the
Bureau of Indian Affairs Director and the Bureau of Indian
Education Director with me today to be able to answer detailed
questions that I may not have sufficient information on. Thank
you.
[The statement of Larry Echo Hawk follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.011
TRIBAL INTERIOR BUDGET COUNCIL
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Secretary. Let me start. You
mentioned in your opening testimony that this budget was put
together with the help of the Tribal Interior Budget Council,
and I understand this year you have done more consultation with
them as you develop this budget. Take a minute and explain to
me how that works, how it is put together.
Mr. Echo Hawk. The Tribal Interior Budget Council is made
up of 36 individuals. It includes the Regional Directors for
the Bureau of Indian Affairs, so that constitutes 12 of them
and that represents the 12 Regions of the country. And then the
Tribes in those Regions select two representatives to serve on
that Council. We meet on a quarterly basis, and what they do is
consult with us to establish their priorities and funding. And
each one of the Regions makes a presentation. We just went
through this last week, where they come before the Council and
present--I just brought as an example a packet from the Great
Plains Region where they tell us in detail what they would like
to do in that region of the country.
After all 12 Regions make their presentations, then as a
body we collectively--I do not say we because I do not vote on
this, but the tribal representatives vote and establish
priorities for funding. It is not over there because we start
to craft the budget then, and then at various times, we will
bring them back in, maybe a subcommittee to consult on more
details as we formulate the budget.
OMB
Mr. Simpson. And then you work with OMB on the amount that
they have given you.
Mr. Echo Hawk. OMB provides guidance for us so we know
there are some parameters for funding.
Mr. Simpson. Guidance is a nice word.
Mr. Echo Hawk. Interior then sends the budget over, and
they make some modifications, pass it back. And tribal leaders
have expressed a desire to have more direct consultation with
OMB. I think that is the piece that they think is missing. I am
not sure. We are working on perhaps modifying that system to
allow them to have more input at that level.
CONTRACT SUPPORT
Mr. Simpson. Good. You mentioned the contract support you
increased by $25.5 million. That is something this committee
hears about when we have the Nations come in and talk to us for
a couple of days. Almost every one talks about contract
support. Does your increase of $25.5 million fully fund
contract support costs?
Mr. Echo Hawk. No, it does not. It only reaches about 90
percent, and in order to get that up to 100 percent----
Mr. Simpson. And that is at 62 percent now?
Mr. Echo Hawk. No, that is Tribal Grant Support, 62
percent. And the Contract Support is about 90 percent. In order
to get that up to 100 percent which the tribes would like to
see, I think it would take like another $25 million to reach
that point.
TRIBAL LAW AND ORDER ACT
Mr. Simpson. Okay. The Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 no
doubt increases the responsibility of Indian Affairs in many
areas. Could you take a minute and summarize these increased
responsibilities and describe where the budget meets these
responsibilities and where this budget, due to the limitations
of funding, may fall short?
Mr. Echo Hawk. Well, we have significant responsibilities
because that legislation is a 105-page comprehensive bill. We
have had some deadlines that we have already had to meet in
implementing the requirements of the Act which deals with
special law enforcement commissions, standards for long-term
detention, background investigations and then we are now moving
into a phase where we are addressing the mandates of the bill
to focus on adult and juvenile detention, long-term plan. There
is also a law enforcement foundation that has to be put
together. And we are working to organize that.
So the budget that we are requesting in the area of public
safety is a $20 million increase, and some of those monies will
help us to be able to implement this process.
DETENTION OPERATIONS
Mr. Simpson. One of the largest increases in the fiscal
year 2012 proposal is the $10.4 million and 13 FTEs for the
detention and corrections operations that you mentioned.
Detention facilities are underfunded by about 459 positions, as
I understand, as the green book states. The Recovery Act only
seems to have made matters worse as Indian Affairs is now on
the hook to fund an additional 323 staff at six new facilities
opening between now and 2014. What is the plan for meeting
those new staffing requirements and what is the estimated cost
and how many of the 459 positions will be filled with the $10.4
million increase?
Mr. Echo Hawk. Okay, Mr. Chairman, that is a big question.
Mr. Simpson. If it is too detailed, you can get back with
the committee.
Mr. Echo Hawk. We can get back. You know, just to comment,
these facilities are mainly built by the Department of Justice.
We have built and can build and do a good job, you know, in
construction of facilities. But once they are built, we have a
responsibility for operation and maintenance, and we try very
hard now to collaborate with the Department of Justice to be
able to make sure that when they build them they are built to
specifications and that we can have the foresight to be able to
budget in what is needed to staff and run those facilities.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.012
Mr. Simpson. One last question. The committee has
recommended in language that the BIA look at regional detention
facilities, and I know that we have talked about this, using
the Fort Hall facility that they have built as an example. Is
the Department looking at that and trying to make that more
available?
FORT HALL
Mr. Echo Hawk. We are. We are working with the Department
of Justice on this. This is actually one of the mandates in the
Tribal Law and Order Act that we have, you know, some plan of
going forward. And this is not new to us.
We have previously prepared a report on how to efficiently
build these detention facilities on a regional basis. And I was
just in Nevada last week. The Tribes there are asking, pleading
for some facilities because they are having to use state and
county facilities to house prisoners. It is very expensive for
them. So that is an example of how they would be very happy if
we could somehow build a regional facility for them, and that
is what we try to do now, to make sure that we are being
efficient and smart in where we are building these facilities.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Mr. Moran.
Mr. Moran. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. In light of the
fact that we are going to have some votes soon, what I would
like to do is to underscore three areas of particular concern.
I will mention the three of them. You can give a quick capsule
comment if you want, but they are probably the kind of thing
that you want to try to address for the record. But I wanted to
bring it to light in the context of the hearing. But I know you
cannot comprehensively respond to all of them.
PROGRAM REDUCTIONS
You put the best face forward on this budget, but you want
to eliminate the Lease Compliance program. I do not know how we
can assure that leases are going to be complied with absent
this program, so that needs to be addressed. You are cutting
the Indian Guaranteed Loan program by 60 percent. It is a
concern how Native Americans are going to get commercial loans
to expand or even start new Indian-owned businesses without
that. You are eliminating the Residential Placement program for
special-needs students.
Those are all concerns. So if you want to give a capsule
commentary, but it is probably the kind of thing we could
either talk about later or respond to for the record. Do you
want to say anything about that?
Mr. Echo Hawk. Just briefly. Perhaps I can make a comment
about the loan program, and Director Black could comment
briefly on the lease compliance and then Director Moore on the
residential.
INDIAN GUARANTEED LOAN PROGRAM
With regard to the loan guarantee, this is a good program
that the tribal leaders support, and they have spoken up very
strongly after seeing the President's budget and seeing the
decrease that is proposed here. And the concerns that were
raised, you know, had to do with duplication as there are other
Federal agencies that provide some loan guarantee money.
Mr. Moran. That they are eligible for, and you are going to
help them find those sources of funding, of loans?
Mr. Echo Hawk. That is the thought. Of course, there are
contrary views that our program has the unique application and
is much more flexible----
Mr. Moran. Has relationships already built----
Mr. Echo Hawk. In Affairs we know how to operate within the
parameters of reservations. So I think we are going to work to
make sure that this program has continuity. We are sort of on a
phase right now where we are working to make improvements.
Mr. Moran. It is a concern. Okay, Mr. Black.
LEASE COMPLIANCE
Mr. Black. Just real quick, sir. I will be happy to provide
you further information, in the very near future here. But just
in a nutshell, with the development of our TAAMS system, which
is our Trust Asset Accounting and Management System and a lot
of the modules that have been developed within that system that
allows us to better monitor our leases, a lot of the compliance
issues dealt with late payments or non-payment, and the system
now allows us to do a lot of that monitoring so we will be able
to realize some cost savings there.
[The information follows:]
Lease Compliance
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) manages over 100,000 active
leases for business, agriculture, grazing, oil and gas development and
Indian housing. The vast majority of lease compliance issues have
historically been with late rental payments or non-payment of rentals.
With the development of various modules in the Trust Asset and
Accouning Management System (TAAMS), BIA now has an automated,
electronic system that will allow it to monitor rental payments and
auto-generate delinquency notices to violators. In the past these
activities were performed manually by employees at each location where
the leases were issued. BIA believes that with the current technology
available in the TAAMS system, it will do a better job monitoring
compliance.
RESIDENTIAL PLACEMENT
Mr. Moran. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Moore, very quickly, on
residential placement?
Mr. Moore. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and thank you for the
question. Keith Moore, Director, BIE, a pleasure to be here.
The REP program is for our most disabled students, a very
difficult decision for us when we were going through our budget
to look at cuts on that, where we are in this economy and
deficit spending, things that we have to take into
consideration.
There are two pieces that we felt we could go and look for
resources for these students, one being regular IDA funds or
regular special ed funds. Could we service these kids through
our allotment of funds there and work with the U.S. Department
of Education if we needed further resources? The second piece
is we felt we could look at our policy within the BIE of
shipping these kids out of our communities and schools and
could we tighten that policy and serve them in our communities
rather than send them to a very expensive residential placement
program?
Mr. Moran. I see. Well, that makes some sense.
Mr. Moore. Those are the two----
Mr. Moran. I understand----
Mr. Moore [continuing]. We are looking at.
Mr. Moran [continuing]. That was the thinking behind it.
Thank you. Now, the next two, clearly you do not need to give
us an extensive response right now, but I do want to know how
the Carcieri decision is affecting your ability to carry out
your trust management responsibilities. So did you want to say
anything very quickly on that?
CARCIERI
Mr. Echo Hawk. Congressman, the Administration very
strongly supports the Carcieri fix because being able to take
land into trust is a very important thing. Republican and
Democratic Administrations have done this since 1934, and that
decision disrupted everything. It affects housing, it affects
law enforcement, it affects emergency services, it affects
economic development. So we are very strongly in support of----
Mr. Moran. As you know, this committee is as well, agrees
with you. And again, I want to thank the Chairman and Mr. Cole,
particularly, for the position that we took on that.
COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS
Lastly, it is a concern but this is something I do not
think that you can respond to but I want to raise it. And I
know the real issue is within the tribes themselves. But you
have got two large coal-fired power plants in the Navajo
Nation, the Four Corners Power Plant and San Juan Generating
Station. Fifteen percent of the population is suffering from
lung disease around those plants. The Four Corners plant emits,
I will not go through all the numbers, but it includes 2,000
pounds of mercury a year. You know, in my district, somebody
breaks a thermometer and the mercury spills out and we get the
HAZMAT team. And here we have got 2,000 pounds of mercury being
emitted every year in addition to 122 million pounds of
nitrogen oxide, et cetera.
In San Juan, you are emitting 1,000 pounds of mercury and
100 million pounds of sulfur dioxide and the same with nitrogen
oxides.
It is a major concern. I know that a lot of the tribes have
decided that the jobs are more important, but I would hope that
BIA would encourage looking at renewable energy in Indian
Country. There are some loans to develop that. There are jobs
that can be available, and you have obviously less
environmental impact but it is the kind of thing that also has
spinoffs for outside the reservations that could be
economically beneficial. Those are the three areas I wanted to
bring up. Thank you, Chief, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Lewis.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Chief and
gentlemen, I appreciate very much your being here.
TRIBAL CONFLICTS
Between Ken Calvert and myself in San Bernardino and
Riverside County, we have in excess of a dozen tribes, and we
have noted from time to time that not every tribal nation
agrees with the other one just automatically.
In our own region in the recent past, there was a major
conflict that developed between local law enforcement and one
of our tribes. It involved shootings where individuals were
killed, et cetera. The importance of having tribal nations be
able to have their own law enforcement or contract with local
law enforcement agencies is a pretty significant area.
Does BIA play a role in attempting to facilitate some of
these challenges?
Mr. Echo Hawk. Congressman, we do have some role. That is
primarily a function of the tribal governments, but we try to
be supportive and one aspect is the Special Law and Order
Commissions that we have the ability to provide, and oftentimes
that becomes a critical part in the local agreements that would
be made with these local law enforcement entities to cross-
deputize and so forth.
Mr. Lewis. I might mention to you that in the past, there
was a very successful initiative that was put forward by a
local sheriff that brought together a commission of a variety
of mix of law enforcement agencies and interests to make sure
there was communication up and down the line. With some
transition from one sheriff to another, the commission idea
kind of fell apart, and in the meantime, this cooperative
venture fell apart. And I would want to bring that to your
attention in terms of how we can find programs and efforts that
have been successful and try to sustain them beyond individual
sheriff's offices or administrations. Really, really important
to have our tribal nations work together. So I just ask you to
think about that as well as comment, if you would.
INTERAGENCY LAW ENFORCEMENT
Mr. Echo Hawk. These things about the local cooperation are
very important. I have reached out to the National Association
of Attorneys General and the Conference of Western Attorneys
General about trying to come to such agreements to resolve law
enforcement issues on a local level. So we are very much
interested in supporting that effort.
One of the things that the Tribal Law and Order Act
addresses is training that opens up the option of doing
training in state facilities of tribal officers, and I know
that the Conference of Western Attorneys General thinks that is
a really great idea because when you have the non-Indian
officers having the same training as the Indian officer, they
accomplish things that we do not seem to be able to do when we
sit down to write an agreement. They bond as fellow law
enforcement officers, and that was spoken of very highly.
Mr. Lewis. Great. I think you know that across the country
there are a variety of mix of law enforcement effort. Tribes
having their individual effort on the other hand, maybe
contracting with local agencies lead to a variety of mix of
experiences, and I would think that BIA's role in terms of
refining or at least communicating as to what seems to have
worked in one place versus another would be very helpful to the
tribes.
Mr. Echo Hawk. It is and we do have those success stories,
and we try to share that.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. Ms. McCollum.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is good to have you
here, and I have lots of questions but I will just submit some
of them in writing. But I think one of the things that has been
kind of touched on a little bit when you were talking about
helping to contract and do things for Indian Country, are cuts
in your budget--I got a budget put together because I was
trying to track what was going on just on Native American
health when I was on reservations or what was going on with
schools because Head Start would be in the school. And you
know, there would be Impact Aid which is handled in a different
spot, and it was like trying to put this spider web with all
these tears in it together to see what we had.
FEDERAL SUMMIT
So do you have the ability or do any of the Secretaries
report to you from the Department of Agriculture, the Army
Corps of Engineers, Commerce, Defense, Education, Health and
Human Services, HUD, your Interior, Justice, Labor,
Transportation, Veterans Affairs, I can go on and list more,
that all have line items in it that impact or directly work
with many of the bones of the programs that you have in the
Bureau of Indian Affairs? In other words, are you able to get
everybody together and just have a summit about what is going
on because a cut in Commerce could affect all that you are
trying to do with a grant program change. So that is the
question I have.
Mr. Echo Hawk. Congresswoman, there is of course more that
we can do, but we have tried very hard to reach across
Department lines and to work smart and collaboratively with
other Departments. Director Moore could talk about the work he
has done with the Department of Education. We have ratcheted up
the communication we have with the Department of Justice and
work on a regular basis with other Departments like Health and
Human Services. And you know, there is one program known as
Public Law 102-477 that allows Interior to be a lead agency in
pooling money from HHS and the Department of Labor and putting
it into one fund that the tribe controls. So you know, the
Tribes like that kind of thing when we pool resources and they
have more flexibility. So that may be a template for what we
could do in other areas.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you because it took government reform
working with the Navajo Nation to get HUD and the Department of
Energy and a whole group of people together to talk about what
they were going to do about the radiation contamination that
had taken place on some Navajo reservations, and I am going to
follow up.
I am not asking to jump-start schools that I visited
throughout Indian Country, but I never understand how the
school construction priority list works. There is one list for
each tribe that I visited in Minnesota, another one that I saw
in New Mexico, and at some point I would like to find out and
maybe it is with you, Mr. Moore, because I want to understand
because I do not want to undo something that is good, but if
something is broken and we need to fix it, we need to work on
it.
FEDERAL AGENCIES SHARED RESPONSIBILITIES
Mr. Echo Hawk. May I make a followup comment? I think it is
important. Tribal people have told me just in the last week
that what is really important is for people to understand that
the trust responsibility of United States is the trust
responsibility of the United States. It is not the trust
responsibility of Indian Affairs and Interior. So Tribes
actually strongly support having other Departments of the
Federal Government step up to the plate and meet their
responsibilities, like the Department of Education or Justice
Department, Agriculture Department, other Departments other
than Interior.
BIA WEBSITE
Ms. McCollum. And my time is going to run out. A Native
American crosscut of the Federal budget is on your website now,
too. You and I were told for years that they could not put that
kind of a budget together so people can look at it. I
appreciate the fact that it is on your website.
ELIMINATION OF BIA
In the remaining few seconds I have because I want other
members to have a chance to ask questions before we go vote,
there is a bill in the Senate, and the language that went with
the statement that was made by Senator Rand Paul, and I am
going to quote him. He introduced legislation, S. 162, and
addressing budget issues. And in his words, he is doing so by
``By eliminating the most wasteful programs, by eliminating
programs that are beyond the Constitutional role of the Federal
Government.'' He is talking about eliminating the Bureau of
Indian Affairs. I know the Administration does not support this
legislation. I know it has strong bipartisan oppositions, never
to come up, never to pass. I want to be clear on that. But
could you just maybe for the record say what would happen and
your view of constitutional responsibility in Indian Country?
Because I think you started talking about that before I cut you
off before. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Echo Hawk. Thank you. Very good question. And this
actually has been in part attempted back in the 1950s with what
is known as the Termination Policy, and it was launched in
1953, had a very short life, and has been repudiated by every
Administration, Republican and Democrat, since then. And within
the span of my lifetime, you know, actually we celebrated in
2010 the 40th anniversary of the Self-Determination Policy. And
there have been enormous gains in the quality of life for
Native people under that enlightened policy of recognizing that
the United States made commitments to Native people and having
the United States as a government step up and meet its
responsibilities and having Tribes have more say. So tribal
leaders appreciate the fact that the United States is doing
better and turned away from the Termination Policy.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, sir, for all your work, and thank
you, Mr. Chair, for your indulgence.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Calvert.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
commiserate with the Secretary, that both BYU and San Diego
State are not in the Final Four.
EDUCATION ASSISTANCE
I have a large Indian BIE school, and it is named Sherman.
Now, I know it is not named after General Sherman, but anyway,
it is large and you are very much aware of it. And one of the
things that is frustrating I know for a lot of the BIE schools
is that the flexibility they might have to get charitable
contributions or to use their property to get extra revenue to
give flexibility to the head school principal there, to use
that money to fund extra teachers or tutors or whatever. Do you
need legislative assistance to do that or do you have
flexibility to do that as a secretary?
Mr. Echo Hawk. Congressman, I actually visited the Sherman
Indian School. I take it that is in your district?
Mr. Calvert. Yes, sir.
Mr. Echo Hawk. And also I visited the San Manuel
Reservation.
Mr. Calvert. Right.
Mr. Lewis. That is somewhere in my district.
Mr. Calvert. That is in Jerry's district.
SCHOOL CONTRIBUTIONS
Mr. Echo Hawk. And when I was there at the school, they
told me about the generous contribution that the Tribe had made
to the school, and they were struggling with an MOU that they
had to finish when I got attention to that. We finished that up
as I understand. But the Solicitors of Interior I think have
indicated that there are other restrictions on receiving
charitable contributions, and that probably needs to be
addressed by Congressional enactment to clear the way if that
is, what is deemed to be a good idea.
Mr. Calvert. I worked with the Chairman and the Ranking
Member on this. I think I talked to everybody about this. I
know I talked to Tom about it. It just makes sense. Everybody
is struggling for money, and if you have got somebody that
wants to give it to you, you should be able to take it. So you
know, we ought to be able to work that out. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
FACILITY SPACE
Mr. Moore. A quick response to that if I could. One of the
issues was it was going to change facilities and they were
going to add on facility space. So then that added in the
bureaucratic issue of facilities and O&M and being able to
maintain and operate the building. And that was a big logical
piece, changing a facility and what it would mean for O&M and
further cost to the Government with that school, was part of
it. We were able to work our way through it, but it is
something that does, as the Assistant Secretary----
Mr. Calvert. If we can work on some legislative language,
it could fix it.
FACILITIES NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING
Mr. Moore. And one other comment if I could for the
Congresswoman, we are working on negotiated rule-making right
now for facilities which will, we hope, clarify the list issue.
It is probably the number one thing that we hear in the field,
facilities and how you get on the list and how schools get
built and what is the formula and all those sorts of things. We
are working our way through the process right now to really
clarify that so that it is understandable for everybody.
EDUCATION CONSTRUCTION BACKLOG
Ms. McCollum. Can you give us a dollar amount for your
backlog later----
Mr. Moore. We can take a look at dollar backlog. That would
come from Jack Rever who operates the OFMC for us.
Mr. Simpson. Is that the backlog of school construction
that needs to be done you are talking about?
Mr. Moore. Well, we are roughly, and the Assistant
Secretary may know this figure better than I, but we have $1.8
to $2.3 billion I believe in school backlog construction.
[Information to follow:]
Education Construction
The cost is $1.3 billion to bring the schools in poor condition to
good or fair condition as measured by the Facility Condition index.
Mr. Simpson. Yeah, because we have got $1.3 billion here,
but I suspect you--we have got 64 Indian schools that are
listed as in poor condition, and then the rest are in
acceptable condition, which is a little different sort of
terminology as opposed to good or fair. But acceptable, I am
not sure exactly what that means.
We have got about 4-1/2 minutes left in this vote. We are
going to come back after this, and I would hate to have us miss
the vote. So why do not we go vote? We have got two 5-minute
votes after this, or one 5-minute vote and then a vote on the
journal. So if you could wait, we would pause for 15 minutes or
so and be right back. Appreciate it. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Cole.
Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and just a
couple quick things. One, I just wanted to associate myself
very much with Mr. Moran's remarks about you and the role you
played and also the role he played. You guys have really set
the standard in working together. And Mr. Secretary, it is
always good to see you, and the longer I see you, the more I
like you because it means that somebody is in the job for some
considerable period of time. So I hope you continue to stay,
and you have made terrific contributions. And when we have a
new President, Mr. Simpson, I will ask that President to
reappoint you.
COBELL SETTLEMENT
Seriously, on a couple of things, I would like to get your
opinion. There is a lot of discussion in Congress right now,
and I know you did not negotiate the Cobell deal, but there is
a lot of discussion about additional legislation dealing with
lawyers' fees. Do you have any opinion as to whether that would
be helpful or not? My sense is it is not particularly helpful,
that this ought to be left alone, that it is pretty much done,
the congressional part of it, and we ought to let the judge in
this case do what he wants to do, and they can work this out. I
hate to reintroduce the issue here.
Mr. Echo Hawk. Congressman Cole, I have one tiny comment,
and then I have got to turn it over because I am recused from
Cobell.
Mr. Cole. Okay.
Mr. Echo Hawk. So Director Black can respond. On the
comment you made about my length of service thus far, I have
been here just a little over 22 months in the position, and
that makes me the longest-serving Assistant Secretary in more
than a decade. So I am going for the record now.
Mr. Black. Well, and unfortunately, my answer will be just
about as short as his is. At this time, I would really be
remiss to speak to the----
APPRAISALS
Mr. Cole. Okay. Fair enough. Second question, hopefully one
that you can answer, I noticed in your budget you are cutting
funding for land appraisers, but there is a backlog for land
appraisal necessary for energy production and economic
development on trust lands. How do you handle that?
Mr. Black. Now, for appraisals, that is funded out of the
OST budget, so I am not completely familiar with theirs. We are
working closely with OST dealing with appraisal issues, and we
realize that there is a shortfall there, you know, even in the
past budgets, and we are trying to work with OST on how we can
address their appraisal issues for any number of things that we
do, anywhere from land into trust issues to home site leases to
land sales and transactions.
LAND INTO TRUST
Mr. Cole. Okay. Third question here real quickly, and this
one maybe you can give us some idea on. The biggest frustration
I hear among tribes or one of the great ones is just the length
of time that it takes to put land into trust. What can be done
or is being done hopefully to streamline that process? Again, I
am well-aware of the problems you have with Carcieri and I have
a question on that coming up as well. But is there any way we
can get some more predictability into this process?
Mr. Echo Hawk. That is a very good question, Congressman
Cole. When I started out as Assistant Secretary, the process
was stuck in the mud. There were backlogs, and we formulated a
work group to try to get things rolling, and we were making
some progress. Secretary Salazar actually weighed in with all
12 Regional Directors and called them into his office and kind
of said we have got to fix the problems and asked them for
solutions. So you know, we have had a work group put together
that is working on revising our handbook that provides how we
conduct this process, and you know, we have had success. You
know, compared to the last two years of the prior
Administration, we have increased land into trust at a rate
increase of 488 percent. So you know, we are moving down tracks
pretty well right now, but we are not finished working on
streamlining.
Mr. Cole. I appreciate very much your keeping an eye on
that because as you know, it is just chilling sometimes for
tribes to wait for a long time.
CARCIERI DECISION
Last question and one other comment, I wanted again to
associate myself with the remarks Mr. Moran made about the
Carcieri issue. There is some concern with our colleague who is
obviously very good on these issues, of the Subcommittee on
Natural Resources, about the connection between Alaskan Natives
and that particular issue. Congressman Kildee had a bill last
year, I had a bill, we were able to attach one here. That is
fine, but do you have any concerns about how Alaska natives
figure in to the Carcieri fix?
ALASKA LANDS
Mr. Echo Hawk. That is a consideration because of course,
Alaskan Natives, they are just isolated tracks of allotted land
in Alaska right now, but the approximately 44 million acres
that Native people hold in Alaska is held through corporations
and it is not in trust status. And so I think that naturally
people in Alaska might want to know, you know, are we talking
about making 44 million acres of trust land? Right now Federal
regulation does not permit us to take land into trust. So it is
a consideration that it can be reasonably dealt with.
Mr. Cole. My understanding, and I am not going to hold you
to it and I may be wrong, but Chairman Young, what he would
like would be just an exclusion, that this legislation does not
affect the land in Alaska. Would that cause you guys any
problem if there were legislation that specifically set this
aside so we did not mix up the two issues?
Mr. Echo Hawk. Congressman Cole, I think that we would have
to consult with the Administration before we established a
position. We do not have a position on that, but we could
formulate a position on any kind of legislation. But it is not
our process to comment on bills that are not put in place.
Mr. Cole. Fair enough. We would like to have a discussion
with you about that because we are working on something like
that with Chairman Young right now, and we are trying to make
this something that does not cause anybody a problem. So again,
we will contact you at another time and just ask you if we
could run some language by you to see if there is some
particular concern or problem. If we can get one through, we
would like it. Obviously it would be something that the
President would feel comfortable in signing.
CATAWBA TRIBE
While Congressman Moran and I were on a trip together
recently, we got a call from the chief of the Catawbas, for
what you had done, frankly, in helping them. And you know they
have had great difficulty in that particular tribe and where
they are located. I just wanted to thank you very much for
intervening in helping them with the financial situation, the
problems they made. He was, you know, beside himself and could
not say enough good things about you and about how well the BIA
had worked with them to help resolve this problem. So thanks,
that was a big deal.
Mr. Echo Hawk. Thank you, Congressman Cole. I was actually
trying to dial up the chief of the Catawba this morning, and I
was not able to get through. I have got another little piece of
information that he would be happy about.
Mr. Cole. That is wonderful to hear. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Hinchey.
SULLIVAN COUNTY
Mr. Hinchey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it is a great
pleasure to see you once again, Mr. Secretary. Thank you very
much for being here, and I want to express my appreciation to
you again to coming up to Sullivan County and articulating
those set of circumstances there. That situation is still
unresolved. It is still trying to be addressed by a number of
people in various ways, but nothing significant has come out of
it yet. But we will see if there is anything else that is going
to happen over the course of the next year or so. It very well
may happen. In any case thank you. Thanks very much for what
you did, and thanks for being there.
INDIAN GUARANTEED LOAN PROGRAM
I just wanted to ask again about this Guaranteed Indian
Loan program which strikes me as something that is very
helpful, very significant to Indian business operators, people
who are trying to start business and the fact that this
proposal is being cut by about 60 percent, from $8 million to
$3 million. But as I understand it, the operation of this
activity, over the course of recent years, has been very
positive. There has been no loss. It has been very, very
effective. For the most part, it has worked very, very well. So
I wonder why or what the purpose would be of cutting this and
what the effect of that is going to be? What kind of negative
effects are going to arise as a result of the loss of this
opportunity for some funding for people who are trying to start
a business and change their lives?
Mr. Echo Hawk. Congressman, I mentioned that just last week
we had met with the Tribal Interior Budget Council, and we got
a pretty good earful from tribal leaders about their concerns
about the reduction that occurred in that program, and you
know, what they were saying to us is that this is vital for
economic development. As I recall, you know, there is a 13-to-1
leverage. You know, for every dollar that we can come up with,
they can go into private investors and generate 13. So it has a
pretty good economic development out there where it is needed
with a low default rate. But we are permitted to continue to
work to improve the program and, you know, convince anyone with
any concerns that this is something that ought to be continued
but, you know, right now we are in the phase of evaluating and
improving the program.
Mr. Hinchey. Well, I appreciate that, that you are still
looking at this, the cost. The circumstances that we are
dealing with in this country, as you know, I mean, this is just
a tiny aspect of it. But the major issues that we are dealing
with her are circumstances that are downgrading the economy,
and the economy is being downgraded primarily because of the
lack of investment into the internal needs of this country to
generate jobs, stimulate economic growth, upgrade the economy.
All of this is very, very important. And this is a small
example, but nevertheless, all of the history of this has been
very positive. It has generated jobs, it has stimulated the
economy. It has done things that were helpful for the economic
circumstances. So I am hoping that this little example here is
not going to be just pushed away, that it is going to come back
and come back strong and effective. And I deeply appreciate the
activities that you are continuing to be engaged in. Thank you
very much.
Mr. Echo Hawk. Thank you very much.
EDUCATION CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Hinchey. Let me get back and
ask a couple questions about schools. As Ms. McCollum was
saying, we have apparently $1.8 million to $1.3 million backlog
where schools that are in poor condition. And did I understand
you to say you are putting together a priority list of schools?
Is there a priority of how you decide which schools get
construction money first?
Mr. Echo Hawk. I will answer, and then if Keith Moore has
something to add. There is a formal process that is underway, a
negotiated rule-making, and we have a 25-member committee made
up of tribal leaders that have held a series of meetings, I
think, and in all, they will end up meeting about six times.
And they are tasked to catalog all facilities, school
facilities, and to specifically come up with a list of where
the repairs and renovation need to be made and also new schools
and make recommendations about what equitable distribution
ought to be occurring. And we are expecting that I think
perhaps even as early as later this year, I have seen two
figures on this, or early next year, we will be able to
formalize that process and then we will have a plan in place
that has a priority list for new schools and for repairs.
Mr. Simpson. What I would like to see next year when we
hold this hearing is a priority list of those schools that are
unacceptable, I guess, or poor, and a total of the backlog and
a plan to address that backlog over a period of time so that
the committee knows what we are buying into and how we are
going to address that. So I would appreciate that next year
when we have this budget hearing.
Mr. Echo Hawk. Will do.
Mr. Simpson. Go ahead.
NEW MEXICO SCHOOL
Ms. McCollum. I know you are going to do your very best
working with the tribal community to identify this, but I was
in a school in one of the pueblos in New Mexico where part of a
wing of the building was shut off. They think there is a crack
in the ground underneath the sewer. They have, and I should
know the right terminology following earthquakes the way I have
the past couple weeks. They put these little plates on where
they can measure whether or not the wall is separating because
there has been earthquake damage.
And so the school was basically condemned. It was
condemned. Then they sectioned off part of the building, and
they put a coat of paint on and they put these little things on
to measure to see if the building separated anymore. This did
not happen under your watch. Voila, the building was suddenly
not condemned anymore.
So when you are going through and you are looking at this
list, institutional memory rather than just looking at the
list, and I am sure you are probably going to do this working
with the tribal council, but as well as the tribal elders in
some areas to find out what the actual status of the building
is and not just necessarily trusting your list because it was a
miracle, you know, that a coat of paint literally took the
school off. And I have all the documentation in my office from
the pueblo on it. So it is that kind of backlog in trying to
work off these lists as the Chairman pointed out with these big
group all-call descriptions because I know you want to do the
best job that you can, and I am trying to say I know it is
going to be really hard to even come up with a category with
it.
EDUCATION FACILITY MAINTENANCE
And then if you have two pots of money, one for replacement
and one for maintenance, if we do not get ahead of the
maintenance, pretty soon we will end up replacing. And so my
comment, speaking for myself is, to be bold, to dream big and
to say what you need to clear this backlog up so that we do not
have deferred maintenance creating even more costs later on
because children know how a community feels about them by the
shape that their school is in. That is our gift to our children
for their future. And if a school does not say we respect you,
we embrace you, we cherish you, we welcome you, we want you to
succeed, we start out behind. And you already are dealing with
a lot of issues.
Mr. Chairman, I am sorry. I did not mean to take any----
Mr. Simpson. No, that is okay. I appreciate that, and I
agree with what you said. What we truly need is an honest
appraisal because that is what the committee really needs if we
are going to plan for the future. We are not going to be able
to address them all tomorrow, but we need a plan so that we can
see whether we are making progress or not making progress. So I
appreciate that.
EDUCATION ANNUAL CRITERIA
One other issue is the 2008 GAO report on the BIE schools
highlights failings that pertain to the selection and
coordination of adequate yearly progress or AYPs under the No
Child Left Behind Act. Among the 174 BIE-run schools, several
school systems report a lack of direction from BIE in forming
these annual criteria which present a challenge for each school
system as it attempts to craft a meaningful system of
performance majors. What steps is BIE taking to help schools
create the AYP goals to measure performance so we know how
children in these schools are doing? We not only want to
provide schools that are adequate, that are schools that
children can attend in safety, we also want them to learn
there. How are we measuring whether students are learning
there?
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a complex system
for us right now because we have schools in 23 states, and we
have a set of standards and assessments that is different in
each of those 23 states. So we have standards, you know, across
the board----
Mr. Simpson. Most schools have adopted their state standard
for AYP?
Mr. Moore. Correct. That is what happened in the previous
VSE reauthorization, that our schools would follow the states
where they are sitting. You know, you have CUT scores all over
the board, high, low and so forth across the 23 states. We
cannot compare apples to apples. We cannot compare our
students. It is very difficult. So under ESEA which we
obviously need to reauthorize as soon as humanly possible to
get a good bill in place to really move forward educationally,
we want to go to a common set of standards and assessments for
our 23 states. We are working with the Council of Chief States
School Officers and other states to make that possible for our
schools which would then allow us to run a common operating
environment when it comes to standards and assessments for our
schools.
ESEA REAUTHORIZATION
Mr. Simpson. As the Education & the Workforce Committee is
looking at reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act, I know that is high on the priority list. Is there
something specific that needs to be done in that to address
this issue with BIE schools?
Mr. Moore. Well, the adoption of the common core by the
states is the big one so that we can be uniform across the
board, across all states, to be able to assess our students,
follow standards and build curriculum for the students.
VIOLENT CRIME
Mr. Simpson. Okay. Last summer, this Subcommittee included
considerable report language directing the Department to engage
the Department of Justice, tribes, state, and Inspector General
to better address epidemic levels of sexual and domestic
violence, substance abuse and related criminal problems on
reservations. Could you update the committee on where we are on
that and what some of the major obstacles are that you have
encountered and how we overcome them?
Mr. Echo Hawk. We have had significant increases in
funding, and I think one of our key projects that we are doing
right now is the high priority performance goal on four
reservations where we have attacked violent crime, and this has
been a tremendous success so far to reduce violent crime by at
least 5 percent over a 24-month period. We are hoping to be
able to expand that into other areas. But one of the things
that we are really trying to do to attack crime is collaborate
with the Justice Department to make sure we are working in
close concert with them.
I have, you know, connected with the United States
attorneys that represent Indian Country. I have spoken to their
national group, been in face-to-face meetings. I recently had a
conference call with them, and we are trying to work smart
together. And we also have an exchange where we have somebody
that we have detailed to the Justice Department, they have
detailed somebody to us, to make sure that we are properly
communicating. We have got workgroups that connect with them to
make sure that we are meeting our responsibilities under the
Tribal Law and Order Act.
So this is a high priority of President Obama, and we are
really trying to do the very best we can to attack the crime
problems in Indian Country, and I think we are making success.
TRIBAL-STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGREEMENTS
Mr. Simpson. One of the real issues, and I do not know if
you get involved in this or if you should get involved in this,
whether the BIA should or not, that was mentioned earlier is
the recognition of tribal police officers and their
relationship with the state or the counties that they happen to
live in. I use this as an example: For the last couple of
years, the Coeur d'Alenes in Idaho have tried to get an
agreement with the counties that surround them and have the
state kind of approve it so that their police officers who go
to the post academy and are trained just like the police
officers in the counties can actually do their jobs on
reservations. Right now, if someone is speeding on the
reservation and you are a non-Indian speeding on the
reservation, you can get stopped and you can be held there
until a police officer comes from the State Police to give you
a ticket or whatever they are going to do, which just seems
bizarre to me. These tribal officers are highly qualified and,
like I say, have gone to the post academy just like the other
police officers. They cannot seem to get an agreement. One
county they are fine with, and that county actually supports
the legislation that was proposed in the Idaho legislature. The
other county has some issues that probably are extraneous, but
do you ever get involved in those types of issues, trying to
help state legislatures? Both you and I know, coming from state
legislature, that that is a sticky wicket to get involved in,
but to you play a role in trying to help them understand these
issues? It seems to me as I have tried to study over the last
couple of years law enforcement and the rights of Native
Americans and tribes, it is the most complicated set of laws I
have ever seen in my life. Depending on what type of tribe you
are, where you are located, whether you are a PL280, whether
you are a non-Indian committing a crime on a reservation or
another Indian committing a crime on a reservation and whether
you are committing that crime against a Native American or non-
Indian--I mean it is almost bizarre to try to understand this.
And I know the Tribal Law and Order Act was intended to help
clean up some of that. But there is still a long way to go in
trying to make this. Tell me about your job in trying to
resolve some of these problems.
Mr. Echo Hawk. Well, Chairman Simpson, your question takes
me back to the good old days. I was actually serving as the
tribal attorney, you know, at Fort Hall near where you grew up.
Mr. Simpson. Right.
Mr. Echo Hawk. And later becoming the county prosecutor.
And I worked on these cooperative agreements at the local
level. So I know there is a long list of the kind of problems
that you run into that you have got to overcome in order to
craft those agreements. And we have success stories all over
the country now, you know, because people have learned over
time that it is better to cooperate and come to agreement
instead of fight these jurisdictional battles. But one of the
really good things that we are starting to see more of has to
do with the training because I think I already mentioned, the
Tribal Law and Order Act has a section in there that encourages
training of tribal officers at state facilities, and then we
follow that up with the Bridge Program that allows those
officers that are trained in the post academies to be able to
get the specialized education that they need to understand the
jurisdictional issues in Indian Country.
So, you know, we need to attack the training and cooperate
with the states, you know, at the request of the tribes. They
have to be willing to do this. And then we have got to be able
to retain those officers, and one of the big problems is we do
not, depending on what area it is, some of these reservations
are very isolated, we have housing problems, we have got issues
with paying them what they are really worth. We train them, we
get them out there, they get experience and then they go to
work for the counties or the state where they can make more
money. So we are working on retention issues, and I think we
are progressing on these issues, and the big thing is can we
see more of these cooperative local agreements. And you know, I
think we are making progress. And actually, the Attorney
General of Idaho called me about that situation up in North
Idaho. I think that was Benewah County. And he had me waiting
out there, ready to come in and see if I could help, and he
never called. But he kept telling me, I am going to call you,
Larry. I kept reading about the issue in the paper, and they
should have called me in because it fell apart, right? So I
could have saved it, you know. I am just kidding. But I was
willing to go out. I told him I was willing to go out and try
to be whatever positive force I could be.
Mr. Simpson. I appreciate that. I know there are touchy
issues, and when you were the prosecuting attorney in Bannock
County, I was from Bingham County, and we always used to train
our police officers and then Bannock County would hire them
away because you paid more down there.
NAGPRA
One last question. According to a July 2010 GAO report on
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, the BIA
is one of two agencies that have made the least amount of
effort to comply with this Act. And that seems rather odd in
that this attempt to repatriate burial objects to tribes.
Please explain to me the agency's position, and the reason I
ask this is it had never come to my attention before but I was
having lunch with some tribes and they were talking about the
difficulty in getting some of the bones of their ancestors back
from some universities which they would like to repatriate, and
they told me at that time that the BIA was of little
assistance, I guess is the best way to put it. I do not want to
put words in their mouth, but that was kind of that attitude,
and then this GAO report pretty much says the same thing.
Mr. Echo Hawk. Well, the first thing I need to say, I was
not here when any kind of bad things happened, right?
Mr. Simpson. Right.
Mr. Echo Hawk. But you know, seriously, we did respond to
the report and cleared up I think some, things that we maybe
disagreed with. And there are also some legal issues involved
in that we have consulted with Solicitors on. But we have made
improvement already, and I would be happy to, you know, have
something presented to you in writing to mark the kind of
progress that we have made. But we still have challenges we
need to address.
Mr. Simpson. I appreciate that. Ms. McCollum.
[The information follows:]
NAGPRA
Indian Affairs has published a relatively high number of Notices of
Inventory completion (32), and a high percentage (99.88%) of
repatriations for the completed inventories. Indian Affairs is actively
pursuing and following through on repatriations. In addition, the
Indian Affairs Museum Program continues to fund contracts with museums
for NAGPRA compliance activities.
To strengthen its efforts, Indian Affairs is resurveying the non-
Federal repositories which are housing Indian Affairs NAGPRA items in
their collections to determine whether they have accurate and complete
inventories and summaries as well as compliance with NAGPRA. This
effort will allow Indian Affairs to have a true assessment of the
status of inventory and summary completion and properly determine the
actions, resources, and time needed for completion.
EDUCATION
Ms. McCollum. I would like to follow up with a couple of
education questions, and it might not be in your area as I
listed off all the Departments and Indian programs within them.
One of the issues, and I appreciated the Chairman bringing
up, is one big issue to consider in the reauthorization of No
Child Left Behind is the governors working together to come up
with some uniform core standards. So that is my understanding
those are the standards you would be looking at?
Mr. Moore. Correct.
Ms. McCollum. There is another thing that seems to happen
at times, and I think it has cleared itself up. I sent a letter
several years ago in the other Administration. When people were
looking for money to help children succeed, the tribes were
told that where they were not compliant and where they were not
doing good on Title 1 because Title 1 is not fully funded even
to the Native American tribal schools, to take the money out of
Esther Martinez, which is for core language improvement. And
Esther Martinez, by reinforcing a second language, a native
language, the first language of the people in the area in which
these children grow up traditionally, culturally, the parents,
their grandparents, children who do a second language do much
better in school. We know that Native American children need
every option put on the table for them to succeed as all
children do but especially we know that we have failed
collectively as a Nation these children the most.
So when discussions like that are taking place at the
Department of Education, do tribes come to you and say, hey,
they are telling us to use our Esther Martinez money for Title
1, and that is not what it was there for, and that is our money
for language, protection? Do you get involved in things like
this with the Department of Education? Do they look at you as a
collaborator or a person to go for advice and counsel, or do
they just do their own thing? I know you had mentioned you were
trying to develop those relationships, and then I am going to
ask two questions and they are both about education.
HEAD START
Head Start, what kind of waiting list do you have? I mean,
there is a huge waiting list for Head Start in general across
this country. But what kind of waiting list do you have for
Head Start, or what are some of the barriers in Head Start? Is
it dollars for transportation? What are some of the needs for
Head Start? Now, that program is in Health and Human Services,
but the program is also in Indian communities and reservations.
And this is where it gets so complicated. I am not trying to
put everything on your plate, and I will speak with the
Department of Education, too. But it is so inter-connected. And
then Impact Aid because not only do we have the BIE schools,
but people come up and ask for dollars for Impact Aid all the
time which is military but it is also for tribal schools. And I
have been in some areas where, in urban and suburban areas, not
only in the Twin Cities but around, in which the impact dollars
following the student could provide more services.
EDUCATION FUNDING
So the big picture is because you are the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, does everybody think that you can solve their problem?
And is there anything we can do as appropriators because we
serve on the Full Appropriation Committee to help you be more
effective in doing the kind of consultation that you would like
to do so that we can help you be more successful in allowing
Native American people, Indians, to be able to fully embrace
their full rights under the treaty obligations.
Mr. Moore. Thank you. Thank you, Congresswoman. I will
address the first one, U.S. DoE and Interior. I would like to
really thank Secretary Salazar and Secretary Duncan, they have
been big leaders in collaborating between the two, and it has
been very beneficial for us. We have roughly a quarter-billion
dollars that runs through us, the BIE, out to our schools from
the U.S. Department of Education, so they are obviously a big
player for us in terms of us, how we monitor that money, how it
goes out to schools. So we have our Interior Appropriations for
our schools, but we also have the U.S. Department of Education
monies that come through the BIE and out to our schools. So
they are vital, and they have been great. And we have had a
number of conversations with ESEA and a number of other areas
where we struggle in terms of the BIE being recognized and ESEA
and different languages and programs and so forth.
We have a number of issues, the second one being the Esther
Martinez Title 1 issue. The Assistant Secretary mentioned
earlier that we are funded right now, our tribal grant schools,
at 62 percent for tribal grant school costs, administrative
costs. So what happens in those situations when you are only
funded to a certain level, and we have that in a number of
programs that run through, they are only funded to a certain
level, then schools start wanting to dip into other funds to
obviously supplement and be able to do what they have to do.
That causes concerns. You do the A-133 audit. Is this allowable
by statute? Can they do this? And we end up having a number of
issues across the board of, you know, how you can cross lines
in terms of line item with budgets. There are a number of
programs. It is not just Esther Martinez and Title 1 and so
forth that we have those issues with. So that is a struggle.
Head Start, I mean, we would be able to talk directly to
Head Start. That is Health and Human Services, as you
mentioned, that they run that program. We obviously are very
tied in to what they are doing and how they are doing because
those youngsters are coming to our schools.
Ms. McCollum. And then you take----
Mr. Moore. Right. Yes. So it is tied to us, but we do not
oversee it, monitor it, or you know, do those sorts of things
with Head Start. And the Impact Aid goes to public schools on
reservation land. So BIE schools, we do not receive Impact Aid.
It is public schools on Indian lands or schools that are
adjacent to reservation lands that receive the dollars for
Impact Aid that go into those schools, and it is a very strong
sum of money that is really used for capital outlay and a
number of other areas in those schools.
So I hope that answers your questions.
Ms. McCollum. Public schools on reservation land? So if you
are not getting the dollars for the public school on the
reservation land, I mean, do people come and say to you, why
are we not getting the money? Why is this not happening? I
mean, part of my question is you are the first call for help
and you are the last call for the last solution to get
something done. So I am serious, what can we do? I know you are
trying to get cabinet secretaries and undersecretaries and
other people to focus. We have some success stories. But this
needs to be a foundation we build on, and it also needs to be
something that we need to be mindful in talking to our
colleagues about what is going on in Health and Human Services
if we really want to have an impact on success in our schools
and reduce suicide rates and reduce crime rates. Head Start, I
mean, there is a Federal Reserve report that proves it beyond a
reasonable doubt that Head Start is something that helps in all
those areas.
So just tell me what your average day is like in that, and
then I will be quiet.
TRIBAL INPUT
Mr. Echo Hawk. Well, Congressman, I appreciate your concern
and I can tell from your questions and comments that you seem
well-informed about these issues, and I commend you for that.
We have a policy that any tribal leaders that want to meet
with us, we accommodate them if they come to Washington, D.C.
But not all tribal leaders can. And so I have really tried hard
to travel into their communities. I have been in 38 states in
the past 22 months and meet regularly with tribal leaders, and
you know, I hear their voice. But when they speak up, what they
tell me does not necessarily relate to Indian Affairs and the
Department of the Interior. So we try to reach across the
Department lines to communicate the concerns that we hear, and
I very much appreciate what I am hearing as an invitation to
suggest ways that maybe this Subcommittee and the larger
Appropriations Committee, how they could maybe address some of
these concerns that we are hearing that we really do not have
direct authority over. So we will consider that, and I
appreciate the outreach that I am hearing from you today.
Ms. McCollum. But the Chairman has to agree. He is the
boss.
Mr. Simpson. Oh, I agree. We try to work with other
committees, and we try to work with the Department of Justice
to help address some of the issues in Indian Country, and we
will continue to do that with the Department of Education. And
if there are ideas that we have, that committee members have
that we can be helpful with, just let us know. We are more than
willing to work with it.
I appreciate you being here today. As I said in the
beginning, Larry, you know, we are old friends from days gone
by, and you mentioned that you had been here 22 months and you
are the longest-serving secretary in more than a decade. And
that is truly one of the problems I think created in the Bureau
of Indian Affairs is that it takes a long time, as you well
know. And you did not come to this position as a stranger to
Indian Affairs. It takes a long time to get your arms around
both the problems and the good things that are happening out
there. And I expect you to stay for a while because I am sure
you have got your--or at least getting your--arms around them
and starting to see some of the things that we can do to
improve life in Indian Country. And we want to work with you,
and we do not want to start over with a new assistant
secretary. So I hope you will stay, and we look forward to
working with you to try to address some of these problems.
Thanks for being here today.
Mr. Echo Hawk. Thank you very much.
Mr. Simpson. You bet.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.033
Thursday, March 31, 2011.
INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE FY 2012 BUDGET REQUEST
WITNESSES
YVETTE ROUBIDEAUX, M.D., M.P.H., DIRECTOR, INDIAN HEALTH
SERVICE
RANDY GRINNELL, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE
Opening Remarks of Acting Chairman Cole
Mr. Cole. Welcome, Director Roubideaux and Deputy Director
Randy Grinnell.
The fiscal year 2012 budget request for the Indian Health
Service is a $571 million increase, or 14 percent over fiscal
year 2010. Of that increase, $327 million, or 57 percent, is
just to maintain current services.
The rising costs of health care are staring this
subcommittee in the face. The United States has an obligation
to provide quality health care to American Indians and Alaska
Natives, and as Chairman Simpson and Mr. Moran have already
demonstrated, meeting that obligation will be as high of a
priority of this subcommittee and the 112th Congress as it was
in the 111th Congress. It will not be easy.
The reality is that once this subcommittee has been given
its allocation, the Indian Health Service will be competing for
limited funding against our Nation's aging water
infrastructure, the operation of our national parks, the
fighting of life-threatening wildfires, just to name a few.
We are pleased to have the two of you here today to
continue our dialog about how to ensure that every dollar
appropriated to the IHS is money well spent.
Mr. Cole. With that, I am happy to yield to my friend, the
distinguished gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Moran, for any
opening remarks he might have.
Opening Remarks of Mr. Moran
Mr. Moran. Thanks very much, Acting Chairman Cole and
Chairman Simpson, and Dr. Roubideaux, very nice to see you
again.
I would like to put in a quote here just because Mr.
Simpson enjoys them so much.
Mr. Simpson. That is why I wake up every day.
Mr. Moran. It is by Sioux chief, Chief Sitting Bull.
Actually the first full-length book I ever read was on Sitting
Bull because it just happened that my parents gave it to me. He
is quoted as having said, ``Behold my brothers, the spring has
come. The earth has received the embraces of the sun and we
shall soon see the results of that love.'' This is springtime
and that is why the quote is so appropriate. ``Every seed
awakens and so has all animal life. It is through this
mysterious power that we too have our being and we therefore
yield to our neighbors, even our animal neighbors, the same
right as ourselves to inhabit this land.'' Pretty wise and
insightful. It certainly is as wise as any of our Founding
Fathers.
But to get back to the point before us, we are all blessed
with the mysterious miracle of life and most people in this
country are blessed with good health and a long life, but in
Indian Country, as we know, it is a different story. As the
Indian Health Service has noted, Native Americans and Alaska
Natives die at higher rates than other Americans from
tuberculosis, 500 percent higher rate, alcoholism, 514 percent
higher incidence, diabetes, 177 percent higher, unintentional
injuries, 140 percent higher, homicides, 100 percent higher,
suicide, 82 percent higher. And while their life expectancy has
increased, it is still 5.2 years less than those of all other
races within the United States.
I was disappointed, therefore, that a majority in the House
voted to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
because I really do think that that is going to be a terrific
complement to the Indian Health Service, and you made that
point last year, Doctor. That disappointment was compounded by
the fact that the repeal included wiping out the
reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. It
has been nearly two decades since the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act was last reauthorized and efforts to update and
modernize the law took years of work. Enhancements that the
updated law provides include authorization for hospice,
assisted living and long-term care as well as comprehensive
behavioral health, prevention and treatment programs, all of
which would have been wiped out under H.R. 2, which did pass
the House in January.
There is an old saying that a person should take care of
themselves because good health is everyone's major source of
wealth, but for Native Americans and Alaska Natives, that
saying rings hollow when many do not have the means to afford
or even the fiscal access to quality health care.
While the proposed increase in the budget for the Indian
Health Service does appear to be quite large, these additional
funds have to be viewed in the context that more than 57
percent of the increase is just to maintain current services.
The IHS serves approximately 2 million Native Americans and
Alaska Natives. It is a population that desperately needs
health services. Providing access to quality health care for
Native Americans and Alaska Natives is the mission of the
Indian Health Service, and that is why this is such an
important hearing, and why we are pleased as we could be, Dr.
Roubideaux, that you are responsible for it and it is very nice
to see Mr. Grinnell with you and your staff.
So again, thanks for having the hearing, Mr. Chairman and
Mr. Chairman, and we look forward to the testimony. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. Director.
Testimony of Dr. Roubideaux
Dr. Roubideaux. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
good morning. I am Dr. Yvette Roubideaux and I am the Director
of the Indian Health Service, and I am accompanied today by Mr.
Randy Grinnell, the Deputy Director, and I am pleased to
testify on the President's fiscal year 2012 budget request for
the Indian Health Service.
While the President's budget for the entire Federal
Government reflects hard choices necessary to control the
deficit, the IHS budget request reflects a sustained commitment
by President Obama to honor treaty commitments made by the
United States, reflects Secretary Sebelius's continued priority
to improve the IHS and represents one of the largest annual
percent increases in discretionary budget authority within the
Department of Health and Human Services.
This budget request was built upon tribal priorities and
maintains current services and also focuses program funding
increases to be distributed broadly across as many patients and
communities as possible. The budget request for IHS is $4.6
billion, an increase of $571.4 million, or a 14 percent
increase over the fiscal year 2010 enacted funding level.
The request includes increases to maintain current services
including pay costs for Commissioned Corps personnel, inflation
and population growth and funding to staff and operate newly
constructed facilities, including facilities completely
constructed by tribes under the Joint Venture construction
program, and the success of the Joint Venture program
demonstrates the strong commitment of the Administration and
our tribes to reduce the backlog of health facility
construction projects and staffing needs.
The budget also includes a total increase of $169.3 million
for the Contract Health Services program, the top tribal
priority for program increases, and this will help us meet the
significant need for referrals for medical services in the
private sector. The budget request also includes $54 million
for the Indian Health Care Improvement Fund and will allow
approximately 88 of our lowest funded hospitals and health
centers to expand primary care services. To fund the shortfall
in contract support costs, a $63.3 million increase is included
for tribes that have assumed management of health programs
previously managed by the Federal Government.
The budget request also includes modest increases for
health information technology security, prevention of the
principal risk factors for chronic diseases such as smoking and
obesity, and expanding access to and improving the quality of
substance abuse treatment in our primary care settings.
For the facilities appropriation, the total health care
facilities construction budget is $85.2 million for
construction to continue on the replacement hospital in Barrow,
Alaska, and the San Carlos Health Center in Arizona, and the
Kayenta Health Center on the Navajo Reservation. It will also
fund the design and site grading of the Youth Regional
Treatment Center in Southern California.
This budget helps us continue our work to bring reform to
the Indian Health Service. In the first year that I was
Director, I sought input from tribes and staff on where
improvements are needed in IHS. In the second year, it has
become clear that input from stakeholders has reinforced the
need for change and improvement in the IHS, improving the way
we do business and to focus more on our oversight
responsibilities to ensure accountability and providing quality
health care in the most effective and efficient manner
possible. We are working hard to make the improvements and
implement the recommendations of the Senate Committee on Indian
Affairs Investigation of the Aberdeen Area.
This budget also includes funding increases for direct
operations and business operations support to help us improve
our business capacity and oversight. While we are making
progress on implementing the Indian Health Care Improvement
Act, permanent reauthorization is included in the Affordable
Care Act. This budget proposes funding for two high-priority
demonstration projects: youth telemental health project for
suicide prevention and innovative healthcare facility
construction.
While IHS has proven its ability to improve the health
status of American Indians and Alaska Natives over the years,
this budget request for IHS is really a necessary investment in
winning the future that will result in healthier American
Indian and Alaska Native communities.
So thank you for the opportunity to present the President's
fiscal year 2012 budget request for the Indian Health Service,
and I am happy to answer questions.
[The statement of Yvette Roubideaux follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.041
Mr. Cole. Thank you, Director. I am only in this chair
courtesy of Mr. Simpson, who has pressing commitments
elsewhere, so I am going to go straight to him so he can ask
whatever questions he cares to.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Chairman. I appreciate it, and
thanks for taking the committee today. I apologize for having
to slip out to another committee hearing that I have to chair
here in a few minutes, but I did want to come down for your
testimony.
You and I have had the opportunity to talk about Indian
Health Service, and I think as we have demonstrated, both
Republicans and Democrats on this committee are committed to
making sure that we improve Indian health across this country.
It is not a partisan issue with this committee. I think when
Mr. Moran was chairman, he did a great job and we appreciate
that, and if you saw in H.R. 1, although it has been called a
dump truck, among other things, I think everybody agreed with
the increase that we actually put in for Indian Health Service
in H.R. 1 as a demonstration of our commitment that we have got
to address some of the real problems that exist in Indian
Country, and I know that you are doing a great job and I look
forward to working with you on these issues as we move forward.
As you probably also know, I was a dentist in the real
world before I was elected to Congress, which is a whole other
story I will not get into. So I have a couple dental questions.
DENTAL SERVICES
In 2008, the Indian Health Service's GPRA summary report
noted that only 25 percent of American Indians and Alaska
Natives had access to dental care, and those that do find
themselves without the ability to receive many of the routine
procedures such as root canals or endodontics, as we like to
call it. Root canals make people kind of cringe. Adult services
are generally limited to emergency care, if at all. How does
the President's IHS budget recommendation address the dire need
for dental services in Indian Country and what is IHS doing to
help tribal nations attract and retain qualified professionals?
Dr. Roubideaux. Well, thank you for your question, and I
really appreciate your advocacy for dental care in the Indian
Health Service. It is a very serious and significant need for
addressing because we have high rates of dental caries and
other dental problems. Well, this budget has $170 million for
the dental line, which is an $18.2 million increase, and that
includes increases for pay, population growth and staffing of
some of the new clinics, and it is allowing us to continue to
provide basic preventive care services and basic restorative
and emergency care, and we really feel that this is an
important priority, especially for our children, and that is
why we have our Early Childhood Caries Initiative to try to
reduce the rates of childhood caries.
You know, I think based on a lot of encouragement,
especially from you, we know we need to get more dental
providers into the Indian Health Service and more dentists
because we do need to have more health care providers. We have
worked very hard on that. We have created a recruitment
website. We have our recruiters working very hard on it. We
have had materials developed. We have a dental externship
program that brings dental students in to work with us, and
then we have had an increased focus with our loan repayment
program and with our bonuses, and so we have actually seen a
reduction in our vacancy rate for dentists from 35 percent to
17 percent, which is great but we still have more work to do.
So we are going to keep working on improving dental services
for American Indian and Alaska Native patients in the Indian
Health Service.
Mr. Simpson. But we have seen about a 50 percent reduction
in the vacancy rate?
Dr. Roubideaux. Yes.
Mr. Simpson. That is good work, and we appreciate that very
much.
ELECTRONIC DENTAL RECORDS
In 2009, the committee directed IHS to use a portion of its
HIT funds for electronic dental records. How far along are you
in installing the EDR at all IHS dental facilities and are the
tribes' facilities also on the same EDR, and is additional
funding needed to complete this project, and if so, how much
and how many years will it take at a current funding level?
Dr. Roubideaux. Well, the electronic dental records system
is extremely important so we can track our clinical and
administrative data related to dental care. Fortunately, with
ARRA funding and with our own funds, we have been able to
complete its installation in 60 sites, and 21 are currently in
progress. There are still 149 left to go, and we would need a
significant appropriation to get those complete in a short
period of time but we are very committed to it. We are
installing those in both IHS and tribal sites, and it will help
us improve and track the quality of care.
Mr. Simpson. Any idea how long it will take under current
levels to get the other 149 sites online?
Dr. Roubideaux. Under current levels, I can give you an
exact number through a written response, but I believe it is
going to take several years under current levels.
EARLY CHILDHOOD CARIES INITIATIVE
Mr. Simpson. Okay. Lastly, last year IHS announced the new
initiative for reducing prevalence of early childhood tooth
decay among young American Indians and Native Alaskans by 25
percent and increasing their dental access by 50 percent. Could
you give us an update on the progress of that initiative? Last
year we asked what funding level would be needed in the IHS to
make having all children entering school to be free of tooth
decay. Have you been able to determine what amount would be and
will any of the additional $18 million you are requesting for
the dental program go to address this serious disease?
Dr. Roubideaux. Well, we will definitely put resources
towards the Early Childhood Caries Initiative because we think
it is so important. It has an important goal of reducing caries
and increasing access to dental care for children zero to five
years old and getting more fluoride, more varnish and more
sealants. We are currently evaluating this initiative and would
be happy to provide you information as the details are
available. I believe we have looked at what sort of resources
we would need to equal the private sector in terms of access,
and I believe it is an increase of 600 percent in the amount of
funding that we would need to equal the private sector overall
for dental care, but we are really committed to doing the Early
Childhood Caries Initiative because it is innovative, it is
unique. It is a partnership with our communities and some of
our community providers and CHRs and so we are very committed
to it.
Mr. Simpson. Well, I appreciate that, and I would encourage
you as you move on in this to work with the American Dental
Association and other associations that have some good ideas on
how to address this serious problem in Indian Country. A lot of
people do not think of dental caries as a serious disease. It
is the most prevent disease in America, and what we do not
understand sometimes with children, it is hard to go to school
and learn when your tooth hurts. It is way too close to the
brain to ignore, and so it is hard to learn when you have got
those problems, and more children miss school time because of
dental disease than almost any other disease, I think than any
other disease. So it is not just an issue that I am concerned
about because I was a dentist in the real world, it is an issue
that is real and one that I know you are working on and we want
to work with you to make sure we address it.
Thank you for being here today. I apologize for having to
leave early but I know we have had conversations in the past
and we will continue to have them as work on this budget, and
thanks for the work you do.
Dr. Roubideaux. Thank you very much for your support.
Mr. Simpson. You bet.
Mr. Cole. Mr. Chairman, I want you to feel free to leave
whenever you like as often as you like.
Mr. Moran.
Mr. Moran. As Mike is leaving, it should be underscored
what a terrific job he has done on BIA and on the Indian Health
Service, and that kind of insight into what dental caries mean
in the life of a child is important. You are a good guy, Mr.
Simpson. You really are. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
INDIAN HEALTH CARE REAUTHORIZATION ACT
One of the enhancements contained in the reauthorization of
the Indian Health Care Improvement Act is the ability of the
IHS to enter into agreements with the Department of Veterans
Affairs and the Department of Defense to share medical
facilities. Those are resources that we really need to take
advantage of. Have you entered into any of those such
agreements, and what are your plans for that part of the
program that was within the Indian Health Care Reauthorization
Act?
Dr. Roubideaux. We have had a few examples of entering into
the sharing agreements. We are really grateful for the passage
of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act that will help us do
that on a larger scale. We have begun discussions with the
Veterans Administration. I met with Secretary Shinseki last
May, and I was really pleased to see how supportive he is of
American Indian and Alaska Native veterans and so we signed an
updated memorandum of agreement this past October, which is
going to direct our staff to work together to better coordinate
services for eligible veterans and included in that will be a
review of how we can better share the services and the
facilities as is contained in the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act.
Mr. Moran. I bet there are a lot of Native Americans who
are veterans, are there not?
Dr. Roubideaux. Absolutely. I meet Native American veterans
all the time when I am out on the road. My father was a World
War II veteran and I am very proud of his service, and I am
really excited that we have a VA Secretary who is so committed
to working on Native American veteran issues, so it is a big
priority for me personally.
SANITATION
Mr. Moran. Good. Excellent. In IHS's own data, it shows
that about one of eight, 12 percent of American Indian and
Alaska Native homes, do not have safe water or basic sanitation
facilities. The budget increases funding for facilities
construction and maintenance, as you mentioned, but it cuts
funding for water, sewage and solid waste disposal facilities
construction by $20 million. Safe drinking water and open dumps
are major problems in Indian Country. Can you tell us what we
are doing about that, which I trust is a priority of yours?
Dr. Roubideaux. Absolutely. Well, I hear from tribes all
the time the problems of water and waste disposal and how
serious that is and how they need to have the sanitation
facilities construction and there is an overall enormous need.
We were very fortunate in the last couple of years to get
funding through the Recovery Act, $68 million for the Indian
Health Service and another $90 million from the EPA, and so
many of those projects are still underway and still in
progress. So when we looked at the budget for 2012, we have all
been asked to find areas where we might be able to have some
savings related to the budget and so this was an area where we
felt some savings would be less painful because we already have
all the projects that are involved and the funding that we do
have in the budget for 2012 will fund 18,500 homes to get solid
waste disposal and sewer for their homes. So it is a very
important priority but we feel that there is so much funding
that we got in the last two years that we are still working on
those and that is really helping us.
Mr. Moran. But you would agree that open dumps are a
serious problem in Indian Country?
Dr. Roubideaux. Absolutely.
Mr. Moran. This is the last question I want to ask, and I
am glad Ms. McCollum is here. I am going to have to run off to
the defense hearing as well.
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PREVENTION INITIATIVE
Over the years, we have made it a priority to fund domestic
violence and sexual assault programs in Native American
communities. It obviously is criminal but it is really a
horrible endemic problem within many communities, and so we
upped that amount consistently. Can you give us a report on
what we achieved with those additional funds?
Dr. Roubideaux. Yes. Well, I really want to thank you and
the subcommittee for their support of this issue. We are really
grateful for the $10 million a year that we have for the
Domestic Violence Prevention Initiative. We have actually
awarded 65 projects as of last August, and they are
implementing domestic violence prevention programs in
communities. They are coordinating services in the community
response to this terrible problem. We are also expanding our
services for sexual assault in terms of the SANE, SAFE and SART
at some of our 24/7 sites. We have also been able to update our
national sexual assault policy and just recently signed that,
and we have been working on curriculums and working on
improving how the Indian Health Service addresses this very
serious problem, and I can say that the programs are in
progress. They are doing well. We are providing technical
assistance and evaluating them so as soon as we have evaluation
results, we will be happy to share those.
Mr. Moran. Thank you, Dr. Roubideaux, and thank you,
Chairman Cole. Thanks very much.
Mr. Cole. Before I ask you a couple questions, I just want
to get something sort of in for the record, and first of all, I
want to thank Mr. Moran for his absolutely extraordinary
leadership last year when he was chairman and his continuing
commitment on this. He has just been terrific to work with on
these issues, and if you are from Oklahoma, you sort of have to
be for Indians. You would be pretty stupid not to be. But he
does not represent a large Native population and yet his
commitment has been every bit as great as anybody's in
Congress, so I appreciate it very much.
Mr. Moran. Not as great as yours.
Mr. Cole. You are kind to say that, but that is not true
and I appreciate it, Chairman.
The second point I do want to make quickly for the record,
I know there is some concern in Indian Country about what will
happen if the Affordable Care Act is actually repealed, and the
current Majority's position was that should have never been in
the bill in the first place. It would have passed separately.
It had already passed the Senate. We actually tried to get it
passed in 2008. The House for whatever reason did not take it
up. We should have passed it then. And then it got put in the
health care bill where it put it, in my opinion, personally, at
risk because standing individually it would have passed
overwhelmingly. It had great bipartisan support.
I have introduced legislation that actually is the Indian
Health Care Reauthorization bill so in the event were ever to
happen, and it is not going to happen obviously any time soon
that this legislation were repealed, there will be another
vehicle to immediately move through the process so that we do
not miss a beat in terms of Indian health care. We do think
that is a treaty obligation, as you mentioned, and again, this
committee in a bipartisan sense is very much committed to
fulfilling that. So for what it is worth, I do not think at
least Indian health care is at much at risk as others might
think.
JOINT VENTURES
Let me ask you some questions on one of my favorite topics,
and you are very familiar with it, and that is the Joint
Venture process, which my own tribe has certainly benefited
from enormously. How has IHS planned the outyear budgets for
Joint Ventures as new facilities continue to come online? I
think you will see more and more of these, and the upside
obviously is you are bringing new money into the system that is
being directed toward health care, but I know it has got to
create some unique challenges for you in terms of budgeting.
Dr. Roubideaux. Well, we are very supportive of the Joint
Venture construction program, and the reason is, is it is a
great way for us to make progress in the enormous need for
health care facilities construction, and I am grateful for your
support as well. I know we have some great projects that have
happened in Oklahoma. And the deal with Joint Venture is that
the tribe agrees to build the facility and then we agree to
request the appropriations from Congress for the staffing of
the facilities, and we are very supportive of all the projects
that we have approved and all of the projects that are in
progress. What we do every year in the budget formulation
process is we look at all the projects and we look at their
anticipated start dates and how they are doing on progress, and
some projects they go faster than we think and some projects go
much slower than we think, and so we do have to juggle
sometimes. But it does require us to have a consistent
commitment over time in the budget for staffing so that we can
be able to respond when the facilities are open, when they are
ready to open.
And so what we have done is for the fiscal year 2012
budget, we have proposed $71.5 million increase that will cover
six new health centers that we anticipate will be completed in
this time period, and also we have a placeholder for two Joint
Venture projects so that if some of those projects fall into
the time period of the 2012 budget and they are ready to go,
that we would have funding available for that. It is dependent
on appropriations but I do think that there is bipartisan
support for the Joint Venture construction project. I have
heard a lot of people say it is important. The tribes really
think this is important, and we are very committed to keep
working with the tribes and keep offering opportunities for the
Joint Venture program but also to be mindful of the available
dollars. We do not want to promise too much. We do not want to
have too many waiting in line. But I do feel that the request
that we have for 2012 will help us continue to make progress.
Mr. Cole. So you are pretty comfortable that we will not
find ourselves in a situation where facilities have been
constructed and you do not have the wherewithal frankly to
actually meet your end of the deal in terms of staffing?
Dr. Roubideaux. Well, we hope not. If for some reason we do
not get staffing money or we get a reduced amount, that does
cause some alarm and we are going to have to really work
closely with the tribes on the timing, but I am hopeful that we
will be able to handle that.
Mr. Cole. I really appreciate your efforts in this regard,
and would ask that you just keep us very closely apprised of
your needs because I do not think any of us want to see
facilities built that then we cannot follow through from a
federal side with the commitments that we have made, because
this is a great way to leverage money.
URBAN PROGRAM
I have got of course many questions but one other thing I
want to ask before I yield to my colleague from Minnesota. I am
also interested in your view and your plans in terms of Indian
clinics that are not particularly affiliated with tribes. We
have one in Oklahoma City, one in Tulsa. They serve all Native
Americans, and the one in Oklahoma City actually sits outside
of Indian Country theoretically because it sits in lands that
were historically not assigned to any tribes but it carries an
enormous patient load and really it offers first-class care,
and frankly provides opportunities for Native Americans that
are away from their tribes, to get good health care, which they
still have a right to do. So if you could, tell us about
clinics that may be located outside of Indian Country but
serving Indians. What is the role that the IHS plays there and
what do you see in the future? Again, we have got a lot of
Indians in cities or places away from their tribal lands and
they sometimes have a very difficult time getting access to
good health care.
Dr. Roubideaux. Well, you are absolutely right. I mean, the
original Indian Health Service was developed to serve primarily
reservation and rural communities but over the years due to a
number of factors--Indian people wanting to seek education or
wanting to seek employment or better opportunities--have moved
to urban areas and so if you ask the tribes, they will say the
treaties apply wherever you are and so we do have a commitment
to try to serve the urban Indians in major metropolitan areas,
and we have an Urban Indian Health program that has 34 sites
around the country. The Oklahoma City and the Tulsa sites are
very successful and they provide great services. I toured the
Oklahoma City site and was very impressed with it, and they
actually are very unique because the passage of the Indian
Health Care Improvement Act has given them a new status also to
be a service unit within the Indian Health Service so they sort
of have a dual status, and I understand the tribes are
consulting on what that is going to mean in terms of resources
and relationships in that area, but I think it is a great
opportunity for those two sites which are doing such a great
job, but the Indian Health Service is committed to doing what
it can to serve the health care needs of American Indians and
Alaska Natives wherever they are.
Mr. Cole. Thank you, Director.
Ms. McCollum.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you. One followup on the discussion of
repealing the health care act, and Representative Cole and I
disagree on parts of the main part of it, probably agree on
some of it, but we stand, I believe, united in what was passed
for Indian Country.
So I will make a comment, Mr. Cole. I will not pretend to
know how all the rules are written because this is very
different than a state legislature where the rules stay
consistent from body to body, and that to me is what regular
order is all about. Everybody knows what the rules are going to
be every single time whether it is a majority or minority
switches. But because it is an independent act, because it is a
third act, I keep trying to ask my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle who want to repeal the first two acts, leave the
third act in place, and so I think we are trying to accomplish
the same goal. I do not want to see the first two parts
repealed but I do believe that unless there is some
parliamentary reason why we cannot separate the two, why we
cannot push for those who want to do the repeal and replace on
the first two sections just to focus on that and to leave
standing the IHCIA permanent reauthorization. But thank you for
having a plan B because that is important.
Maybe you could comment. Would it be as seamless as some of
us would hope if the whole act was replaced and another act had
to go through and happen? I mean, I think that there is a
possibility that there would be a glitch. If you have any legal
opinion on that, I would be happy to hear that at the end of
this.
I want to go back on two points just to kind of dig in a
little more. I have been asking this of the schools, and I did
come in here just a tad late so maybe this has already been
asked. Have you had an opportunity yet to ask for a full
facilities backlog? If you could provide to this committee a
full facilities backlog? If you could also provide to this
committee all the different ways in which you are interrelated
to CDC, NIH, National Science Foundation doing research, all
the other agencies that you work with. Because when I go into a
health care facility and I start asking who has responsibility
for this, the tribal leaders and the tribal elders, I mean,
their eyes are huge and their hair is standing on end because
the frustration of dealing with the Bureau, dealing with CDC. I
mean, the list goes on and on and on and on. And so it is very
easy when there is a problem for the finger pointing to start
happening, not because anybody does not want to do their job,
it is just because it is not clear which happens first or who
has full responsibility. So the chairman, I think, is very
interested in trying to figure out how we as appropriators work
with even our colleagues in the full Appropriations committee.
I was in a health care facility in New Mexico. I have been
in some where I have watched the community come together with
the Bureau and do fantastic and amazing things in facilities
that were only designed to handle one-quarter of the population
that they are seeing. I have also been in a facility in New
Mexico in which I wanted to tell the people there to get up and
leave. It was filthy. I was underwhelmed with the director. It
is not a place I would send anyone even for triage, not even to
get there to get assessed to see where they should go next. It
was embarrassing, and I left there and it still haunts me.
Another facility I was in in New Mexico does not do
delivery service, and I can understand that maybe there is not
enough women coming through the facility to have the obstetrics
and gynecology that it really needs, but it is asking women in
the rural communities to come in as far as the Albuquerque area
and then drive another 30 minutes into Albuquerque because they
do not do deliveries there. I understand why they do not do
deliveries there after talking to some of the Native American
women who were there but they can still kind of go there for
some of their regular checks but then they are handed off to a
different doctor, a whole different delivery system.
So I would be interested to know if you have a plan that
you are putting together in rural communities to look at the
following. Some of the hospitals should not be functioning as
hospitals anymore. This is my opinion. They should be
functioning as A number one five-star clinics, and if we are
honest about that and talk to the community about what we can
provide and provide what is top notch, I think everybody wins
with better care.
Secondly, I would be interested in knowing how in the major
part of the health care bill, which I really think has some
great, great things in it, how you go about providing that
seamless care when you do have someone go to a hospital, when
you do have someone who has been maybe seeing a nurse
practitioner or a physician assistant for their early term of
their delivery and then the delivery gets handed off. Do we
have people who are licensed to practice in both places so that
people can meet who is going to be doing the delivery later on?
When does the handoff happen? I am a mom who had an intern
deliver my second child. I know things do not go as planned,
okay? I know that that might not be the same doctor but still
having that ability having been in the facility, go through the
facility and meet people ahead of time reduces anxiety. And so
I just want you to big-picture talk about health care. As you
can tell, this is more broad than it is specific.
The other question that I have is, and Mr. Healy was
telling me but I think he knew I already knew this. You know,
57 percent of health care for Native Americans is delivered in
urban settings, and my district and Keith Ellison's districts
are probably the example of it. You know how they have the all-
tribal call at the pow-wows? That is our area. So we have
people who summer, who go back and forth, have elders visiting,
whatever, that is going on, and that has been a huge challenge
keeping that health care seamless too, especially for diabetes
care. So some of the things that are in the Affordable Care Act
that I really am excited about, look at the holistic approach--
medical records, just how you work together as a team.
And then my final question is, as people want to stay in
their homes and as we see younger generations not wanting to
stay on the reservations as much and some reservations have
been very mindful of that and have created opportunities for
their youth to stay there, how do we keep from having an
elderly population that is vulnerable and is isolated when it
comes to having a whole team approach for their health care?
I am not asking another question and I am not expecting to
solve things but I just wanted you to know, I know that one
thing pushes over into another, so how are you with the best of
your abilities trying to manage that interagency, urban-
suburban, hospitals that should not be functioning as
hospitals? How do we help you?
Dr. Roubideaux. Well, thank you for your comments and thank
you so much for your concern. I am really grateful when I find
Members of Congress who are really interested about Indian
issues. You know, when I was confirmed as the Director of the
Indian Health Service about a year and a half ago, it seems
like the challenges are daunting and enormous and how can we
possibly address the need, but what I found is, there is a lot
of energy and enthusiasm about ways that we could improve the
system, and my priorities are all around reforming the Indian
Health Service, looking at how we can change and improve in
both systems ways and big-picture ways and in small ways.
IMPROVING PATIENT CARE INITIATIVE
I appreciate your enthusiasm about the part of the
Affordable Care Act that talks about coordination of care. We
actually for the last couple of years have had what is called
an Improving Patient Care Initiative, which is our patient-
centered medical home initiative, and we have so far been able
to expand that to 68 sites in the Indian Health Service and in
tribal programs and some urban programs, and we just had the
launch of the third cohort of this initiative, and the level of
enthusiasm in the room was unbelievable. People are so excited
and coming up with innovative ways to really take a look at,
okay, how do we function as a team, not just, you know, running
around not coordinating our care, how do we make sure that we
put the patient first at the center of care and what do we need
to do to improve the quality and to use quality improvement
tools to make sure we are improving care. And many of the sites
are choosing different topics to focus on, and I will go back
to my staff and see if any focused on prenatal and obstetric
care as a part of their Improving Patient Care Initiatives and
then we can send that to you in a followup question.
Ms. McCollum. The infant mortality rate on some
reservations is worse than in other places in the world.
Dr. Roubideaux. Absolutely, and we are working very hard to
address that issue, and I am hopeful that some of these
improvements can help us improve the quality of care.
The other thing that I want to mention briefly, we will
give you more information in our followup responses, is that
there is a provision in the Indian Health Care Improvement Act
that gives the director of the IHS increased authority to look
at how American Indian and Alaska Native health care is
addressed throughout the Department of Health and Human
Services and so I have actually been doing a lot of work
meeting with other agency heads, attending meetings and making
sure everybody is aware of what the issues are in tribal
communities and what the issues are in Indian health
facilities, and we have started to work on some collaborative
efforts throughout the different agencies. One really promising
one is the big need we have for health care providers, and
HRSA, the Health Resources and Services Administration, I have
met with them and we have talked about how we can get more of
our sites eligible for and able to receive some of the National
Health Service Corps health care providers--doctors, dentists
and behavioral health providers--into our Indian Health sites
to address some of our vacancy rates. One of the ways to
improve quality is access to care.
And so it is those kinds of collaborations that we are
working on to try to leverage resources from other agencies to
make sure that we are maximizing all of the resources we can
bring to the table to improve care for American Indians and
Alaska Natives and so we would be happy to follow up many of
the points that you have made in answers, in written answers
after the hearing.
SMALL GRANTS PROGRAM
Mr. Cole. Director, let me move to several other areas, if
I may. IHS works very closely I know with the Tribal Advisory
Board in preparing your budget request. It is my understanding
that there was roughly $6 million in the small grants program
that was zeroed out without consultation of the Tribal Advisory
Board, so two questions. One, is there any particular reason
why that consultation did not take place? Perhaps I am
misinformed and I would be happy to be corrected if I am. And
second, where in your budget are you going to address the needs
that in the past we were dealing with in the small grants
program?
Dr. Roubideaux. Well, thank you for that question. We have
all been asked to find ways to save in the budget and help
contribute to the challenges we have today with the federal
deficit and the budget and so even though we are grateful for
an increase of 14 percent, we still need to be good stewards of
our federal resources. And so one of the areas where we are
proposing savings is in grant savings, and we have a number of
small grant programs that fund one to nine or 11 grantees that
are proposed for elimination, and the reason we did this was
actually based on tribal consultation. I know that there is
word on the street that we did not consult with tribes but the
fundamental basis for this is that tribes have told us that
they want the funding to go directly to their health programs.
They do not like to compete for competitive grants if they do
not have to. They would much rather see the funding benefit a
greater number of tribes and so as we looked at the budget, we
wanted to save our clinical services and to protect the basic
health care services that we have, and while we know these are
extremely important topics that are covered in these grant
programs, as we look around the budget it seems like the impact
would be a little bit less because only a few sites are
actually proposed.
So what I have been doing since the budget justification
has been public is, I have been meeting with tribes in various
venues and discussing these proposed savings and I have been
asking for their input on that. We are evaluating these
programs for those savings and are definitely committed to
partnering and consulting with tribes. So this was a way that
we can maybe have some resources benefit more tribes and
address the concerns they have about some of the competitive
mechanisms that are in place.
CONTRACT HEALTH SERVICES
Mr. Cole. Okay. You mentioned in your testimony the
increase which we all really appreciate, frankly, on Contract
Health Services. How close is that going to get us to 100
percent? You know, how much progress do you think we will be
able to make with the additional funds that you have? This is
always difficult because it is a moving target to ever get in
balance but looking forward as far as you can. I understand the
budget is a very difficult process. What sort of long-term
goals do you have in terms of being able to sort of cover as
much as possible, if not all, of Contract Services?
Dr. Roubideaux. Well, yes, the Contract Health Services
program is a top tribal budget priority because it is used to
pay for referral services that we cannot meet in the facilities
that we have, and that is the challenge of the Indian Health
system is that some communities have large hospitals, some
communities have small clinics, and each provides a different
package of services and so whatever services we need to provide
that cannot be provided in that facility we have to use this
Contract Health Services fund. I am really grateful for the
increase that has been proposed. It is $169 million increase,
and that is going to help us purchase an additional 5,700
inpatient admissions, 218,000 outpatient visits and 8,000 one-
way patient travel trips, and while it is great progress and we
are really grateful for this, there is an incredible need for
Contract Health Services to pay for referrals in the private
sector, and we have been able to estimate that the total unmet
need for Contract Health Services, at least on the federal
side, is about $859 million, and that is just the information
we have on the federal side. There are also the tribally
managed programs as well, so the need may be greater.
But we have made great progress. Last year in the 2010
budget, we got $100 million increase, and for 2012, now we are
proposing the $89 million increase plus current services, which
is a total of $169 million. So it does not totally meet the
need because the need is so great, but it is a sustained
commitment to try to continue to make progress and in this very
important area. I had an 80-year-old woman speak to me at a
listening session recently and she told the story of, you know,
people need these referrals. These are medically necessary
referrals and we are limited on the historic underfunding of
the Contract Health Services program but we are really grateful
that the increases we are getting now are helping us start to
address that need for these referrals to the private sector.
Mr. Cole. I have got several more but I want to go back and
forth so my colleague from Minnesota has an opportunity to ask
her questions as well.
HEAD START
Ms. McCollum. A question I asked the Assistant Secretary
yesterday, and it goes again to the web analogy, was about Head
Start. The Bureau provides the frame, skeleton in which all the
activities take place. Part of Head Start is that it does
screening for children for eyes, hearing and that. How does
that work or what is your interface with providing some of the
screenings for Head Start, which also includes dental? Because
if kids cannot hear, if they cannot see, if they are in a lot
of pain with dental problems, they do not do well in school so
part of Head Start is not only getting them ready with some of
the tools that they need, helping mom and dad reinforce what
they need to do for reading at home but also making sure that
they have a healthy start when they start out with Head Start.
So what is your interaction and collaboration with the Head
Start program?
Dr. Roubideaux. Well, I do know that there are examples of
how Indian Health Service health care providers or nurses or
community health representatives may interact with Head Start
programs, which are funded by the ACF, Administration for
Children and Families, within the Department of Health and
Human Services. I do know that some of our prevention programs
also reach out to Head Start to do some education and so I
would be happy to--and the ways that they reach out are very
different in different places so I would be happy to--provide
some written followup to your questions so we could see the
range of those kinds of collaborations.
Ms. McCollum. That would be great. Mr. Chair, I talk about
Head Start a lot because everybody talks about doing pre-K, and
not that Head Start is the most perfect program and it is
different because the community organizations can structure a
little differently, and I think we need more uniformity for
best practices for Head Start, but it is the only pre-K program
in which we have a longitudinal study done on it and it was
done by the Federal Reserve, so that is kind of an impassive
group when you think about looking at kids and really kind of
doing the cost-effectiveness of it if you just want to look at
the dollars. But Head Start is complicated in community
organizations. Even back home in our traditional Congressional
districts, I see the dollars that the tribes are putting in to
make sure that they have the good facilities, that they have
the language instructors and everything else. I mean, yes, I am
glad that tribes are doing that but there is also a
responsibility, a treaty responsibility for us collectively as
the United States to be doing our fair share. So I do not want
Head Start programs start to becoming the haves and the have
nots either because I think that will hurt the program later on
and that means kids do not get good delivery of service.
Could you maybe talk about dental a little bit? Because the
elders get excited when there is a dental clinic. I will tell
you, to use a term, the smiles light up when you hear there is
a dental clinic.
Mr. Cole. If I may interrupt, as we heard earlier, Mr.
Simpson gets excited too, so we will talk about as much in
dentistry as you want to talk about, Director.
Dr. Roubideaux. Yes. Well, thank you very much. I am
actually a beneficiary of the IHS dental services, and I think
they did a pretty great job on my dental care. We recognize
there is a huge need for dental services in all ages in the
Indian Health Service and particularly for the young and the
elders. We talked about how the budget is used in the Indian
Health Service for preventive care and restorative care and
emergency care, and we have a couple of initiatives, the Early
Childhood Caries Initiative, which is looking at reducing
childhood caries in age zero through five, and it is sort of a
collaboration between the Indian Health Service and the local
community resources, and that reaches out, I believe to Head
Start as well. And so that is a program that we are very proud
of. We are evaluating it and we are hopeful that we will be
able to achieve our goals in that very important program.
We are working on implementing our electronic dental record
to make sure that we can evaluate the work that we are doing
and trying to expand services in dental services with the
budget. Whenever we construct a new health facility, that helps
bring in more services and more providers. We are also doing a
lot more to recruit dental providers into our communities and
actually have been able to reduce the vacancy rate from 35
percent to 17 percent through a very targeted and focused
effort over the last couple of years and I think based on the
interests of this committee in encouraging us to do that and
through a number of different activities that I have mentioned.
So it is a big priority for us. I completely understand as
a physician how dental health can influence the health of the
entire body and can be both a physical, mental and social issue
and we are committed to working on it.
IHCIA FACILITIES PROVISION
Mr. Cole. Director, I want to give you an opportunity to
expand on something that you mentioned in your testimony,
because I am not sure I fully understand it, and I may have
gotten the phrase wrong but I think it was your innovative
facilities initiative. Tell me a little bit about that, what it
entails and what you are planning.
Dr. Roubideaux. Well, there is a provision in the Indian
Health Care Improvement Act that talks about demonstration
projections for innovative health facilities construction, and
it lists a couple types of things such as modular facilities or
potentially specialty centers and those sorts of things that we
do not normally have as a part of our current health facilities
construction program. And so we know that health facilities are
a top tribal priority and looking for innovative ways to
construct any kind of health facilities is beneficial to the
great need that we have for health facilities construction. So
based on tribal input, we placed a $1 million request in the
2012 budget for a demonstration project related to innovative
health facilities construction, so that would be further
defined if we are able to have the funds appropriated and
implemented.
DIABETES
Mr. Cole. Okay. Can you tell me, there is probably no
disease that afflicts Native Americans disproportionately as
much as diabetes. What are your plans there and how well
equipped are you to deal with that right now?
Dr. Roubideaux. Right. Well, American Indians, Alaska
Natives, we are on the front end of the epidemic of diabetes in
the United States. We have had high rates of diabetes since the
1970s, and Indian Health Service has a diabetes program and a
network of diabetes programs to address this serious and
challenging problem. We were really fortunate in the 1997
Balanced Budget Act to get a Congressional appropriation for
the Special Diabetes Program for Indians, and that program has
done an incredible job in terms of implementing diabetes
prevention and treatment services in around 400 communities,
IHS tribal and Urban Indian Health programs. We are really
grateful that Congress passed extension of the Special Diabetes
Program for Indians for two more years through 2013, and we are
consulting with tribes right now on what to do with this
additional two years.
But we also have in addition to the community-based
programs in the Special Diabetes Program for Indians, we have a
demonstration project that occurred over five years to look at
prevention of diabetes in people at risk and prevention of
cardiovascular disease in individuals with diabetes, and that
five-year demonstration projection has exceeded all
expectations. It is incredibly successful. The diabetes
prevention program piece was able to achieve through community-
based programs that provide basic education on nutrition and
physical activity the same amount of weight loss as the
original NIH-funded research project, and that is incredible
because translational efforts that translate research into
real-world communities usually only achieve half or less of the
results of the original study because they are less controlled.
But I think the enormous creativity and energy and spirit of
these community-based programs, they were able to achieve the
same level of weight loss, which means that they could reduce
the incidence of diabetes by 58 percent. And in the Healthy
Heart Initiative, they were able to show in their evaluation
that they were able to reduce the risk factors of
cardiovascular disease, which is a growing problem in Indian
communities as well.
The great thing about the Special Diabetes Program for
Indians projects, I loved working with them in my previous job,
is to just see these communities come up with really innovative
ways to teach about diabetes and to prevent it and to treat it
and incorporating culture and traditions in some of the
education has really made a difference. So I am very proud of
the Special Diabetes Program for Indians. I am grateful it is
extended for two more years and I think our tribes were
cheering when they heard that news, and we are really looking
forward to continuing to evaluate our efforts over the years to
make sure that we are having the full impact.
CHILDHOOD OBESITY
Mr. Cole. Another area where obviously there are
disproportionate problems and where the First Lady to her
credit has just done great things obviously is childhood
obesity, and I would like to know whether or not you partner
actively with the First Lady's efforts and what are the
programs that you have underway there. Getting kids off to a
good start makes all the difference down the line.
Dr. Roubideaux. Absolutely. We are partnering with the
First Lady's initiative and we are really excited about that
because it is so important to help teach children healthy
habits when they are young and to reduce the rate of childhood
overweight and obesity. In our fiscal year 2012 budget request,
we do have a request for chronic diseases, and a part of that
is to do a demonstration project on reducing risk factors such
as childhood obesity, and the purpose of that would be early
identification and referral of young children with overweight
or obesity. And so we are going to be doing more screening in
clinical settings, educating the doctors and the nurses about
how to screen for overweight and obesity, how to counsel both
the child and the family and how to refer them to get the
treatment that they need to address that risk factor.
We also have a Healthy Weight for Life strategy that we are
unveiling in our communities soon, which is to help provide
guidelines for both community members and for health care
providers about what we can do as a community, and that is the
thing about obesity, it is a condition that is heavily
influenced by the environment within which the individual
lives, and, you know, the United States with the environment of
fast food and sitting at a desk every day and not moving as
much, we are ending up having rising rates of obesity in the
entire United States. I think we have some good examples in
Indian communities where tribes have stepped forward to try to
help with these issues. One of the things I love about the
Chickasaw Nation's new hospital is that not only do they have a
dedicated diabetes clinic and also a pediatric clinic but they
have incorporated traditional things around the hospital to
promote health so there is a walking trail around the hospital
so that while patients are there they can go walk and get some
exercise. Even the staff could go walk. And there is also
traditional garden that they have outside of the hospital with
some traditional plants, and it helps get back to the point
that we did not have diabetes 100 years ago, we did not have
obesity 100 years ago because we were moving more and we were
eating healthier, and if we can--one of the best ways to help
teach our patients about how to prevent obesity or diabetes is
to recall our history and our traditions, and people really
resonate with that kind of education because we all respect
where we came from and we know we were a healthier people, and
it shows that it is possible that we can be healthy again.
Mr. Cole. I have one last question, which is going to be
sort of a sum-up question but I want to see if my colleague has
anything she would like to ask.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
When you talk about the integrated facilities, I was in a
facility about four or five months ago where they had an auto-
fill prescription which freed up this pharmacist, and he was
fabulous. He was from the community, went to school, came back.
He was just an anchor and a role model for the kids. Having the
auto-fill freed him up to have more interaction. Would that be
considered part of the facility? When you are talking about
facilities, sometimes it can mean some of the equipment if it
is attached to the wall. Sometimes it can mean large pieces of
equipment that are brought in as part of it. So if you do not
have the answer for that right now, I would be curious to know
because freeing up a pharmacist's time to explain, to motivate,
to help, to comfort can be really, really important.
Dr. Roubideaux. Absolutely. I am glad you have seen one of
our great pharmacies in the system that has been able to
purchase one of these systems to help them with the work flow.
You are right, they can spend more time counseling, and that is
what is unique about Indian Health pharmacists is that they do
more patient counseling and more treatment than they would in
the private sector. When we build a health facility, those
things can be included.
But I do also think that some of our health facilities are
looking at their budgets, they are looking at their collections
and they are trying to find ways to implement those kinds of
things in the pharmacy and so we can provide a followup report
about how extensively we have done that so far.
Ms. McCollum. And I had an evil earmark in the health bill
that did not move forward, and it was a community-based request
from the Mille Lacs Band because they are really struggling
with diabetes, but part of what they are struggling with, and I
know that you can get inclement weather in other places, is the
travel time for dialysis. Do you have or can you get this
committee some of the challenges that--I mean, we want to
prevent people from getting diabetes or needing that kind of
intervention to begin with, but when we have two or three days
where a blizzard, ice storms and that knock out travel, that
how does that affect services for communities where you already
have people sometimes traveling an hour. In parts of rural
Montana, you can be traveling two hours to get to dialysis plus
you do the care plus you are driving back. Quite often it is
elderly people. Have you worked with anyone to see what is
going on out there with dialysis and where we do have to
provide it what we can do to make it safe? And I do not mean
convenient like, it is almost 20 minutes away, I mean
convenient that you are not worried about spending a whole day
driving in inclement weather after the state troopers had told
you to stay home.
Dr. Roubideaux. Well, yes. Dialysis services are something
we wish we did not have to do but it is an unfortunate
complication of some of the chronic diseases that we are
facing. The Indian Health Service originally did not have the
authority to provide dialysis services and so often we would
have to refer people to outside facilities to have dialysis
done, and you are right, in some rural areas they have to
travel long distances to go there. We do have some tribes that
have taken the initiative of working with private sector
partners and actually building and operating dialysis
facilities within their own communities, and that has been a
great help for those communities where the patients do not have
to travel. Dialysis is a challenge for an individual because
they have to have it oftentimes three times a week and it is
four hours at a time, and if they have to factor in the travel
time, it can take up the entire day.
What we are really excited about is the fact that the
Indian Health Care Improvement Act now gives the Indian Health
Service the authority for dialysis services, which we did not
have before, and so we have heard from tribes that this is a
priority and we are looking forward to working with them and
seeing what best practices are from the tribes who have run
their dialysis centers and also trying to figure out how we as
an agency will move forward now that that authority is in
place, and as we are planning for requesting appropriations for
that kind of a service what the need is in Indian Country, what
are the best practices and what the IHS versus the tribal role
will be, but it is clear it is important to have these services
in the community rather than traveling many miles away. We have
heard horror stories of people trying to get through to
dialysis in blizzards, as you say, during storms and
transportation costs can be very costly for them as well. So we
are committed to looking at this new authority and trying to
plan in consultation with tribes how we are going to address
this in the future now that we have the authority.
Ms. McCollum. Well, thank you for your work and thank you,
Mr. Chair, for your generosity.
Mr. Cole. Thank you. Thank you for your interest.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
There is one other specific matter that I have been made
aware of that I wanted to ask you about before I get to a
closing question. The committee has been made aware of an
unusually high number of Equal Employment Opportunity
complaints and other workforce grievances in Aberdeen, South
Dakota, regional office. Our understanding is you have had an
internal review. You have been looking into this. What can you
tell us about the situation and where are we at in corrective
action?
Dr. Roubideaux. Well, yes. As you know, the Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs had an investigation on the
Aberdeen area and looked at various management issues. One of
the issues was the high rate of EEO complaints and Equal
Employment Opportunity complaints are related to allegation of
discrimination, whether it is based on race or age and so on,
and this was a big problem in that area, and what we did is, we
reviewed how they are handling the EEO complaints in the area
and actually at their request we have moved the oversight of
the EEO process to headquarters rather than being in the
Aberdeen area, and we have actually seen a decrease in the
number of EEO complaints.
I also think that there has been dissatisfaction with the
EEO complaints because people were filing them when they had
grievances about workplace-related matters, and in all of the
EEO process it is very rare to find actual proven
discrimination based on race or age or gender and so on. So
really, usually what the employee has is a grievance and a
problem with their supervisor or another coworker and what we
are doing is improving our human resources. We are going to be
doing more training for all of our employees, not just in the
Aberdeen area, to try to help people manage the relationships
that they have with their coworkers and their supervisors in
the area.
We have been very aggressive at addressing the
recommendations of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. It
is clear that the findings that they had are completely
unacceptable and I am taking a very strong tone with all of our
staff that we will address these issues and there will be no
excuses. I have put in all of the agency performance plans
measures that address all of the issues that were found in the
Aberdeen area and in all of our leadership plans, not just in
the Aberdeen area. We have also put corrective action plans in
place in the Aberdeen area to address many of these issues and
we are doing reviews of all of the other IHS areas to make sure
the problems found in Aberdeen are not happening in other
areas. So we are taking a very aggressive approach. I am
grateful that Secretary Sebelius is having her program
integrity committee help me with some of the recommendations
for the things that we need to put in place.
The problems in the Aberdeen area have been there since I
was a child. I remember stories from my relatives saying oh,
problems with this and that. So they are longstanding problems
and we cannot fix them overnight, but I am really confident
that we are putting in some fundamental changes that over time
will help us make improvements, not only in Aberdeen but ensure
these things are not happening elsewhere.
Mr. Cole. I appreciate very much your focus, and quite
frankly, your transparency on this and your determination just
to deal with it directly, so thank you very much for that.
Let me end with this, and it is a kind of a whither Indian
health care sort of question that I want you to reflect on. You
have done a lot of great things as director and this committee
I think in a bipartisan sense certainly is very committed in
doing what it can to help you and to work with the
Administration. We have a common goal here that transcends
partisanship and a common sense of obligation that this is
something the Federal Government has neglected for a very long
time or underfunded and underresourced for a long time, and we
all want to do everything we can to correct those problems and
move forward. But despite that commitment and despite your hard
work and the hard work of other people at IHS, I think it is
worth just for the record for you to remind us how far behind
we are, that is just generally what is the health care of
Native Americans, their lifespan, their disease rates, whatever
numbers you want to use vis-a-vis the rest of the population so
the challenges are unique and that is something I think people
beyond this committee need to be aware of.
And secondly, in terms of resources, the average American,
I am told, gets $6,900, $7,000 roughly worth of medical care or
resources per capita, if you will. How would that number
compare to what is available to Indian Country and to Native
Americans in general?
Dr. Roubideaux. Well, thank you. It is very clear that
American Indians and Alaska Natives have an incredible need for
health care services in addition to it being a responsibility
and a treaty obligations. American Indians and Alaska Natives
still suffer from significant health care disparities in a
number of areas. Their average life expectancy is lower than
the U.S. population and the health disparities are greater in a
number of areas. The Indian Health Service has been able to
improve that over time, primarily related to providing access
and quality health care, but it is clear that there is still
much to be done and so we are doing what we can with the
improvements we are making in the system and also in our budget
request to demonstrate strategies for trying to improve but it
is very clear that with the historic underfunding and the
health disparities we have a long way to go and it is an
enormous challenge but I am confident that we can make progress
over the next few years because there is so much support. There
is bipartisan support in Congress. There is support from the
President and support from the Secretary, and the tribes, also
I have been pleased to see how they are willing to partner on
some of these efforts because the challenges that the Indian
Health Service or any other single entity cannot solve these
problems alone. Health is not only a medical and health
facility issue but it is also a community issue and that is why
I really believe our priority to renew and strengthen our
partnership with tribes is going to help us as we look towards
improving the health of American Indians and Alaska Natives.
Your question about the per capita expenditures on health
care for American Indians and Alaska Natives, it is really
clear through a lot of the data that we have that these numbers
are much lower than the other federal health care systems. For
example, if you look at the Indian Health Service, the per
capita expenditures on health care are around $3,300 per user,
and that compares to almost $7,000 per capita for the United
States in total, and it is also much less than Medicare,
Medicaid, federal employees' health benefits, the VA, even the
prison system, and that is what our tribal leaders just hate to
hear is that we are getting less funding per capita than the
prisons and other federal health systems.
But we are committed to trying to address the historic
underfunding of the Indian Health Service. We do what we can
with the funding that we have, and we do everything we can to
maximize the dollars we have and be efficient and effective
with the funding that we do have, and we are just grateful to
Congress and the President for the 2010 budget, which was a big
increase for us, a 13 percent increase, and we are also excited
about the President's request for the 2012 budget. A 14 percent
increase demonstrates a sustained commitment by all to try to
help address some of the needs that we have in Indian
communities.
We understand that there is a lot of talk about the deficit
and the need to be more responsible with dollars and to work on
improving the budget, but I really appreciate how people
acknowledge that the Indian Health Service, there are treaty
commitments and there are responsibilities that date back many
years and so we are doing our part to try to maximize the
dollars and improve and reform the Indian Health Service so
that it meets the needs of the patients that we serve, and I
really appreciate the support of this committee and all of you
for your bipartisan support of the Indian Health Service and
health care for American Indians and Alaska Natives.
Mr. Cole. Well, Director, we appreciate very much your
commitment and your tenacity and your dedication to this over a
lifetime, not just over your tenure in this particular
position, and also very much appreciate your emphasis on
involving tribes not only in consultation but tribes, those
that have the means are almost always willing to invest in the
health of their own people and creating those opportunities
where they can hopefully be prosperous and put money back in a
place that we need it and I think will let us stretch the
federal dollars a little bit further as well.
Thank you again very much for what you are doing. We look
forward to working with you not just this year but over the
years, and I think you will find this committee, whoever is
sitting in this chair and whichever party is in control, as was
demonstrated in the last couple of years, is going to be as
supportive as it knows how to be of your efforts. Thank you
very much.
And with that, we are adjourned.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.064
Wednesday, May 11, 2011.
NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS, FISCAL YEAR 2012 BUDGET REQUEST
WITNESS
ROCCO LANDESMAN, CHAIRMAN
Opening Statement of Mr. Simpson
Mr. Simpson. The committee will come to order. Chairman
Landesman, I want to thank you for joining us this morning to
testify about your fiscal year 2012 budget request. We look
forward to learning more about the NEA's work and your goals
for the future.
By the end of this week, our subcommittee will have
conducted no less than about two dozen hearings to weigh the
merits of everybody's budget request because of the intense
competition for federal dollars this year. Like many of the
agencies that receive funding through this subcommittee, the
Arts Endowment finds its budget under pressure because of the
tight fiscal environment we are facing. Your budget request,
which is just slightly above the fiscal year 2008 funding
level, reflects that reality.
At the end of the day, I believe the focus should not only
be on the size of the NEA budget, but on the quality of the NEA
programs that serve our constituents. Whatever funding is
available to support the NEA's mission next year should be used
to support proven quality programs with broad geographic reach.
Changing the overall direction of the NEA, particularly in this
budget environment, could very well undermine long-established
bipartisan support for the arts in Congress.
You know from our conversations in Washington and during
our time together in Idaho last year that I am a supporter of
the arts. I am particularly proud of the Idaho arts community,
the Big Green, the Shakespeare in American Communities,
Challenge America, and other NEA grant programs are the
lifeblood of the arts in Boise, Jerome, and many other
communities throughout the state. It is my hope that these and
other proven popular initiatives, all of which enjoy strong
bipartisan support in Congress, will continue in the coming
years.
I also appreciate the NEA's efforts to work with state art
organizations because it is how we reach rural communities in
Idaho and other rural states in this country. In 1997, Congress
wrote into law that 40 percent of the NEA program funds must be
allocated to the states through their state arts agencies, or
SAAs, because their proximity to small communities allows them
to understand community priorities and be more accessible to
local organizations. The SAAs are better positions and more
successful at reaching underserved populations.
The NEA's fiscal year 2012 budget places 5 million in
funding for Our Town, but without the safeguards provided by
the 60/40 split. This is of great concern to me as funding for
this program, if provided, will likely gravitate toward large
urban centers with strong existing arts infrastructure.
Allowing specific programs to receive funding outside of the
60/40 split is a troubling precedent that undermines support
for the state art agencies. Observing the 60/40 split for all
grant funding ensures that funding reaches more states and
towns and bolsters the budgets of the state arts agencies.
In recent years, the NEA has been successful because of its
emphasis on promoting arts for all Americans rather than
individual artists. Fifteen years ago, the NEA was fighting for
its very survival. Today, Democrats and Republicans provide
broad, bipartisan support for the NEA. I hope that bipartisan
support will continue even as we scale back funding levels to
address our current fiscal situation.
With that, I am happy to yield to Mr. Moran for any opening
comments he would like to make.
Opening Statement of Mr. Moran
Mr. Moran. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. And I know, as
do the people in this room, that you do not just talk the talk
with regard to supporting the arts. You walk the walk in terms
of defending them and ensuring their funding. And it is good to
be joined by Ms. McCollum.
Chairman Landesman is doing a terrific job. I think we all
agree. You know, we could not have a finer person in this job
at this time. I like to offer a quote or two when we make an
opening statement, if only because Chairman Simpson----
Mr. Simpson. I demand it.
Mr. Moran. President John Kennedy once noted that ``Art is
the great democratic equalizer calling forth creative genius
from every sector of society, disregarding race or religion or
wealth or color.'' Of course, as we know, Mr. Chairman,
President Kennedy was referring to democrat with a small ``d''
to say that because the arts do know no political party. It is
a bipartisan undertaking that inspires and enriches us all.
For 46 years, the National Endowment for the Arts has been
a leader in advancing the arts. It has been tasked with
engaging the public in cooperation with state and local
governments and nonprofit entities. And the role that art has
and continues to play in all our communities and our lives,
these are difficult budget times. The budget request set forth
by the President for fiscal year 2012 reflects that reality.
The NEA is being asked to do more with less as well, and that
is what we need to discuss with you, Mr. Chairman, how you
intend to carry out your mission without sacrificing its core
values but within the constraints of very limited funding.
These are difficult times, but in such times that we need
the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities more than
ever. For thousands of years, civilization has gained
nourishment and inspiration from the beauty that art has shined
upon a troubled world. One more little quote--an American
actress and acting teacher who I know you are aware of, Mr.
Landesman--Stella Adler once observed ``Life beats you down and
crushes the soul oftentimes, but art will remind you that you
have one''--have a soul is what she was referring to.
The arts continue to serve an important purpose in society
and I appreciate, Chairman Landesman, that you have come back
after we had to reschedule this hearing and the chairman was
very good about rescheduling it. It was supposed to occur right
in the middle of our deliberations on the fiscal year 2011
continuing resolution back in early April, but I appreciate
again the fact that you have rescheduled this so that we can
get a full hearing in for both the NEA and NEH. And with that,
we again welcome Chairman Landesman.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
Statement of Mr. Landesman
Mr. Landesman. Chairman Simpson, Ranking Member Moran, and
distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to be
appearing before you to discuss the present fiscal year 2012
budget request for the National Endowment for the Arts of
$146.255 million, which includes support for direct NEA grants,
partnerships with state and regional arts agencies, a second
round of Our Town investment, as well as program support
efforts, staff salaries, and administrative expenses. As you
know, this request is consistent with the Agency's fiscal year
2008 budget and would be a decrease of 13 percent from our
fiscal year 2010 level of appropriation.
We have worked to make the smartest decisions possible
within the current fiscal reality. We have been guided in these
decisions, as well as in the Agency's grant-making by our newly
revised strategic plan, which has as a central theme the
Agency's desire to gather and communicate even more data and
analysis about the impact of federal funding on the arts. This
data will also allow the Agency to refine and focus our
investments in the arts to increase the efficacy and impact of
our grants.
The NEA's mission is to advance artistic excellence,
innovation, and creativity throughout the country, and we are
asking each of our grant recipients to tell us how they will
further this in one of three ways: one, through the creation of
art that meets the highest standards of excellence; two, by
engaging the public with diverse and excellent art; and three,
by promoting public understanding of the arts contributions in
the lives of individuals and in communities.
OUR TOWN
In fiscal year 2012, we will continue our investment in
creative place-making through which we ask local political
civic and arts leaders to work together to shape the social,
physical, and economic characteristics of their communities. We
will do this primarily through Our Town, which will invest $5
million in some 35 communities across the country.
We piloted this work through a series of grants we made in
conjunction with our Mayors' Institute on City Design, which
has worked with mayors for the past 25 years. One of our MICD
25 grants was moved to Shreveport, Louisiana, where the
headquarters of the Regional Arts Council had burned down. The
mayor of Shreveport decided to create an opportunity out of
this tragedy and he partnered with the Arts Council to apply to
the NEA for funds to design an adaptive reuse of a historic
firehouse to serve as the Arts Council's new headquarters. This
building will also serve as the heart of a seven-block commons
that would serve as a creative center for Shreveport and a
gateway to the city. The commons will become a comprehensive
arts district with rehearsal and studio space, performance and
exhibition space, community services, religious institutions,
restaurants, and businesses. The NEA's $100,000 towards this
project was leveraged into $5.3 million in total investment, $3
million of which came from private sources, including $300,000
from a national foundation that had never before invested in
Shreveport.
There are similar stories throughout our MICD 25
investments. Bethlehem, Pennsylvania is using NEA support to
create a new town square with a major work of public art in
front of its abandoned steel mill. Greensboro, North Carolina
is creating a multiuse greenway to encircle its downtown and
connect residential neighborhoods and business districts.
Phoenix, Arizona is designing public art that will both
beautify the downtown and simultaneously provide much-needed
shade for a weekly outdoor market.
Throughout the country, mayors and towns are including the
arts at the center of strategies to create more vibrant
communities that will allow their citizens to prosper in place,
and Our Town allows the NEA to partner with even more
communities. We are especially eager to make Our Town
investments in rural communities, and toward this end we have
written the guidelines to allow entire counties to apply
through a single application. Each application requires a lead
public partner, and the 2012 guidelines will allow state arts
agencies to be those lead partners and to receive funds
directly for this work.
PROPOSED REDUCTIONS
With a proposed appropriation that represents a 13 percent
decrease from our 2010 level of funding, we have had to make
some difficult decisions. We have worked to cut smartly and do
not simply apply a flat, across-the-board decrease to all of
the Agency's programs. One example of this is our proposal for
Shakespeare in American Communities. As you know, this is a
wonderful program administered by a regional arts organization
that provides funding for a stand-alone Shakespeare touring
initiative. However, touring productions of Shakespeare are
something that the NEA also funds within our core grant-making
in the theater discipline. We are proposing that rather than to
continue as a stand-alone program, we will instead encourage
applicants to the Shakespeare in American Communities program
to apply directly to the NEA theater discipline for support for
their Shakespeare projects.
By bringing this program back in-house, we will be able to
save $400,000 in costs and administrative expenses for a
program that in many ways duplicated our core work. Of the 40
recipients of Shakespeare in American Community grants awarded
last year through the regional arts organization, over half of
them also received a direct NEA grant for their Shakespeare
work. This was a second bite at the NEA apple for a small
subset of arts organizations, an option not available to the
vast majority of theaters and arts organizations. We will
continue to make the Shakespeare in American Communities
educational materials available free of charge to all
interested theaters, not just grantees, through arts.gov.
By taking this direction with Shakespeare in American
Communities, we have the flexibility to be able to save
programs that were not duplicated by the Agency's other work.
The Big Read, for example, is an extraordinary program that
gets books off the shelves, into people's hands, and transforms
them into opportunities for citizens to come together and share
a common art experience. The YWCA in Knoxville, Tennessee, for
example, hosted a discussion of ``Their Eyes Were Watching
God'' in a community room that was part of a Knoxville area
transit transfer station. Readers received free seven-day bus
passes for participating, and this turned out to be the largest
and one of the most active book discussions yet in the four
years of Knoxville's participation in the Big Read. Just as we
have for the current fiscal year, in fiscal year 2012, the NEA
will budget $1.5 million to support 75 Big Read grants across
the country.
CLARIFYING STATE MATCHING REQUIREMENTS
The state arts agencies are key partners in so much of the
Agency's work. In many cases, despite the difficult budget
realities that many states face, state arts agencies,
governors, and state legislatures have come to the NEA for
clarification on the requirements to receive NEA funding. The
philosophy of the NEA state partnerships has always been that a
state arts agency is most effective when it is able to marry
its state funds with federal support. A state arts agency is
simply not a state arts agency when it receives no state
support.
To emphasize this, we requested a clarification in our
legislation that specifies that the NEA's investment in a state
arts agency must be met at least one to one with funds that the
state itself directly controls. Understanding the unprecedented
fiscal times in which we are operating, we are also seeking
allowance to develop narrow guidelines for when this match may
be temporarily waived. These would be published for public
comment before being enacted.
HONORING ARTISTS OF ALL DISCIPLINES
We are also seeking a change to the NEA's Honorifics
program. As you know, since 1982, the NEA has awarded Jazz
Masters and National Heritage Fellowships to recognize the
individual artists who have made exceptional contributions to
their respective fields. In 2008, the NEA expanded its ongoing
investment in these lifetime honors to also include the NEA
Opera Honors. This recent expansion sparked a conversation at
the Agency about the possibility of continuing to expand the
lifetime honors to embrace the full spectrum of the arts that
the NEA supports. Toward that end, the NEA is seeking a
legislative change that would allow the Agency to honor artists
who have made extraordinary contributions to American culture,
regardless of discipline.
COLLABORATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES
Let me end by touching briefly on two major areas of focus
that require no additional investment in the NEA. The first is
our collaboration with other federal agencies. Take, for
example, the Department of Housing and Urban Development. As
you know, Secretary Shaun Donovan is a huge champion of the
arts and the role they can play in creating and sustaining
vibrant communities. When HUD released a Notice of Funding
Availability for $100 million for regional planning efforts,
the arts were included explicitly alongside integrated housing
and transportation decisions and incorporating livability,
sustainability, and social equity values into land-use plans
and zoning. When HUD announced the results of this NOFA, the
arts were the centerpiece of many of these grants, including
Hollywood, Florida; Rockford, Illinois; Evansville, Indiana;
Greenfield, Massachusetts; and Radford, Virginia.
I am also talking with Health and Human Services about the
ways in which the arts and human development intersect: with
the Department of Education, about the key role that the arts
play in providing a complete 21st century education; with the
Department of Transportation, about the role of the arts in
smart design in connecting communities and neighborhoods; and
with the Department of Agriculture, about the role that the
arts can play in creating and enlivening gathering places in
rural settings. In short, the NEA is positioning itself at the
intersection of the arts and the everyday and we are eager to
share the arts with our sister agencies.
BLUE STAR MUSEUMS
Finally, I would like to call your attention to Blue Star
Museums, which is a partnership among the NEA, Blue Star
families, and museums across the country to grant free
admission to active duty military men and women and their
families all summer long. Last year was the first year of this
partnership and we launched with some 600 museums participating
and ended up with over a quarter of a million military families
participating. We are still almost a month away from this
year's launch, and we already have enlisted over 1,200 museums
who will welcome military families this summer.
Let me end by thanking the chairman, the ranking member,
and the distinguished members of the subcommittee for your
ongoing support of both the Agency and the arts in general. I
am now happy to answer any questions you may have, and I look
forward to our discussion. Thank you.
[The statement of Rocco Landesman follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.069
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
testimony and thanks for the work you are doing with the arts.
It is, as was mentioned both in my opening statement and Jim's,
and in yours, that the arts have enjoyed bipartisan support in
Congress. As I mentioned in my opening statement, that has not
always been the case as you remember several years ago before
you came, the arts went through some tough times. There was an
effort by Congress to essentially eliminate funding for the
arts, and it was not fought off by very many votes. I was not
here at the time, but Jim was here at the time, and yeah, it
was a pretty tough time. And we have come a long way in
bringing back the arts and the support for the arts within
Congress.
And I think part of the role of this committee is to make
sure that we do not lose that support so that the programs that
the NEA is involved in enjoy broad, bipartisan support. Some of
those programs that enjoy bipartisan support are the
Shakespeare in American Communities and the Big Read and
Challenge America, grants that have widespread appeal because
they reach underserved areas and communities in rural America.
And as you know, rural America is kind of particular interest
to me since I live in the second-largest city in Idaho, which
is like 50,000, and that is like one-fifth the size of the
largest city, and all the other cities are substantially
smaller than that. So rural America is very important to me.
Could you briefly outline the status of each of these
programs? The Shakespeare in American Communities, the Big
Read, and Challenge America. What is the status of each of
these, the specific level of funding budgeted for next year,
and whether the NEA plans to discontinue any of those?
SHAKESPEARE IN AMERICAN COMMUNITIES
Mr. Landesman. We do not plan to discontinue any of them.
Shakespeare in American Communities is one of the great NEA
programs. I have seen the results of it across the country. The
issue there was simply budgetary with our reductions. It was
funded in the past through a third party. We are now folding it
into our core grant-making. We are going to be able to save
about $400,000 by doing that in administrative costs. We are
still very committed to Shakespeare in American Communities. I
have seen the fruits of that work everywhere. It is a great
program.
BIG READ
Similarly, with the Big Read, even with the budget cuts we
are protecting the funding for that at the full level from the
previous year. We are very committed to that program as we have
been all along. So we are very committed to these programs. We
just have to figure out the most creative way to continue to
support them with the budgetary constraints that we have.
CHALLENGE AMERICA
Mr. Simpson. And the other one was the Challenge America.
Mr. Landesman. Which continues.
OUR TOWN
Mr. Simpson. Okay. One of the, I guess, just general
questions I would like to talk to you about is, you know, I am
one who actually believes that when you get hired, you get
appointed, whatever, as Chairman of the NEA or the Secretary of
the Department of Interior or any other agency in government,
that you ought to have some freedom and flexibility to do what
you think is necessary to be done with the agency and decide
the direction that you would like to take it. Our Town is kind
of your initiative and what you would like to do. I think what
you are trying to do in building arts in the communities and
stuff--this is a different role than the NEA has taken on in
the past. Is this something that is better left to the other
agencies like HUD and others that do that kind of thing? I
mean, community development is kind of out of your realm, is it
not?
Mr. Landesman. I do not think so. I think that the arts
have a central role to play in the revitalization of
communities, and we have seen examples of that everywhere, that
the heart and soul of a community is often its culture. We saw
that together in Boise with the Basque community and we saw it
in Old Town with the building of the Torpedo Factory there and
what the arts galleries did to that area. We have seen it in
Lowertown in St. Paul, what that means to the fabric of that
community, both economically and in terms of civic engagement.
We have seen it in the South Bronx with the Art Handlers.
Mr. Simpson. Now, let me----
Mr. Landesman. We have seen the arts connect with the real
world in important ways where they have really affected
communities.
Mr. Simpson. So let me ask you, I mean I agree with that,
but in all of those things that you just mentioned, the NEA was
not involved in developing those.
Mr. Landesman. Well, what we have seen there is, on an
anecdotal basis, the way the arts can profoundly affect
communities. We want to take those great examples, the places
where it has been done and been successful, and scale it out
nationwide and to really bring the arts into the process of
community rebuilding. We have a lot of data that has been
gathered over a long period of time that where you have arts in
a community three main things occur--that the social fabric of
that community is enhanced. People who are engaged in the arts
and in culture are more likely to vote, to join other cultural
organizations or organizations of any kind. It is a weaver of
civic fabric in those places. Arts have a big effect on child
welfare. Juvenile delinquency and truancy decline markedly
where there is a cultural presence. And finally, it is an
economic driver.
And yes, a certain amount of this is going to happen in a
haphazard way, but with a small amount of money, we want to be
at the forefront of this process and we believe that when you
are talking about a renewal of communities nationwide, you have
to include the arts. And we feel the arts need to be there.
Mr. Simpson. And this $5 million investment that you are
going to make comes at the expense of other programs?
Mr. Landesman. Yes, theoretically. We have to find the
money within our budget. We did not get a new appropriation
just for that. But I have felt--and you frame this almost as a
philosophical point----
Mr. Simpson. Right.
Mr. Landesman [continuing]. I felt almost from my first day
on the job that we were going to make a case for the arts. And
what we were doing was simply to proceed with business as
usual, which meant funding a lot of the established
institutions, what I used to call the big temples on the hill,
you know, the big well-known institutions and so forth. Then,
if there is an issue about the funding for those, I think
people would say well, we care about the City Opera in New York
City, but it is not at the front of our priorities right now
given the budgetary constraints and the limited funds that we
have all across the government. If, on the other hand, we can
make the case about the intersection of the arts in the real
world, in communities, in places, the Purple Rose Theater, you
know, in Chelsea, Michigan and people can see in a very
palpable, visceral way how integrated the Purple Rose Theater
is into that 5,000-person community, then we have a completely
different narrative and are making a completely different case.
And when I have gone across the country, and I go to
medium-sized cities likes Greensboro and Winston-Salem, North
Carolina; Bethlehem, Pennsylvania; not just Boise, but Jerome,
Idaho where the arts are important, as I travel around the
country, I see that the arts are not just in the big cities, in
the big temples of the big cities, but are a part of the
community fabric everywhere I go. And I think the NEA needs to
be there as a champion for the arts in all these places and
really the--what I am calling the intersection of the arts and
the real world. And I think we have an important role there.
And Our Town is at the frontier of that for us.
ARTS IN RURAL AMERICA
Mr. Simpson. One of my concerns is that every program that
we take on comes at the expense of some other program. And we
have done a great job of getting arts out of the rural
communities, and I do not want to sacrifice or injure those
programs that are making a difference in Jerome, Idaho, as you
mentioned, and other places all across America because the
taxpayers of this country that pay the taxes that fund all of
this have a right to see the benefits that the arts provide.
And so I do not want to sacrifice the programs that I think
have been doing a good job.
Mr. Landesman. I do not think that is going to happen.
ROLE OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL ON THE ARTS
Mr. Simpson. One other question before I turn it over to
Jim, I understand that traditionally the NEA chairman relies a
great deal on the advice of counsel from respected artists and
art administrators that serve on the National Council of the
Arts. I have heard that there is growing concern from within
the council about the direction of the NEA, particularly a
perception that the Endowment is reducing funding streams to
the states or making decisions that the council does not
support. What is the role of the council? How often does the
council meet? Do you consult with the council on proposals on
specific things like creating the Our Town program or
terminating other programs? What exactly is the role of the
council and how do you interact?
Mr. Landesman. The main role of the council is to vote on
the grants that are made in the various disciplines, which go
through an exhaustive peer-review process. And it is up to the
council to approve or disapprove of those. I do not believe
that it is the role of the council to set general NEA policy,
which is done by me and was, you know, set out pretty clearly
when I came in with a fairly prescribed and intentional agenda.
We do have conversations with the council members. We meet two
or three times a year and I feel that I am very accessible to
them on a daily basis. I always like to hear their thoughts. We
do not agree about everything that the NEA is doing
necessarily. But from my perspective, I am open to that
dialogue at all times.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Mr. Moran.
Mr. Moran. Thanks, Mike. I do think you have shown some
convincing accomplishments in terms of economic development,
although some of my favorite NEA grants, I will just share
quickly one. There was an application from a small group of
Russian Jewish immigrants who came over here and suggested that
they would teach the low performing Hispanic immigrant students
how to perform in Chekov and Nabokov plays. I thought that is
the most bizarre thing. But because it was so bizarre, they got
a little bit of money over a two-year period. And these kids
were learning stage presence; all of a sudden, both the
principal and the superintendent said they just blossomed. I
mean, they went through a transformation when they acquired
confidence. And they memorized these plays. They were going to
drop out of high school and now they are all in college. Every
single one of those kids that participated is in college.
QUALITY OF ART PROGRAMS
I wanted to ask you about a couple of things. The
fascinating statistic that more people attend performing arts
organization performance in this country than go to the movies;
it is a great thing. I could not imagine. But it is interesting
to consider that in light of the rather controversial
suggestion that you made, which I happen to agree on, that in
some communities we have too many fora for performing arts and,
as a result, the quality sometimes gets too thin. Do you want
to address that for a moment, what you mean by that?
Mr. Landesman. Not only the quality but also the support
levels. One of the concerns that I have had as someone who has
had a professional career in the theater, in the arts, is
ensuring that the people who work in these organizations get a
living wage, get a level of compensation that allows them to,
you know, continue with some dignity.
We have data that we have collected at the NEA--and others
have collected it, too--that show that attendance, while very
extensive as you point out in the performing arts and the
visual arts, across much of the field has actually been
declining while the number of institutions, organizations has
been proliferating exponentially. And at a forum, I did raise
the issue that perhaps there is a disconnect there, that if you
are having lessening demand along with increasing supply that
there would be a reckoning of that at some point. And my point
was this should at least be talked about. There should at least
be discussion about this. And the feedback--while some people
have objected to that, it was actually a very controversial
remark--I was glad to get that discussion out on the table. One
of the few things I can do as the chairman of the NEA with the
limited budget is to use the platform, the bully pulpit to
start conversations like that. And I think people first got a
little hysterical. Are there going to be death panels now at
the NEA? Of course not. I do not think there should be a
moratorium on that kind of conversation. Resources are very
limited, and that is not to say that we should not be funding
the biggest organizations or even the most viable
organizations. We want to fund the most compelling ones. But it
does not mean that we have to fund them all and that all have,
you know, some kind of a right to exist if they cannot be
supported.
REDUCTIONS TO UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES
Mr. Moran. Good for you. Good. One other area I want to ask
you about, under state and regional partnerships, you are
proposing to cut funding for underserved communities by $9.4
million. Under the rulebook of advancing, understanding, and
appreciation of the arts, how do we justify cutting funding for
population and communities that, by the very definition of the
program, have been underserved in the past?
Mr. Landesman. You are talking about funding within the
NEA?
Mr. Moran. That is right, within the NEA under that line
``Underserved Communities,'' it is cut by $9.4 million I think
it said.
Mr. Landesman. I think we have been cutting across the
board and, you know, that must be a proportionate--the
specifics of that is something I will get back to you on----
Mr. Moran. Yeah, that is fine.
Mr. Landesman [continuing]. But, you know, we have had to
sustain cuts just about every place, many of them we do not
want to make.
Mr. Moran. Okay. In fact, all of the other questions you
have addressed in your testimony, again, I think you are doing
a phenomenally outstanding job as chair, Mr. Landesman, and I
thank you for that.
Mr. Landesman. Thank you.
Mr. Moran. Thanks, Mr. Simpson.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Flake.
Mr. Flake. Yes, thank you. And I am sorry I missed the
testimony.
Mr. Landesman. Good.
GRANTS TO ORGANIZATIONS AND UNIVERSITIES
Mr. Flake. We know that we are having to cut and the budget
reflects that, but when you look through and see a lot of the
grants that have been awarded, I think maybe we could stand a
few more. For example, the International Accordion Festival,
$30,000 award; the Fabric Workshop and Museum, $50,000 award;
San Francisco Mime Troupe, $50,000 award. Those just kind of
lend themselves to ridicule when federal taxpayers see us
cutting popular programs and programs that they have counted
on, like Social Security and Medicare. They see that coming but
then they still see grants like this. It is just tough to
justify.
Now, I understand moving art to rural communities and
whatnot. I grew up in a small town in Northern Arizona with
limited opportunities in that regard. But then you see grants
going to institutions like Boston University, New York
University, Notre Dame, Columbia, Yale; all of these with
substantial endowments. I think all of these have endowments
exceeding $1 billion. Let's take one in particular, Yale
University. National Endowment for the Arts funded the U.S.
premiere of the Autumn Sonata, this despite the fact that Yale
has a $16.7 billion endowment, a $30,000 grant. How can we
justify those kind of grants, particularly to institutions like
that?
Mr. Landesman. I will try to answer most of them in not
necessarily the right order. Taking the last one first, I
happen to know about the Yale Rep because I was a professor at
the Yale School of Drama for many years, so I am very familiar
with the Yale Rep. The Yale Rep has to pay its own way and
receives very little support from Yale University. And the
School of Drama, likewise, has to raise a lot of its own funds.
So the question was often asked while I was there is, you know,
Yale is this incredibly rich institution. Why can they not pay
for everything they are doing? But the drama school and the
Repertory Theater, the professional theater there, has to raise
its own funds and pay its own way. So an NEA grant to a
production that they would be doing if the production is worthy
and goes through the peer process, it seems to me is a very
legitimate source of our funding.
Among the other grants you named, I am not familiar with
all of our grants. We give 2,700 grants each year. They go
through a peer process where peers evaluate the validity of the
grants. They are not made by the chairman. The first two that
you mentioned I am guessing were grants to underserved
communities. The third one, the San Francisco Mime Troupe, was
not a grant that I had any participation in, but I happen to
know something about that. The San Francisco Mime Troupe is a
world-renowned, first-class theater organization that has made
a significant contribution to the field of dramatic arts and
from my perspective, as a theater professional, I would think
would be very worthy of support from the NEA.
GRANTS TO UNIVERSITIES
Mr. Flake. Back to these grants to universities, is it the
case with the other institutions as well that they have to seek
their own funding?
Mr. Landesman. I am not aware of us making grants to
universities per se at all. We may do a particular production
that is done at a professional theater that is housed at a
university. University grant-making is much more done by the
NEH, National Endowment for the Humanities, than by the NEA.
Mr. Flake. But still, I mean one could probably
legitimately argue that if it did not have to go through the
Federal Government or elsewhere, if it is a performing troupe
at Yale University that they could seek funding from the
university just as easily, could they not?
Mr. Landesman. They seek money from as many sources as they
can. In many of these organizations we are a small part of the
budget, but for a particular production, we can play a
significant role, and I am glad to see that we are supporting
what are disciplined people and our peer-group reviews are
important contributions to the art.
Mr. Flake. Let me just say that it will be difficult when
we get in the fiscal year 2012 budget when there are items like
this in there. You understand that it is going to be tough. And
for people who see other more essential programs that they feel
are essential being cut, to justify giving $30,000 to a theater
troupe at Yale, even if it is not Yale, so just that thought.
Mr. Landesman. That is a true process.
REPEAT GRANT RECIPIENTS
Mr. Flake. How do you feel about these grants that seem in
perpetuity to a lot of these groups just every year, and in
some cases, increasing. I think there is a theater probably in
New York--it may be in Congressman Serrano's district--I have
gone after them before so I will be careful here. There is a
theater there I think that has received more than 513,000 in
NEA grants and it seems every year an increase. How do you feel
about these grants in perpetuity? It would seem to be a good
principle that, hey, you go three years and out for a while.
Mr. Landesman. Well, in the theater program, which I know a
little about, the grants are made for particular productions so
there is not a built-in perpetuity of that. Each production or
each proposal is applied, you know, new each year. The appeal
group makes a decision on that for that particular year. If an
organization does a lot of work that they consider worthy, I am
sure they are going to get repeat grants. But there are no
grants that continue year to year. Each year that process comes
up for the review process and the decision is made through our
normal panel process.
Mr. Flake. But have you not, in the Challenge America Fast-
Track program, stipulated that they cannot come back after
three years?
Mr. Landesman. But in the Challenge America program, there
is that stipulation but that is just a small part of the whole
NEA grant-making process.
Mr. Flake. But even there they can come back, they can just
switch categories and get funding for a different category,
right?
Mr. Landesman. Theoretically, they could, yeah.
Mr. Flake. All right. Thanks.
Mr. Simpson. Ms. McCollum.
GRANT SELECTION PROCESS
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And to kind of follow
up on that, they could switch but the panelists know, the
judges know somebody is trying to pull a fast one. And I say
that as a member on the Council of Arts and Mr. Tiberi also
serves and you get a booklet that is about this thick--and I am
not involved in doing the judging.
To the best of my ability, I kind of try to do a little bit
of oversight as to what they are doing, where the grants are
going, who did not get grants, and when you see all the
wonderful, wonderful grants that are denied because there are
not enough funds and the painstaking process in which they try
to make sure that there is equity to the best of their ability
throughout this country, large and small, that everyone gets a
chance to participate, the judges in my opinion do a really
good job.
And if you would like--because I know you kind of see the
finals, you know, when it kind of comes through here in
Congress--the staff would go out of their way to make available
anything, or to come in and just sit and listen to the judges'
discussion on it.
Now, having said that, I do not always agree with what they
chose, but that is why I do not jury my own Congressional art
show either and the five judges all came independently and
picked out the same top three pieces of art. Which just goes to
show that what I liked--two of them I had in my top ten; one I
did not have at all, but after listening to the judges explain
to the students why that one was chosen, I went wow. So if you
want some more information on that, you might want to stop for
a day when they are meeting next. It is in the spring, the next
one, June?
Mr. Landesman. June.
ARTS AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ms. McCollum. Yes. I wanted to kind of make a couple of
observations and then kind of generalize and then ask you a
question. One of the things that I was very much involved in
supporting was a Republican during the time I was on the city
council in north St. Paul. We both got elected to the State
House. He was from Lanesboro. They were trying to rehab an old
theater. They were bringing in a bike trail, B and B's, all
kinds of stuff. The economic development that they thought was
just going to be in the spring and in the summer turned into
the fall and into the winter for Lanesboro. And then they had
local artisans and women doing quilts and all kinds of economic
cottage industry growth from in and around the neighborhood. It
was just phenomenal. So your point about the integration
between HUD and transportation, how dollars are limited, but
the need for sustainable, livable communities and getting the
best investment for our federal dollars is critically
important.
We have a rail project going through Central Corridor,
which is going to be very disruptive, but the community kind of
came together and said how do we celebrate this disruption?
They have done it with photographs of people that are living on
the corridor, both old-timers from the days of statehood all
the way through to the vibrant community with the new
immigrants that have lived and established businesses on it. I
was not able to get over there, but I caught it on the news,
they decorated the hardhats. And I will tell you, some of them
were pretty whimsical, but all ages were involved in doing
that.
But to the point of getting transportation stops in an
urban core where there is art and something of pride put in the
community, our police department sees less gang activity. There
are some correlations in there. I think the Our Town project
from our perspective and whether or not we even receive a
nickel from it is that it is an opportunity for communities
when they are planning to be mindful of how to build
sustainability, joy, reflection. Part of that is the arts
because that is who we are with being creative.
So if you could maybe just talk a little bit more--I almost
called you Rocco--Mr. Landesman----
Mr. Landesman. Everyone else does.
Ms. McCollum [continuing]. About kind of what you are
hearing working with the Secretaries. As you are going through
the planning stage, are they open to being mindful of the arts?
LEVERAGING EFFECT OF ARTS FUNDING
Mr. Landesman. Well, with the limitations of our budget, we
have to be creative. And I would like to tie to something that
the chairman asked about before, which is why do we need Our
Town to be in there working when a lot of this can happen
spontaneously? And I think part of the answer is that the
particular leverage that the NEA has. In Shreveport we put in--
you know, maybe this firehouse would have been renovated
without the NEA, but what happened was the NEA put in $100,000
toward their renovation of this firehouse. The Educational
Foundation of America came in with $300,000. Another $5 million
was raised privately and locally based largely on the
imprimatur of the NEA, on the validation of a federal agency
that came in and said this is something worth doing. This is
something the Federal Government stands behind. And that
100,000 became $5.4 million very quickly. And that is the value
of the NEA seal, and it can have a tremendous leveraging
effect.
CREATIVE PLACEMAKING
The other part of the leverage is exactly what you just
addressed, Congresswoman, that we need to find additional
funding through our sister agencies where the limited resources
we have can be leveraged when there is a coincidence of
purpose. The Department of Transportation, for instance, is no
longer just about engineering and road-building. It is also
about quality of life. So if we encounter a beltway, a greenway
around Greensboro, North Carolina that is going to be created
out of old railroad beds or roads and there can be an aesthetic
aspect to that--and we made a grant for decorative aesthetic
work for the overpasses that you encounter along the roadway.
This suddenly becomes also about the arts. And the arts have a
role to play.
One of the things that we found is that when we are dealing
with the more public of the arts, things like, you know,
decorative aspects to an overpass or to a bridge or public art,
public sculpture or architecture in general, all design aspects
of the cities, these affect everybody. Whether they ever enter
any kind of arts emporium or not, whether they never go to a
play or to a museum, these are aspects of art that people
encounter every day in their normal life.
The aesthetics of a town, of a place, we call it creative
place-making because it is all about the place. And places need
to have an aesthetic, need to have an aesthetic aspect. It
affects how people feel about where they live, no less than the
aesthetics in the Mayo Clinic affect the outcome of patients
there. If you are in a nicer place, if you are in a place you
enjoy encountering, the arts have a role. And we are connecting
with the Department of Health and Human Services about this,
too. We are finding the arts have a role to play clearly--I
think everyone knows it--in childhood development, in mental
health, in geriatrics, and where there is an intersection of
the arts and the work of other agencies, we want to be a
multiplier there. We want to help maximize those resources
wherever we can. And I think it is a very healthy process.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me check
something here a second.
Mr. Simpson. You are just trying to show us you know how to
use one of those things.
IMPORTANCE OF ARTS IN AMERICA
Mr. Serrano. ``I am a poor, tattered wretch, like the back
of this waistcoat. I ask for nothing. I am better than that. I
was young once. I went to the university. I had dreams. I
thought of myself as a man. But now, now I want nothing,
nothing but peace. Peace.'' I read that, Mr. Moran, when I was
12 years old. It is Chekov's on the harm of tobacco. And I grew
up in a program called the South Bronx Community Action Theater
where they took all these kids together and they put us on
stage and they helped us build scenery and put on makeup and so
on. And with my talent, I did not pursue it because it
conflicts with my desire to eat. It has been at the center of
my existence at who I am. It trailed down to my son who then
ran for the city council and made sure that he became chairman
eventually of the Cultural Arts Committee of the city council.
And now he is the ranking member, was chairman. We lost the
majority there, too--of the New York State Senate Cultural
Arts. And so it was not strange to hear you say about the
Russian immigrants because it was a Greek American who taught
me how to read Chekov. And I was trying to get rid of my
Spanish and Bronx accent at the same time when I was doing this
so it was quite an experience.
All that to say that even during difficult budget times, we
have to preserve and save and grow the arts because it was a
great Puerto Rican composer, pop song composer, who said what
probably everybody else has said. He said, ``A people without
the arts are a people without a soul.'' And it is at the center
of who I am. I know it is at the center of who we are as
Americans, and we just have to be very, very careful that as we
make very difficult decisions we do not destroy that which is
so important to us.
Mr. Landesman. I did not anticipate encountering anyone
today who was going to be referring to Chekov but since you
did, Chekov said, ``We must take the theater out of the hands
of the greengrocer.'' And what he meant by that was that the
marketplace should not be the sole determinant of what art is
allowed to flourish. And one of the important aspects of the
NEA is that it supports art that we as a society consider
valuable and worth supporting even if the marketplace does not
support it.
Mr. Serrano. Right.
Mr. Landesman. The San Francisco Mime Troupe is a theater
organization that has made a tremendous contribution to the art
that I am very proud of, probably would not be supported just
in the marketplace that needs subsidy from both private and
public sources. And the NEA I think is there to do that.
CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL HERITAGE FELLOWSHIPS
Mr. Serrano. Let me, before I ask you my only question,
tell you that I am not as courageous as you think. I only read
that part on the harmfulness of tobacco when he speaks about
himself and not the gist of his whole presentation, which is
what a miserable marriage he is involved in. And he ends with
his wife waiting in the wings, you know, waving to come over.
It is really a wonderful--yeah, I know. That is too much
information.
Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the National
Heritage Fellowship will be discontinued. As I understand it, a
new fellowship that targets mid-career artists will be
established. Several community organizations from my district
as well as surrounding districts have reached out to me with
their concerns that, in lieu of this reorganization,
traditional cultural artists will be neglected. The National
Heritage Fellowship has represented the NEA's commitment to
underrepresented communities. I think that this commitment is
an important one.
What was the reasoning behind the discontinuing of the
National Heritage Fellowship? Is there any chance of offering a
similar program or fellowship that recognizes and supports
underrepresented communities and traditional cultural artists,
even as we deal with the dollar issue?
Mr. Landesman. I recently met with the main players in the
National Heritage field. We had a meeting at the NEA. They came
in; they made a very articulate and passionate case to me. All
I will say at this moment is I heard them and we are taking
what they said under real consideration. The National Heritage
awards are very important to us. They are part of the DNA of
our Agency, part of our identity. I think they are extremely
valuable and that is probably all I should say at this moment.
Mr. Serrano. Okay. And as my colleague said, when we sit at
these things, we do not make any judgments. So we are not
making any judgments here, but keep in mind that there is one
Member of Congress at least who is concerned that----
Mr. Landesman. Let me just say to answer the other part of
your question to address how this process started. Again, we
are facing significant budgetary cuts. At the same time, we
want to widen the arena for these awards a little bit so we can
include other arts, the visual arts, the art that I am, of
course, most familiar, the theater, the performing arts, to be
able to give awards to people who have made significant
contributions all through a lot of the arts. And under the
budgetary constraints, this was one solution that we broached.
And by the way, the other arts, some of which we are
eliminating as stand-alone entities, will also be included in
these what we are calling Artist of the Year awards at the NEA.
GRANTS TO UNITED STATES TERRITORIES
Mr. Serrano. Yeah. Let me just end by saying something that
I say at just about every hearing of any kind and something
which has caught on in the last few years. In fact, Speaker
Boehner, when he was minority leader, was very good on this
issue and that is remembering that we have not only 50 states
but we have territories where American citizens live who
participate in every aspect. And as you know, in our federal
budget, the territories are always sort of an afterthought or
an addendum----
Mr. Landesman. We fund in those areas.
Mr. Serrano [continuing]. Or a rider.
Mr. Landesman. We fund there.
Mr. Serrano. Okay. Thank you so much.
Mr. Landesman. Thank you.
ARTS AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. You know, it was in your
conversations that you were just having with Representative
McCollum, what you are trying to do in Our Town, we have done
some things using a program that is now defunct because it was
unfunded last year, Save America's Treasures. We have done some
things in restoring theaters and those types of things
throughout Idaho, some of which we took some criticism for, but
it is really the seed money that starts that and it is local
effort--fundraising and work done by local people to restore
some of these great old theaters that are then used as
community theaters and other things in a lot of the rural
communities around the country.
Mr. Landesman. The Egyptian Theater was not funded by the
NEA I do not believe.
Mr. Simpson. Yeah. No, it was not.
Mr. Landesman. It is a great example, though, of connecting
to neighborhood and urban, you know, to a town's revitalization
as a centerpiece for that. And in some cases it is done
privately. Some cases, as in Shreveport, it can be jumpstarted
with an NEA grant and then there is a tremendous multiplier
effect.
Mr. Simpson. There was a theater in Rupert, Idaho, town of
about 3,500, the old Wilson Theater that had just been run
down. If you looked at pictures of it, you wonder why they did
not knock it down. We started with a couple hundred-thousand-
dollar grant as seed money to help them, and they raised
incredible amounts of money and have gone in and restored it
and it is beautiful. Once they did that, the other owners of
the buildings around it said gee, maybe we ought to do
something with our--and now the whole center around their
center park is gorgeous with the restoration.
And I will tell you just a quick story before I ask this
question. I was with some of the old folks who were taking me
through it during the renovation and they were telling me some
stories, you know, like I met my wife up there, you know, and
all that kind of stuff. But this guy said, you know, years ago
there were three kids that snuck into the theater during some
scary movie. They were up on the balcony, and one kid had a
chicken under his coat, a live chicken, and in the middle of
one of the scary parts, he took that out and threw it out in
front of the projector so it is flapping on the screen and down
on everybody. And we are all laughing. He says you know who
that kid was? And I said who was that? Lou Dobbs. So I had
LaTourette mention it to him when he was on his program one day
and he just sat there in stunned amazement that anybody knew
about that.
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
Anyway, couple other questions. This comes not just for
your Agency but what I am hearing about a lot of agencies that
we are looking at budget reductions, that is the NEA's budget
justification list five priorities for fiscal year 2012. Your
first priority on page four is for the NEA to maintain its
staff and to interact with the arts community and the public.
Overall, your budget request returns funding levels to just
about 2008 levels but does not reduce the number of staff to
administer fewer funds. In fiscal year 2008, the NEA had 155
FDAs. Today, it has 169 FTEs. And this is the question that I
am receiving from a whole bunch of different organizations,
whether it is within Fish and Wildlife Service or anybody else
is that we are reducing budgets, staffs are staying the same,
and we are reducing programs that actually go out and do the
work on the ground.
Mr. Landesman. Someone coming from the private sector as I
have--this would be my first take on it, too, you know, what do
you need all of this staff for?
Mr. Simpson. Yeah.
Mr. Landesman. I believe our request shows only a one
percent increase from the 2011 to the 2012 administrative
budget. It is very small. We are in a particular, I think,
unique situation in that our funding was cut, as you know, in
the mid-'90s almost in half. The staffing was cut commensurate
to that, to reflect that. Since then, the number of grants we
have been making in our funding has been increasing but our
staff has not been. So our staff has been increasingly under
pressure and duress to get out more and more grants with the
same number of people. And believe me, I have some perspective
on this coming from the private sector, but I think we are
grossly understaffed. We are unable to make field visits--which
the NEA used to routinely do--into the field to actually check
out in person the grants. We really need more staff, I think,
to do the work that needs to be done in the right way. We are
making do with the staff we have. We think we are doing a
tremendous amount with very, very little, and I think we are
very, very efficient in how we operate and, you know, very
lean. And if anything, we need more help, not less.
GRANTS TO INDIAN COUNTRY
Mr. Simpson. Another question following up on what Mr.
Serrano mentioned, and that is art in underserved areas. One of
the areas that is of a great deal of concern to me--in fact,
there is a whole lot of art out there that needs to be
supported in Indian Country. What are we doing in Indian
Country?
Mr. Landesman. Well, I think we need to be there.
Mr. Simpson. There at all now?
Mr. Landesman. We are and we can provide you with the
examples of that. We are. And one of the things, I think this
has been a continuing theme at the NEA, not just with me but
one of my immediate predecessors is to get our reach more and
more out to the whole country and to rural areas and small
towns and to make sure that the NEA is everywhere. And I have
tried very hard personally to go out and around and show the
flag everywhere we can. When we make a grant in Bethlehem,
Pennsylvania in front of the big steelworks there, I want to
make sure that I am there to commemorate that. And we try hard.
Mr. Simpson. Well, we have got a unique and great culture
in this country in Indian Country.
Mr. Landesman. Yes.
Mr. Simpson. And, in fact, it is different from tribe to
tribe to tribe. And it is something we do not want to lose. And
to the extent the NEA can help in making sure we preserve that
and the great art, whether it is basket weaving or some of the
silverworks done by the Navajos or other things, they are
things that we need to make sure that we help them preserve.
Mr. Landesman. Well, and we have a whole department of folk
and traditional arts beyond the honorifics that we have just
been talking about, and that division makes significant grants
in that area. We are very proud of them. We can get you a list
of what they are. But we feel we are very engaged with those.
Another example of work that would not be necessarily
supported in the marketplace that needs some kind of protection
or subsidy and the NEA is an important part of that.
ARTS IN SCHOOLS
Mr. Simpson. The NEA promotes arts in schools. Thousands of
school-aged children have benefitted over the years from the
toolkits and jazz in the schools, toolkits that the NEA has
distributed free to thousands of teachers nationwide. How many
of these toolkits were distributed last year to how many
teachers and schools, and what are your plans to continue the
distribution and use of this popular resource?
Mr. Landesman. We are continuing that program. That will be
free and I can give you the exact number. I do not know it
offhand.
Mr. Simpson. If you would submit that for the record, we
would appreciate it.
Mr. Landesman. Yes.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Moran.
Mr. Moran. No, I am fine. I think, you know, I have heard
enough and I do not really have any questions that have not
already been answered. So I thank Mr. Simpson, the chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Flake.
GRANTS TO UNIVERSITIES
Mr. Flake. Yes. Let me get back to the universities. You
mentioned that the one to Yale was on behalf of the Repertory
Theater and it is listed as such. On the others, for example,
Boston University to support the publication and promotion of
the literary journal AGNI or Agni? I am not sure what that is.
I am not literary, I guess, in that regard. But these grants
are listed as going directly to the university, these
universities with very large endowments. Another one, NTU with
$2.43 billion endowment, support the publication and promotion
of 10th anniversary edition of the Bellevue Literary Review.
When you see grants going--when taxpayers everywhere see grants
going to universities like this that are doing quite well, I
can tell you it feeds the cynicism out there about everything
we do here. And I just want your response to that.
Mr. Landesman. We support the small presses. The small
presses are a very important part of--particularly in the
poetry world, but in scholarship certainly, the small presses,
you know, their survival is always in doubt. They are usually
not part of the university per se, even if though they may have
some university support----
Mr. Flake. But these grants----
Mr. Landesman [continuing]. Generally these small presses
are located at a university but they are, again, semiautonomous
organizations that get support wherever they can, from
foundations, from private donors, in some cases from the
Federal Government. We feel that the world of the small press
is a very, very important one in literature and scholarship.
Mr. Flake. But the recipient listed is the university
itself so the grant actually goes to the university.
Mr. Landesman. Yeah, I am sure that is a re-grant. I am
sure that flows ultimately to the small press in question.
Mr. Flake. Okay.
Mr. Moran. Would the gentleman yield to the chairman? Do we
have any idea how much money we are talking about on these
grants?
Mr. Flake. Some of these are $25,000, $10,000, these are
small grants, they are. It just begs the question of why, with
these universities that are doing quite well relative to where
we are here. It strikes me as not the best use of money,
particularly if you are getting decreases in funding and some
of the rural communities and the other places that it could be
argued are in more need of these kinds of grants, to have
grants to continue to flow to large universities with large
endowments when the grant actually goes to the university, it
just seems not right.
Mr. Landesman. The small presses, we feel, are a very, very
important part of the arts and scholarship ecosystem. They
always struggle for support. Usually, their budgets are very,
very small. Our grants number is small. We feel committed to
their importance and to their support and hope we can continue
it.
Mr. Moran. If the chairman would yield further for just a
moment. I guess the real issue is the peer-review process. I
mean it is really not so much----
Mr. Landesman. Yeah.
Mr. Moran [continuing]. Mr. Landesman and his staff make
these decisions. I think it was us, the Congress, that said
this should all be done on a peer-reviewed basis and they make
those actual decisions.
Mr. Flake. Just back to the Accordion Festival----
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair, on your other point, because I
think we might be missing a key function here on the other
point and that is if the University of Minnesota has a press
and there is a gift given to the University of Minnesota press,
the university bylaws might say that it has to go through them
because of the university's name to make sure of all their
accounting and everything at the end for the money. Maybe what
we should do is find out how the rules work for the money going
through. That may or may not answer your question because if
there is an endowment at the university, but the university
press cannot apply for it, then there is a nice endowment but
they are excluded from it. Maybe that is something they should
go back and see if they could change the endowment.
But if the check has to be--and I am thinking like for the
Rail Corridor, the Metropolitan Council is the fiscal agent, so
they are in charge of doing some of the programming, they are
in charge of making some of the decisions, but they are not in
charge of everything. I am kind of wondering if it is not. But
if that is it, then I think we are having a discussion that
just goes around in a circle without really addressing your
question.
Mr. Landesman. The Accordion Festival, what town is that?
Mr. Flake. In San Antonio.
Mr. Landesman. In San Antonio?
Mr. Flake. I was just going to make the point that whatever
kills off the accordion, whether it is the market or somebody--
should get our applause and not our derision, so there are some
things that just need to go extinct. I am sorry.
Mr. Simpson. That is my 11-foot pole rule because I will
not touch that with a 10-foot pole.
Mr. Serrano. You are going to hear from Argentinean tango
lovers, from Polish Americans, from Mexican musicians. I mean I
could go on and on and on.
Mr. Simpson. He is going to go after the bagpipes next.
Mr. Flake. I will stop there.
Mr. Simpson. Ms. McCollum.
ARTS AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ms. McCollum. I was going to go back to the accordion, but
you brought it up. I do not know what that exactly was about,
but there are lots of different types of styles with accordion
music and a lot of that goes to folk music and a lot of that
goes to heritage which goes back to the whole preservation
issue that we were talking about.
But I just wanted to point out the International World
Choral Symposium was held in the Twin Cities several years ago
and what that did for our country, having all the individuals
who came in and participated--this was shortly after 9/11--what
it did to our economy, to even our university system with
people looking to be international students after that, was
just incredible. You talk about the multiplier effect with
buildings. But what we have seen with the arts is that the
multiplier effect in communities, both rural and urban, has
been significant and businesses wanting to locate where there
is creativity.
Mr. Landesman. This is at the heart of what we are talking
about the NEA. In Cincinnati, which is a city I know pretty
well because my best friend grew up there, there is a section
called Over-the-Rhine that used to be mainly drug addicts,
prostitutes, mostly police actions, and a theater went in there
and then an art gallery and then some artist housing. And the
neighborhood was so completely transformed as to now be
unrecognizable. And people bring their dates and walk around on
the street there at night and that had been a place that nobody
ever went. And we have a thousand examples like this in towns
and cities across the country. Providence, Rhode Island is an
example where the arts can jumpstart a complete redevelopment
of a neighborhood. So the downtowns are not hollowed out but
have a cultural life, an anchor. The Egyptian Theater as the
center of town, and not just the theater itself, it is the
activity that goes around it. It is the foot traffic; it is the
cafes that open up nearby. And the arts are transformative in
these places. This is all about changing the place and
rehabilitating neighborhoods. And, you know, there is no
question that this happens.
And one of the interesting things--and you just referred to
it--is we know that it is not that people follow businesses.
Businesses follow people. They want to go where there is an
educated, committed workforce. And the arts attract these
people. The Knight Foundation in conjunction with Gallup just
did a poll about why people choose to live where they live or
what they like about where they live. And they did not say jobs
interestingly enough. They said social offerings, openness, and
aesthetics. And the arts have a role, a big role in making
people like and appreciate where they are and where they will
stay.
When we look at small towns, one of the big issues in small
towns all across the country is getting people to stay there,
to commit to being there and not going off to the coasts or to
a city. Arts, the aesthetics have a huge role to play in that.
It is transformative of these communities. And it starts with
the people and people are attracted to the arts. I like to
subvert the expression from ``Field of Dreams.'' You know, I am
now going around saying if you come, they will build it. If you
have the right people, the businesses will follow. And the
people are attracted to arts clusters and to arts activities
and the arts have a tremendous role to play everywhere.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Serrano. I have nothing further nor am I reading
anything else.
Mr. Simpson. Jeff, did you have something?
GRANTS TO UNIVERSITIES
Mr. Flake. Just one thing. Universities, even if they are
passed through grants, typically, when they get a grant, they
take a portion off the top for administration. Can you assure
us that that is not happening in the case with a $20,000 grant,
$25,000 to Columbia University to support composer portrait
series?
Mr. Landesman. We will check into that. My guess is that it
is nil or very small. But we will get you that information.
Mr. Flake. Well, that would seem completely inappropriate
if they have used a thing that hey, this is on its own but then
they take a cut off the top.
Mr. Landesman. It is not our intention to further enhance
the endowment of Harvard University.
Mr. Flake. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Landesman, for the work you do
and thanks for being here today. We look forward to working
with you on this coming year's budget, which will be difficult
like it will for everybody. And thanks for the work you do.
Mr. Landesman. Thanks for having me.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.082
Wednesday, May 11, 2011.
NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES, FISCAL YEAR 2012 BUDGET HEARING
WITNESS
JIM LEACH, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL ENDOWMENT OF THE HUMANITIES
Opening Remarks of Mr. Simpson
Mr. Simpson. Committee will come to order. Chairman Leach,
it is great to see you again. Those of us on this side of the
table miss you in Congress but appreciate your continued
service at the National Endowment for the Humanities. We are
well aware of the environment in which today's budget hearing
is taking place. By the end of this week, the subcommittee, as
I mentioned earlier, will have conducted two dozen oversight
hearings to weigh the merits of many of the agency's budgets
under this jurisdiction.
As I said to the NEA Chairman Landesman earlier this
morning, each of the endowments finds their budgets under
intense pressure this year because of the fiscal challenges we
are facing. Like the NEA's budget request, the NEH request,
which is just slightly above the fiscal year 2008 funding
level, reflects this reality. The success of the NEH in recent
years has been a result of the endowment making a concerted
effort to provide a selection of quality educational programs
reaching a diverse cross-section of Americans without making
overarching political statements.
The work of the NEH has enjoyed strong bipartisan support
in Congress in recent years and my hope is that that will
continue. My home State of Idaho has benefitted from a close
working relationship with the NEH for many years. I am an
enthusiastic supporter of the Idaho Humanities Council, which
has a long history of awarding grants to organizations
throughout our state to develop humanities projects and
programs on the local level. I am grateful for this ongoing
successful collaboration.
Our colleagues and I do have a number of questions to raise
with you this morning and before receiving your testimony. I am
happy to yield to Mr. Moran for any opening statement that he
may have.
Opening Remarks of Mr. Moran
Mr. Moran. Thank you, Chairman Simpson. Jim, I repeat
Mike's welcome to you. It is great to have you with us and of
course in the position you are in. As you know, I have been
providing quotes relevant to our hearings. In terms of NEH the
noted author and historian David McCullough was asked how he
could attribute the success of his writing career to, and he
said, ``I just thank my father and my mother, my lucky stars
that I had the advantage of an education in the humanities. It
is what made all the difference.'' He hits upon an important
point. In what is becoming an increasingly technologically
dependent world, where it seems that apps are being developed
for every purpose imaginable, we still need the wisdom and the
enlightenment that the humanities can offer, that cannot be
replicated by machines or any form of technology. It can be
repeated, but it cannot be created.
In our schools, we place a great emphasis on math and
science, but we place far less on the humanities. And in its
own way, the National Endowment for the Humanities tries to
correct this imbalance with support for programs that engage
young people in the importance of history and of culture. Even
in what are considered to be difficult fiscal times where we
are engaged in two wars, our military leadership recognizes
that it is not enough to just win on the battlefield. We also
have to win the hearts and minds of the citizens in foreign
lands--even with those that which we find ourselves in
conflict.
And that is why training and exposure to the history of
culture of the society can play such an important role. NEH
provides a national leadership role in advancing education and
understanding the humanities. For this fiscal year the NEH like
its sister agency the National Endowment for the Arts will face
the prospect of doing more with less. And while there are some
who would say these programs are expendable, I think when you
look more closely at them, each of them has incredible reasons
for being funded and are important in their own ways.
The humanities have been described as the nourishment for
the roots of our culture. We know what happens to a plant when
it is starved of nourishment. It shrivels and dies, and we
cannot afford to let that happen to the cultural life for our
society. So thanks to our former colleague, Mr. Leach, I
appreciate the fact that you are chairing the National
Endowment for the Humanities. Thanks Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Chairman.
Statement of NEH Chairman Jim Leach
Mr. Leach. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Moran, Ms.
McCollum, Mr. Flake, first I would like to request unanimous
consent to put my full statement in the record. It is my
intention to read from parts of it and expand somewhat on one
of its central themes. Secondly, I would like to express my
great honor in working with our Chairman of our sister
institution the NEA, Rocco Landesman, and I concur with
everything he said this morning.
It is an honor to appear before this subcommittee once
again to appear on behalf of the NEH and our budget request for
this coming fiscal year. The justification we submitted to
Congress in February describes in detail our current activities
and plans. I would like to take a moment of the committee's
time simply to discuss some of the key features of our fiscal
2012 request and explain why I believe the humanities are
critically important to the health and well-being of American
society.
First, let me emphasize the NEH recognizes its obligation
to embrace budgetary restraint. The funding the administration
has requested for fiscal year 2012 represents a 13 percent
reduction from last year's appropriation. To do more with less
is always a challenge, but we are appreciative of the fact that
in the humanities even modest support can make a marked
difference in sustaining America's cultural resources.
Indeed we believe that few governmental institutions have
had more impact at less cost than NEH. The Endowment's grants
provide a margin of possibility that enables individuals,
organizations, and institutions to undertake important work in
the humanities. With annual spending that last year
approximated 1/21,000th of the Federal Budget, barely more per
capita than the cost of a postage stamp, NEH has made
significant contributions to the democratization of ideas;
stimulating research and the dissemination of knowledge through
books, prize winning films and radio documentaries, and civic
education programs ranging from those designed to help wounded
veterans cope with physical and mental trauma to symposiums on
the Islamic world.
NEH is in the business of providing the perspective of
studies in the humanities to the challenges facing American
citizens in our country in these change-intensive times. We are
convinced that the Endowment's investments in the realm of
ideas pay dividends. Our grandparents understood the importance
of support for the arts and the humanities during the country's
most traumatic economic moment--the Great Depression--a vastly
greater percentage of the Federal Budget was devoted to the
arts and the humanities than today.
Depression era public programs sustained such writers as
John Steinbeck, Zora Neale Hurston, and Saul Bellow, and such
artists as Grant Wood, Jacob Lawrence, and Louise Nevelson. In
a similar tradition, the NEH since its inception in 1965 has
supported research and scholarship that had resulted in over
7,000 books of which 18 have been awarded Pulitzer and 20
Bancroft Prizes and the editing of literary landmarks, such as
the current best-selling autobiography of Mark Twain. The
endowment has supported comprehensive, authoritative editions
of papers of our nation's founders: presidents from George
Washington to Dwight Eisenhower; military leaders like George
C. Marshall; literary giants such as William Faulkner;
scientists like Albert Einstein; social figures like Jane
Addams; and civil rights pioneers such as Martin Luther King,
Jr.
During a time of rapid global change and persistent
uncertainty about the future, the vitality of our 21st century
democracy depends on a commitment to understanding the
historical and cultural forces that have shaped and continue to
shape our world. NEH's new agency-wide theme ``Bridging
Cultures'' is designed to renew and reinforce the bridges
between the different cultures and viewpoints that are part of
the fabric of American life.
These bridges of mutual respect have deep roots in the
American tradition of civility dating back to the Founders'
concerns about the destructive powers of what George Washington
used to label ``factions'' in our democracy. Bridging cultures
is also designed to strengthen bridges across international
lines to enhance citizen understanding of the contemporary
global context for economic, political, and cultural
interactions among peoples.
While bridging cultures will be a special emphasis of our
activities in fiscal year 2012, the Endowment will continue to
provide support for high quality projects in the full range of
humanities programming from basic research to support for
instruction at the high school level. Nevertheless, the
endowment's $146.255 million budget request reflects a
recalibration of the agency's programming mix.
Notably the agency's We the People Initiative will be
discontinued as an agency theme, although several of its most
successful programs will be maintained. The National Digital
Newspapers Program and Landmarks of American History and
Culture Workshops for teachers, for example, have now been
fully integrated into the regular operation of the Endowment's
Programs divisions and will continue to be funded in fiscal
year 2012.
And a third We the People project--Picturing America--
enjoys the ongoing partnership support of the Verizon
Foundation through its funding of the NEH's ``EDSITEment''
Website portal. As a further indication of this project's broad
impact, we are pleased to note that the Picturing America
materials have been translated into four languages--Arabic,
French, Portuguese, and Spanish--for use by U.S. Embassies
abroad.
We are a small agency with a big mission. Our job is to
help build an infrastructure of ideas and lead in their
democratization, by providing as many citizens as possible
access to new as well as old knowledge, and creative thought.
We do this by funding basic research that leads to books and
scholarly articles, documentaries, preservation of historic
landmarks and languages, and even archeological finds.
We complement knowledge and perspective development with
programmatic outreach to colleges and universities, libraries
and museums with interpretive exhibitions, ad-hoc teacher
institutes, peer reviewed model course programs, and with State
Council programming. Indeed in 2010, the State Humanities
Councils conducted programs in 5,700 communities nationwide
including 17,700 reading and discussion programs, 5,700
literacy programs, 5,800 speakers bureau presentations, 5,800
conferences, 2,300 Chautauquas, 7,120 media programs, 7,600
technology, preservation, and local history events, and 4,600
exhibitions on a wide variety of themes.
The State Humanities Council programs reach millions each
year, and tens of millions of Americans annually watch NEH
supported documentary films on television and in classrooms, or
listen to radio programs that make the humanities accessible
and uplifting. Many of these productions have won the nation's
most prestigious awards for context and artistic quality and
have become invaluable historical and cultural resources for
continual use over the years in classrooms.
For example, recent programs, broadcast on PBS have
included acclaimed documentaries on 20th Century U.S.
Presidents, the Life of Robert E. Lee, and The Rape of Europa,
a film about the theft, destruction, survival, and recovery of
Europe's art treasuries during the Third Reich. Next week on
May 16, PBS stations nationwide will broadcast the NEH
supported documentary Freedom Writers, the story of the
hundreds of civil rights activists, two of whom, by the way,
are now members of Congress, who challenged segregation in
interstate transportation in the American South during the
spring and summer of 1961.
The Freedom Riders project also includes an interactive
website at which the documentary will be made available in
streaming video; a series of panel discussions and screening
events hosted by universities, museums, and State Humanities
Councils around the country; and a traveling panel exhibition
for libraries created in association with the Gilder Lehrman
Institute of American History in New York. Even prior to its
pubic unrolling, the Freedom Riders documentary has already won
awards including that of the Best Documentary at the Sundance
Film Festival.
And, not incidentally, the NEH has earned a reputation in
the United States and abroad for its leadership in one of the
youngest fields of scholarship, the Digital Humanities. Its
digital work, as that of our initiative with the Verizon
Foundation in support of model lesson plans at the K through 12
level, has become a model for the private sector and for
emerging activities in a number of other nations.
These are but a sampling of the projects and programs we
offer as evidence of NEH's broad and constructive impact.
Simply stated, NEH programming adds to the storehouse of
knowledge enabling Americans to better understand and succeed
in today's complex and interdependent world.
Americans are understandably concerned about the high
unemployment rate. We would submit that one of the myths of our
times is that the Liberal Arts are impractical, unrelated to
subsequent work environment. Actually, they are not only
practical, but central to long term American competitiveness.
It is true that many jobs such as building trades are skill
centered, but job creation itself requires perspective and
understanding of community and the world. Change and its
acceleration characterize the time. With each passing year,
jobs evolve, becoming more sophisticated. Training for one
skill set may be of little assistance for another. On the other
hand, studies that stimulate the imagination and nourish
capacities to analyze and think outside the box suit well the
challenges of change. They make coping with the unprecedented a
manageable endeavor.
What is needed in a world in flux is a new understanding
and emphasis on the basics in education. Traditionally, the
basics we have thought about is the three R's. They are
critical. Nonetheless, they are insufficient. What are also
needed are the studies that provide perspective in our times
and allow citizens to understand their own communities, other
cultures, and the creative process.
To understand and compete in the world, we need a fourth R,
which for lack of a precise moniker might be described as
``reality,'' which includes not only relevant knowledge in the
world near and far, but the imaginative capacity to put oneself
in the shoes of others and creatively apply knowledge to
discrete endeavors.
Rote thinking is the hallmark of the status quo.
Stimulating the imagination is the key to the future. To
compete, the basics matter. And what better way is there to
apply perspective to our times than to study history of prior
times? What better way is there to learn to write well than to
read great literature? What better way is there to think
critically and to understand American traditions than to ponder
Locke and Montesquieu and their influence on our constitutional
system?
How can we compete in our markets if we do not understand
our own culture and its enormous variety of subcultures, or
abroad if we do not understand foreign languages, histories,
and traditions? How can we understand our own era and the place
of our own values if we do not study the faith systems of
others? And does not art making and art appreciation instill a
sense for the creative process?
The insights provided by the humanities and the arts
disciplines and the capacity to analyze, correlate, and express
developed in humanities studies are not dismissible options for
society. They are essential to revitalizing the American
productive engine.
I would also note that jobs in our economy come in many
varieties. Those in the education industry are workers just as
those who are carpenters and machinists. It is our conviction
that there are few more important roles that Government can
play than to provide for an educated citizenry. Just as we need
an infrastructure of roads and bridges to transport goods and
people, we need an infrastructure of ideas to strengthen our
social fabric, fortify our economy, and transmit the values of
citizenship.
As NEH's founding legislation affirms, ``Democracy demands
wisdom and vision in its citizens.'' To pass on the American
dream to future generations and lead the world on our own
depends in no small measure on our ability to lead in the realm
of ideas and of the spirit. In this endeavor, the NEH plays a
modest but nonetheless central role. Thank you.
[The statement of James A. Leach follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.090
CIVILITY TOUR
Mr. Simpson. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. You took on a task few
of us would take on the civility tour. You went to, I think, 50
States. Have you been to every State?
Mr. Leach. I have been to 49 and the 50th will be
accomplished this weekend.
Mr. Simpson. All right. How has that gone? What have you
learned from it?
Mr. Leach. Well, I like your reference of what I have
learned because when you visit other places it is astonishing
what perspective you get back. I will tell you that one of the
clear things to me is that there is a sense in America that
something has broken down and some of it we are all responsible
for. I think the best and the brightest have let the country
down a bit in business and in Government over the last couple
of decades.
Having said that, I also think the country wants to pull
together, not apart. And everywhere I go I hear people
expressing things in very profound ways about their own
communities, about their own lives. And it is my own personal
perspective that whether we are talking about a business, any
kind of institution including governance that it is important
to have great diversity and it is also important to pull
together. And to the degree we cannot pull together, we are
going to have difficulty leading our own society and leading
the world.
Now, pulling together does imply having lots of different
views expressed and it also implies the capacity to make
decisions and it is the decision-making aspect that is a little
bit in doubt today.
Mr. Simpson. It is an interesting dilemma that I think all
of us in politics kind of wonder about. Everybody talks about,
you know they have never seen Congress as an example. I do not
know if that is true or not. Congress is one of those places
where you expect, just as you said, diversity of opinion and
active and passionate debate. We represent the diverse points
of views of those we represent across this country. We have our
differences of opinion and still respect other people's
opinions.
But as I sit and watch some of the--to tell you the truth I
sit and watch some of the news media on some of the cable shows
and stuff like that. I wonder how, if you watch that long
enough, how you do not become uncivil. And I mean that bothers
me as well as some other things. And I sense this just from
reading emails and letters that we get now versus what we got
10 years ago or 13 years ago when I first came to Congress. The
tone of them is substantially different, and yet I have always
considered one of our greatest strengths as a country is our
diversity. But it is also the biggest challenge that we face.
As I said, you have taken on a task that I am not sure many
people would in trying to help address this problem, but it
is--we all have to be part of that solution.
Mr. Leach. Well, you have expressed it very well and you
have concluded very wisely.
``WE THE PEOPLE'' INITIATIVE
Mr. Simpson. Let me ask you about--you mentioned in your
testimony that you were discontinuing the We the People
program, which has been very popular with bipartisan support.
You are discontinuing it as a theme, but you are maintaining
aspects of it. What are we doing with We the People?
Mr. Leach. Well, it has always been more a theme than a
program. That is, initiatives that might fit the theme that NEH
normally would do would be brought into it and then several of
the new parts were put back into the programs. And we are
trying to keep the major ones and in particular the National
Digital Newspapers Program which is a highly important project.
There is the oft-stated assertion that I think is very
thoughtful that newspapers are the first rough draft of
history. They also in a very unique way cover the country and
the world, but most of all the community. And so to have
preservation of these documents is very important. This is
going to be a long-term initiative. We are now dealing with
about half the States and, to date, have digitized three and-a-
half million pages. We are of course working with the Library
of Congress. It is a joint initiative. The three and-a-half
million pages that have been digitized involve working through
the years. And so in the next 10 to 15 years we will have all
50 States represented with most of the years covered. But it is
going to be a long-term project.
We are also keeping the Landmarks of American History
Workshops involving teacher training. And then the Picturing
America project has been enveloped within our ``EDSITEment''
website. It has been highly successful and is being used in new
ways, one of which is translation into four other languages.
But also, there are some experimentations in using Picturing
America in a language learning way for foreigners to learn
English for instance, which is something that was not
envisioned with the initiation of the program but has some hope
of being followed through with. Frankly, it is one of those
uncertainties, but it could occur.
When the ``We the People'' initiative began, the initial
proposal was that it would be a $100 million initiative over a
period of years. We have now dedicated approximately $100
million to it. As a thematic, the question is can you have too
many thematics. The issue is how do you freshen perspective.
And so, we are going to keep the best and move on.
Mr. Simpson. I would hope that, I mean one of the aspects
of it as I understand it, was to help students in the study of
American History and the U.S. Constitution and those types of
things. And I would hope that we would preserve that aspect of
it, because when you look throughout, and surveys have shown,
you know when they ask young people what we consider very
simple questions about the Constitution and about our history,
it is amazing the number of people that--especially young
people--that do not know anything about that.
Mr. Leach. Well, art is a good way to illustrate history
and to give a sense for change. And we may have some new
initiatives of a comparable dimension that we may be unrolling
in the next year. This issue of how you teach is just a really
central one. This particular program involves--at least the
Picturing America dimension of it--involves art appreciation,
history relevance, and now possibly language relevance. That is
a very interesting set of combinations.
DOCUMENTING ENDANGERED LANGUAGES
Mr. Simpson. One of your co-programs relates to preserving
and increasing access to culture and intellectual resources
including books, periodicals, and other historically
significant items as you have mentioned. An interesting piece
of work relates to the recording, documentation and archiving
of an estimated 3,000 of the world's endangered languages,
including hundreds of American Indian languages. Does the NEH
collaborate with the Smithsonian or other organizations on
common cultural goals like preserving the world's languages?
Mr. Leach. Yes, we do. We also coordinate with the National
Science Foundation and some of our programs are NSF and NEH
funded together. We also coordinate in one sense
internationally with UNESCO and partly with United States
leadership, UNESCO has now become very concerned with languages
that are considered vulnerable to extinction.
In our country of course, we are particularly interested in
Native American languages. Our concern relates less to the
precept of ``maintaining the language as a dominant language''
than to trying to maintain the wisdom that the languages
reflect. This becomes important particularly for those people
that come from a tradition of speaking the language but also
for others. And so, we do have a number of Native American
programs of a variety of kinds. One of which relates to
language.
I might mention in the language area, we made recently what
I considered the only courageous grant I know to an
individual--not courageous from the NEH's perspective but from
the individual's. We had a really exceptional proposal from a
young American scholar living in Afghanistan who wants to study
and create a dictionary for an Afghan language, a very narrowly
spoken language. For the first time I insisted that the letter
of NEH-approval for this proposal include a paragraph of a
nature never done before. We said that finishing the project
was not the key thing because he is living in an environment
that is exceptionally dangerous. He might be an idealist, but
idealism may be challenged by people there or he might not be
viewed as an idealist. So we have instructed him that he does
not have to finish his research and if he does finish, he might
want to finish it in another environment; in this case, in Rep.
Jeff Flake's State, Arizona, where the grantee is tied to the
University of Arizona. For someone to take on a language
preservation effort in that environment to me is pretty gutsy.
Mr. Simpson. Trying to do a life preservation there.
Mr. Leach. Exactly.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Moran.
TEACHING AND SCHOLARSHIP
Mr. Moran. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Leach, we talked
about the increasing emphasis upon the science, technology, and
engineering, and mathematics, which of course is terribly
important for the globalization of our economy, but the
corresponding diminution of emphasis on the humanities. Are you
involved at all in supporting teaching positions at secondary
or postsecondary institutions in the humanities?
Mr. Leach. We support scholars and scholarship. We
sometimes have applications that include support for positions
and some of these are preservation positions at a museum,
library, or archive for example. But as a basic function,
teaching positions are the responsibility of universities, for
instance. But supporting someone's scholarship can have an
effect on a position.
I will give a small example that is of symbolic
significance. We have an annual Jefferson Lecture in the
Humanities, which is our major lecture of the year. This year's
lecturer was the President of Harvard University, Drew Faust.
She indicated as a young scholar she got an NEH grant to do
research in a very narrow field that was not in the mainstream
of American History, nor in vogue at the time, studying women
in the Civil War.
This study resulted in a book, which in her judgment was a
key to her receiving tenure at the University of Pennsylvania.
In other words, this small step started her in a career that
has ended up making her president of one of our emblematic
universities. While we support scholarship, it is not our role
to support an individual's position at a university.
Mr. Moran. And that is understandable. I did not really
expect that you would be doing that. The only concern is that
it seems as though we need some advocacy for humanities staying
within even elementary, but certainly secondary and post-
secondary institutions. In terms of their curricula, State
Humanities Councils I guess might do that. I was wondering if
there are ways you at least indirectly support humanities at
the elementary and secondary school level?
``EDSITEMENT'' PROGRAM
Mr. Leach. State Councils do good work there but I want to
point out a very unnoted aspect of NEH's work that is truly
significant to literally millions of Americans is our
``EDSITEment'' Program where with the Verizon Corporation--we
doing the work and they doing much of the funding--we peer
review model lessons for high schools. We get over 300,000 hits
a month on these model lessons and it is absolutely an
invaluable thing. We get emails all the time from teachers
telling us that the greatest thing that ever happened to their
teaching capacity is to be able to look at these model lessons
and choose and pick any number of sources on a large number of
themes.
Mr. Moran. NEH has consistently gotten pleased.
Mr. Simpson. How do teachers know to access this
information?
Mr. Leach. Well, I personally think most of it is word of
mouth, but this particular program has won all sorts of
national teaching awards, and so it is highly publicized within
teaching journals and noted at many conventions that teachers
go to. It is one of these real riches that is making a
phenomenal difference. It is also, by the way, very much
appreciated by people that home school. You can visualize if
one is a father or a mother that is teaching their own kids at
home how do they get lessons? This is really terrific rich
stuff, and it is wonderful.
Mr. Simpson. Well, the reason I ask the question is we do
some great things whether it is the NIH, whether it is the
Smithsonian or other things that can reach out to communities,
particularly to the areas that do not have access. And I have
often wondered how do we tell these people that this is
available? How do we get that information out? So I appreciate
that.
Mr. Leach. That is a great question and that is one of the
miracles of the Internet. I mean we do try to inform through
the Internet in many kinds of ways. We obviously do not or have
not to date done advertisements on TV or radio or whatever, but
the Internet is great for getting the word out as well as great
for having access come back. All I can tell you is the response
level at the agency is just exciting.
Mr. Simpson. Do you work with the Department of Education
to get their stuff out?
Mr. Leach. We do, but not to a grand extent. On the whole
DOE (and I do not want to categorize because it would be
unfair) is a little bit more into teaching methodologies and we
are a little bit more into content. That does not mean they are
not big into content, too, but we are exclusively about
content.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
Mr. Moran. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Those are very
relevant questions to what I was getting at that you are
exclusively about content and the content that you have
produced has been extraordinarily good over the years. The
problem is if we do not have courses in humanities related
subjects in secondary schools there is no real audience. I mean
there is an audience but it is a very limited audience. If
there is a course in it where students need to access that kind
of material then you certainly have it available and all the
letters that have been accumulated over the years with regard
to some of the great leaders of our nation and internationally.
But you know it is just a concern that the humanities is
becoming marginalized within our educational system.
SUPPORT FOR HUMANITIES RESEARCH VS. THE SCIENCES
Mr. Leach. I agree with you. Can I just make one comment
and go further than that. It has also been marginalized in our
research system. The humanities research supported at the
federal level is less than one-tenth of one percent of support
provided the sciences and technology. There is real reason to
support the sciences and technology and we are at the NEH
strongly supportive of it. But we worry that there is a
humanities aspect to every advance in science. We are very
concerned that exclusive emphasis in science or science and
technology is awkward.
If you take the Federal Budget in the last let's say couple
of decades, science funding at the federal level has gone up
three or four fold and humanities funding has gone down. That
is a very significant relative circumstance.
Mr. Moran. Well, I do not want to see humanities funding
compete with science R&D Funding.
Mr. Leach. Of course not.
Mr. Moran. And I know you agree that investment should even
be increased. But I do not want to see humanities fall by the
side of the road. There needs to be some balance. The only
other area of entry and is somewhat related is what you are
doing to promote grants to underserved populations.
Mr. Leach. Well, we have a surprisingly great emphasis on
that and one aspect relates to special programs for
historically black colleges and universities and other special
emphases on tribal colleges and institutions with high Hispanic
enrollment. And then we have a way of distributing information
to the State Humanities Councils. But I would stress and it is
a surprise to many people, that if you think of the academic
humanities as contrasted with the public humanities, the
academic humanities also get distributed widely. Unlike in
strategic policy studies where you have a number of nonprofit
organizations centered in Washington, D.C., all our academic
communities are distributed outward.
And if you take support for a university, for example, the
universities might have a teacher's workshop bringing people in
from all over the country. If you take technology as an
example, one of the California State Universities is the center
of technology for digitization of historical newspapers. That
technology gets distributed to all the other States. So what
often first goes to one State is soon distributed to other
States.
We are putting in virtually everything we do in efforts to
try to establish distributive digital access. Now one might say
in the first instance, the people who have the greatest access
to digital technology will have the first grab. But one of the
wonderful things about our society is how technologies are
getting distributed. If one thinks of a television, the
television is in poor and well-to-do houses. Now, increasingly,
computers are being distributed in new ways. Kids in inner city
schools are finally, a little bit later than higher income
school districts, getting this technology. So some access is
not because of any direct program that says we are going to
target X place in some part of the country. It is that X place
is going to have access to it without exactly being targeted.
Mr. Moran. Very good. I agree with Chairman Simpson that
our Native American population is a very good place to continue
the emphasis on helping to maintain their culture and
languages. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Ms. McCollum.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you. My training is in Social Studies.
I never got a full time class. I was a long term sub and I
think being a substitute teacher at times has prepared me for
Congress with the whole civility issue as you had pointed out.
I know a lot of people who teach and Tim Walz had an
opportunity to have his own full time classroom for many years
and the word is out especially in the Social Studies community
that this is out there as a tool. But the challenge that I see
happening is Social Studies is the class and the one
opportunity that if taught right, you bring in every aspect.
You bring in science. You bring in geography. You bring in
language. You bring in everything into the classroom because
who we are is affected by everything that surrounds us and that
is what shapes our history.
So when you have Leave No Child Behind teaching to the
test, two things happen. One, Social Studies is getting crowded
out because it becomes where you get the information on prom
and everything else, so there is less, less, and less and less
history, Social Studies, Civics, humanities being taught in our
K through 12 system.
The second thing that happens when you start focusing on
teaching to the test is, how many dates can you memorize? You
could memorize every single big battle of the Civil War and not
understand the Civil War. And if we do not understand the Civil
War, we do not understand this bittersweet tension that still
is much of an underpinning for some of the things that are
going on in the country. If you do not understand the
Depression, and people are talking about the Great Recession
and we could have had a depression, you cannot make an informed
decision whether or not that is true or not true if you have
never studied the Depression. And part of studying the
Depression is studying the music and the art and everything
else with it.
As you can tell, I am very passionate about the humanities.
And one of the reasons why I am as passionate about the arts is
the arts play a huge role in the humanities and the
preservation of it. The word is definitely out there. If I was
a teacher and I had a limited amount of time and I wanted to
say okay, what is the best place to get first person histories
of the Civil War, sermon or diary letters or something like
that, one stop shopping there. You know you could do the
Library of Congress. They would have the references but they
would not have it packaged so that you could just kind of pick
up and go with it.
And especially now with teaching to the test from talking
to instructors, when you have those precious opportunities that
might arise, you might have to develop a lesson on the fly; not
because you are not a good teacher, just because all of a
sudden you realize I am going to have 15--I am going to have 20
minutes to where I could really enhance this. These are the
questions my students have been asking. How can I best pique
their interest? So you now keep it up. The homeschoolers, too,
I have a fair number of them in Minnesota and I know people are
doing that as well.
The thing about curriculum that all of you in the
humanities have to stay away from is if you get too much into
curriculum, then you are going to have the criticism from the
other side that they are doing national curriculum. You kind of
have to do a lesson plan where you are picking and choosing and
it does not look like, a national curriculum although Texas
gets to write all of our textbooks. So talk about having a
curriculum.
I wanted to just make an observation and then ask a
question and I know we are going to get close to doing the
markup. I have to say one other thing I like about
Appropriations is we actually kind of discuss things amongst
ourselves and this is my first full time year with being chair
and I am----
Mr. Simpson. There is no money.
Ms. McCollum [continuing]. Yeah, I know there is no money.
So that is--so I am not plugging for anything because I know
there is no money. But thank you so much for the way in which
your leadership and Jim's leadership and working together has
made this a committee such a treasure to serve on.
You know we will talk about cutting humanities. We will
talk about cutting NEA, but there are hidden things that we
support through our tax code: NASCAR, golf, professional
sports, I could go on. But because they are hidden, we are not
having a major discussion about whether or not they should be
part of the sacrifices, we are making with these tough
decisions. That is an editorial comment and I know we are not
on Ways and Means.
Rocco talked a little bit about this, too. Could you kind
of talk about the gold standard for the attracting of money and
the grant process because a lot of that goes into having staff.
Lots of times people say well you have all those staff. But the
staff is really there to do the due diligence on the grants.
And then when you have the grants and major foundations, they
still go through their grant process to see if it meets their
goals.
But if you have kind of been out there, it is kind of like
you take a look. And I am sure you do the same thing vice versa
with some of the major foundation work. Just talk about the
importance of staff with that because without staff how do you
review grants?
NEH STAFFING
Mr. Leach. First let me talk about staff. And I want to
take this from kind of a Republican perspective, Mike. I have
heard many times friends tell me they have gone into a Federal
agency noting how lousily organized it was and implying that
they set it straight. But the fact of the matter is I walked
into an agency where everyone knows more about the work than I
do. The NEH has really terrific people. I am very proud of the
staff, which numerically by the way is about where we were in
2008.
The staff is really critical to NEH. Most of our staff are
quite professional, many with PhDs. Many have written scholarly
books. Many have written novels. We just have a really diverse
staff.
NEW APPROACHES TO STUDY OF HISTORY
Now one of the things you said, I do want to slightly pick
up on, because I think it is extremely wise of you to refer to
the Civil War and the emphasis on knowing the battles. Earlier,
I noted how Drew Faust had researched a book about women in the
Civil War. Well, no one had ever looked deeply at women. One of
President Faust's conclusions, and she perhaps overdrew it, was
that women played a critical role in bringing the war to an
end. Everyone talked about the battles. Everyone had talked
about why the war started.
One of the things we are grappling with now as a country is
we are finding it is just as hard to figure out how and when to
end a war is how and why to start one. And Faust came to the
conclusion that women played a critical role in expressing
exhaustion and bringing to families the perspective of ``let's
bring this terrible toll of death to an end.'' And no one had
really thought about that. They had overlooked the diaries and
papers of women. When Faust first uttered this precept, people
thought it was exaggerated. But more and more people now give
it weight. That does not mean that women were the decisive
decision makers, but they nevertheless played a decisive role.
The study of women during war is of significance because it
gives some feeling for what was happening off the battlefield.
We have done various programs and studies in the Civil War.
For example, we supported the study of a small town in Virginia
and a northern town I believe in Pennsylvania about how the
towns and their people evolved during the war.
Scholars are moving away from the study of leaders to the
study of people and their role in life. The reason I mention
this is that you can take studies in the humanities and say
they do not change. That is wrong. The word history, of course,
may stay the same, but it is amazing how much change is
occurring in the study of history. You refer to Social Studies
which are taught at the high school and junior high school
levels. At the university level social studies is the
equivalent of what Oxford and Cambridge call politics,
philosophy, and economics, which is a major that many people
take at these two venerated institutions. It is basically a
combination of disciplines.
It is very important to give people a sense of perspective
on our times, looking back at other times, especially reviewing
the values that motivated people in other periods of time.
Americans do not know very well the dates of battles, even
wars. Studies show how many people cannot place when the Civil
War occurred. This is a particular problem in the north.
Southerners are a little deeper in Civil War history.
Ms. McCollum. It is the way it is taught.
Mr. Leach. It is the way it is taught and in Texas we know
one of the great victories in American History was the Alamo.
Victories is kind of in quotes, but it does tell you something
about how people were thinking about the great expanse of the
west and then all sorts of aspects of the southwest. But we as
a country need to have these barometers.
Ms. McCollum. I am just going to make a comment about the
Civil War and women. When history was being recorded in
Ireland, it was the women. It was the women in Ireland. The
Protestant and Catholic women who did not necessarily have to
like each other, but they did not want their kids dying
anymore. It was the women who forced the Good Friday Accords,
it was the women who kept everybody to the table, and we are
seeing that in a lot of the conflicts in Africa.
Mr. Leach. They were rewarded with a Nobel Prize. That is
fabulous.
Mr. Simpson. The reason the Civil War--I agree with you,
but the reason the Civil War is taught differently in the south
is because it is still going on. I was coming back on a plane
with Charlie Norwood from South America--a good friend all of
us knew. And it was like the week before the President's Day
recess. And in Idaho I have like 12 Lincoln Day dinners and
lunches to go to and everything. And I was lamenting you know
jeez, I get so tired because I have all these banquets and
lunches and everything. I looked at Charlie and said how many
Lincoln Days do you have to go to? Not really thinking--he was
from Georgia. You know, he said, looked at me and said, we do
not celebrate Lincoln's birthday in Georgia. And me in my
bright wisdom picked up on it right away. I said, why not? And
then it hit me and I said, jeez Charlie. That was 135 years
ago. When are you guys going to get over it? He just looked at
me just as serious as could be and said it is not over yet.
Mr. Leach. Well, Mr. Chairman, you might explain to the
gentlelady from Minnesota what the great Civil War in your
district is that is still going on. This is a Civil War in
Spain with the Basques.
Mr. Simpson. Yes, it is. I could tell you some stories
there. Our State legislature--my first year here--passed a
resolution for the separatists--to support the effort to break
away from Spain. And of course, our Secretary of State and a
lot of other people supported it because we have a huge Basque
community within Southeast Idaho. So I am here, the next thing
I know the Secretary of State, and the Spanish Ambassador are
coming up to see me wondering what is going on in Idaho. I do
not know. Anyway----
Ms. McCollum. We have French in our State. That does not
say anything about how we feel about speaking two languages in
Montreal.
Mr. Simpson. Let me--I appreciate your comments about your
employees. I have seen the same thing you have. I can remember
when I was in the State legislature and somebody would stand up
on the floor and say you know I went over to the Department of
Health and Welfare and by golly there were two employees
standing around the water cooler talking, as if that was a
discredit to the employees or something or they were not doing
their job. That never happens if you go out to Micron
Technologies or any private sector job I guess. I think we have
great employees. I really do. And the question though, that is
being asked--that I ask Rocco, and I am hearing it from all--
from different interest groups that receive funding or use
funding to do fish and wildlife grants or other types of
things. That when we see the reductions that are going to be
coming down, that we are going to see reductions in the
programs while the employees, number of employees, stays the
same. And if the number of employees stays the same, that your
programs are necessarily going to shrink.
They are concerned about that. They are also concerned, a
number of these different groups and the State Councils, are
concerned that reductions will be foisted off on them, that
they will not be able to receive as much of the grant, that it
is not going to affect the NEH in Washington, D.C., if you
will.
Mr. Leach. Well, first we do try to keep balance. All I
will express to you is that when I came into the agency I did
not bring an army of new people and we have been very careful
on not raising employment. In fact, we are now in a very
marginal way seeing some natural reductions with retirements
and that probably will continue. The other thing is, oddly, the
workload has increased as we see a 25 percent increase in
applications. We are going to do our best to share the burdens
and keep the quality. And we know we are going to be doing
more, possibly with fewer people and almost certainly with less
resources. But as we approach decisions ahead we will try to
keep in close contact with the committee. It is our hope to be
able to maintain as much quality as we conceivably can.
Mr. Simpson. Well, I appreciate that and we want to make
sure that we maintain those relationships with the State
Humanities Councils because they do some incredible work out
there. I----
Mr. Leach. They certainly do.
Mr. Simpson [continuing]. Have been associated with the
Idaho Humanities Council or worked with people on the council
for many years, ever since I was in the State legislature, and
they do a fantastic job. And we want to keep it coming. That is
where oftentimes the rubber hits the road, where people see the
results of their investments in the humanities.
Mr. Leach. They do but please realize the work here in
Washington also gets out----
Mr. Simpson. I understand that. I understand that.
Mr. Leach [continuing]. To the States as well.
Mr. Simpson. Any other questions?
Mr. Moran. I am all set. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you for being here, Chairman Leach.
Mr. Leach. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. I appreciate it very much.
Mr. Leach. Thank you.
Thursday, May 12, 2011.
HEARING ON SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, FISCAL YEAR 2012 BUDGET
WITNESS
WAYNE CLOUGH, SECRETARY, SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
Opening Statement of Chairman Simpson
Mr. Simpson. Committee will come to order. Good morning,
Dr. Clough. We appreciate you joining us this morning to share
your vision of the future of the Smithsonian and to discuss
your budget request for next year. Everyone around the table
has a great deal of respect for you and the work you are doing
to maintain the Smithsonian as the world's premiere education
and research organization.
Our challenge this year is to determine how to address the
most urgent priorities of the Smithsonian, many of them
contained in your 5-year strategic plan, while also recognizing
that our funding allocation will be significantly lower than in
recent years. In fact, those allocations just came out
yesterday, and we are about $2 billion down in the total
Interior budget from the year before.
As you know, this is out of necessity. Federal spending has
accelerated at an unsustainable pace, and efforts to reduce
spending is a sacrifice that must be shared across many
agencies under this subcommittee's jurisdiction.
Addressing the Smithsonian's budget in this fiscal climate
is going to be particularly challenging. Beyond meeting the
needs and priorities of maintaining and preserving existing
facilities and programs, your budget request contains a large
increase of $100 million from the fiscal year 2011 enacted
level for the construction of the next museum on the National
Mall. This is an issue that I look forward to discussing with
you in some detail today.
As Congress works to tackle historic deficits and economic
challenges, I believe it is time for an honest conversation
about national priorities. Every agency across government needs
to make a distinction between the need-to-do priorities and the
nice-to-do priorities. Today this subcommittee is looking to
you to help us make this critical distinction within the many
important programs and priorities under the Smithsonian's
jurisdiction. I look forward to hearing your testimony as we
work together.
Mr. Simpson. I would now yield to the gentleman from
Virginia, but he is not here. So when he comes, we will let him
make an opening statement if he would like to. The floor is
yours.
Testimony of Secretary Wayne Clough
Mr. Clough. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We also appreciate
Dave LesStrang's help, and he has really assisted us in many
ways in the past.
We thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
for this opportunity for me to testify about an institution
that is very close to the heart of the American people, the
Smithsonian. Before me you see two of our historic treasures
that we keep in trust for the American people; Abraham
Lincoln's watch and John Glenn's 1962 space camera. Each
represents an important milestone in our history, and we
fortunately have distinguished colleagues with me who will
explain what I mean by that.
Harry Rubenstein of the American History Museum and
Jennifer Levasseur of our Air and Space Museum are here to tell
the fascinating stories about these objects, and when I
complete my testimony, they will do that.
We have 137 million artifacts and specimens in our
collections that span art, history, culture, and science,
including the Star Spangled Banner, the Wright Flyer, the desk
on which Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of
Independence, our national meteorite collection which we are
charged by Congress to maintain, and 2,300 amazing live animals
at the National Zoo.
COLLECTIONS
We are steadily improving the care of these treasures so
future generations will benefit from them just as we have. We
are digitizing our collections and placing them on the web
where they can be studied and used by anyone in their home or
classroom.
VISITORS AND EXHIBITIONS
Yet nothing compares to seeing the real thing, and last
year we had more than 30 million visitors that came to be
inspired by the exhibitions that we have, our best year since
9/11. Our talented curators and scholars create 100 new
exhibitions a year, which is stunning, and make sure visitors
are provided with new and engaging experiences each time they
come.
Yet we know that many Americans cannot afford to make a
pilgrimage to the Nation's capitol. I am a good example. When I
grew up in rural Georgia, I never visited the Smithsonian until
I was in my late teens. I think there is no excuse for that
today.
Mr. Lewis. Excuse me. Our former historian speaker did not
take you to the Smithsonian sometime----
Mr. Clough. No. Did not know about it. There is no excuse
for that today, because we are determined to reach all
Americans, wherever they may live with all we offer. We have
created a new office of Smithsonian Education and Access and
are developing a comprehensive approach to reach K through 12
teachers and students around the Nation. So far we have 650
web-based lesson plans available for free, ranging from science
to art, and more are coming.
EDUCATION
Science and math education faces, as we know, a particular
challenge in our country. Fifteen year olds in the U.S. rank
25th among peers from 34 countries on the last Program for
International Student Assessment Test in 2009, and scored only
in the middle in science and reading. We believe the
Smithsonian can help with this.
For 26 years the National Science Resources Center has
leveraged the research of the Smithsonian and the National
Academies of Science and Engineering to develop science
programs for students and teachers. The center was recently
awarded a $25 million grant in the competitive process by the
Department of Education, and then they were required to and did
raise $8 million in private funds to supplement the federal
funds. We are helping three states particularly with rural
areas and urban areas transform their approach to teaching
science and math.
Using technology our Smithsonian American Art Museum
through a contract with the Department of Defense is delivering
arts education to K through 12 schools around the world that
are operated by the military for dependents and those who serve
our military.
ON-LINE EDUCATION AND SOCIAL MEDIA
We are using donor-sponsored online education conferences
to deliver programs centered on our collections and our
experts. More than 38,000 people from all 50 states last year
participated in our programs. Millions of people are now
accessing our work on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, and I am
pleased to announce that we just won the 2011 People's Voice
Webby Award for the best cultural institution website in the
country.
Mr. Lewis. Webby Award?
Mr. Clough. Webby Award. We are very proud of that one.
OUTREACH
Millions more watched the Smithsonian Network's Emmy Award-
winning HD channel, and it is slated to double the number of
homes that we will reach this year. The Smithsonian Magazine,
of course, reaches up to two million subscribers in every state
and was recently named the most interesting magazine in the
Nation ahead of all other magazines in the country. You can
think of your own comparable magazines, but they were all
there. Do not miss the April issue which is all about the 150th
anniversary of the Civil War.
We also have 166 affiliate museums in 39 states and we
provide them with loans from our collections as well as expert
advice when they need it, and our traveling exhibition service
also offers programs that reach roughly another five million
people around the country for those exhibitions.
STRATEGIC PLAN
We believe this is a new era at the Smithsonian, one that
builds on its traditions but uses new approaches to take its
service to the American people to a new level. All of this is
possible because of the work of our 6,000 employees and 6,500
volunteers, who work on contract incidentally, who are very
passionate about what they do. I could not be more proud of
them, and last year we were named for the first time as one of
the best places to work in the Federal Government, the fourth
best among all large agencies.
We are guided, Mr. Chairman, as you noted, by our new
strategic plan. This provides focus, encourages cross-
disciplinary initiatives, collaborative partnerships so we do
not duplicate, and calls for broadening access to our
collections and expertise and excellence in mission operation.
We have undertaken something we call Smithsonian Redesign to
improve efficiency at the Smithsonian to use every dime we get
better so our employees can focus their activity, their energy
on important activities. Over 275 people have engaged in a team
to help overhaul the way we do business.
PRIVATE FUNDRAISING
As a federal trust, of course, we are working hard to
leverage our federal dollars with privately raised funds. Last
year we raised $158 million in private philanthropy. One of
these I will cite, the $30 million gift from the Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation, which is an endowment specifically to
help us reach youth audiences and audiences in rural areas and
other areas that we do not traditionally reach.
FY12 REQUEST
The Smithsonian's fiscal year 2012 request totals $861.5
million. That is a lot of money in these days, and we
appreciate that and the difficult times that you face. We give
you our commitment that these funds, whatever comes to us, will
go to the highest and best use. The Smithsonian has a crucial
role to play in our civic, educational, scientific, and
artistic life.
At the American History Museum not long ago, historian
David McCullough, who serves on one of our advisory boards
said, ``never has an understanding of our story as a people, of
who we are and how we came to be the way we are, and what we
stand for, been of such importance as right now.'' We think
these words hold true now more than ever, and we are determined
to tell those stories.
So thank you very much for the opportunity to testify, and
now I will ask my colleagues to take a moment to explain the
objects that I referenced.
[The statement of Wayne Clough follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897B.105
Mr. Simpson. Harry Rubenstein. Go ahead and grab the
microphone if you would, sir, one of them.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN'S POCKET WATCH
Mr. Rubenstein. My name is Harry Rubenstein. I am a curator
at the National Museum of American History at the Smithsonian
Institution. Thank you so much for inviting us to this and an
opportunity to show one of our great treasures.
This happens to be Abraham Lincoln's pocket watch. It was a
watch he acquired we think in the late 1850s when he was a
successful attorney in Springfield. My guess is after closing a
successful railroad case he went out and bought the finest
pocket watch he could in Springfield.
But there is a second story behind this watch, and that is
the story that takes place in Washington. As President he comes
here, and his watch needs to be cleaned, and he sends it up to
Galt Jewelry Store, which used to, I do not know if many of you
remember the store, but it was a downtown institution, to have
it cleaned.
While it was being worked on, Mr. Galt rushes up into the
workroom and says, the war has begun. At that moment the
watchmaker who was working on the watch took off the hands of
the watch and the faceplate and left a message, and it said
basically, on this day Fort Sumter had been attacked, thank God
we have a government. And then he closes the watch and returns
it to Lincoln.
We heard about this story through a relative. When we
received the watch from the Lincoln family, the story never
came with the watch, but we heard this story from a gentleman
who said, my great-great grandfather used to work in Washington
and was, in fact, the story true.
So we opened up the watch, and lo and behold, there was
that message on the watch. There also happened to be some other
engravings in the watch as well. At a later date another
watchmaker saw the earlier engraving, added his name to the
watch, and then someone, I am assuming an unsigned someone,
wrote the name, Jeff Davis, across the bar.
Lincoln never knew about the messages in his pocket, but it
is sort of both a statement of the support that he received
from one enthusiastic member as well as a little bit of
graffiti inside.
We hold a large number of objects in our collection, and
they all tell stories, not necessarily as good as this one, but
I think what this watch does for me and what we try to do for
the public is bring that moment in history alive, take the
mythic and make it a little bit more tangible and real, and I
think if you let yourself look at this watch, you can cast
yourself back in that exciting moment of the Civil War and of
Lincoln and of the Nation.
Afterwards, as I understand it, if you have time to stay
around, I will be more than glad to pass around the watch and
give you a closer look.
Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. The Library of Congress had a display a couple
years ago, I want to say, that had the objects that were in
Lincoln's pocket the day he was shot. How did those come to be
with the Library of Congress rather than Smithsonian versus
other things? You know, I mean, some of this stuff is kind of
spread around. Ford Museum has the derringer, and Walter Reed
has the bullet, I guess. How did they get spread around?
Mr. Rubenstein. I think basically they got spread around
because they were spread around in their historical existence.
I am not exactly sure. I know the story of the pocket, but
almost all of our material comes directly from family members
or friends associated with Abraham Lincoln so that a large part
of our collections were held by the family and passed down
through their grandchildren from Robert Todd Lincoln to his
children, and that material came to the Smithsonian. The papers
at the Library of Congress come largely through the secretaries
that worked with Lincoln. The material at Ford's Theatre also
came in different ways.
I think there is value in having these collections around
different institutions. It makes it just a lot easier to manage
them. It makes it easier for their programs to have material
that support them, and our material to support us.
We work hard to coordinate our activities with these large
institutions that hold these collections and cooperate with
them in sharing information about each others', but there is an
advantage I think for all of us to have our own rich
collections.
Mr. Clough. I have been working with Jim Billington and
with David Ferriero and Rusty Powell on places where we can
work together and share our collections. So we loan things to
them, they loan things to us as we do the different types of
exhibitions, and in some cases we are trying to find these
places where we all intersect, and we would be able to do
something in common.
JOHN GLENN'S CAMERA
Ms. Levasseur. My name is Jennifer Levasseur. I am a museum
specialist at the National Air and Space Museum, and I am here
to speak about the John Glenn camera, and I want to thank
everyone for giving me the opportunity to talk about the camera
today.
This year we are also celebrating the 50th anniversary of
human spaceflight. Of course, we just passed the anniversaries
of Yuri Gagarin and Alan Shepard's flights, and in February we
will celebrate the 50th anniversary of the first American to
orbit, and that is John Glenn.
Senator Glenn tells a really wonderful story about this
camera, and I want to relate a little bit of that to you today.
In his preparations for flight then-Lieutenant Colonel Glenn
was considering all of the different things he would be doing
in space. He was, of course, only going to be up there for a
short time, but he was very interested in giving people back on
Earth an idea of what it was like to be in space, and of
course, he felt the best way to do that was with a camera.
So the suggestion was made that he carry a camera, and NASA
did not really go along with that in part because the mission
would be short, and there were lots of other things to still
learn about spaceflight at that time. And so as he tells the
story he was out getting a haircut in Cocoa Beach and decided
to stop in at a drugstore to get a few things and noticed a
display of cameras. Now, one of the problems that was faced
when selecting a camera for spaceflight was finding something
that was easy to use. They did not want to have to change the
stops on a camera or make a lot of adjustments, and this
particular camera that Glenn had found, which is an Ansco
Autoset camera, had automatic settings on it, and he felt this
would be an ideal candidate.
He purchased the camera for $45, and he brought it back to
NASA, and engineers at NASA and the machine shop actually
modified the camera for use with his spacesuit. Of course, he
has got a heavy inflated pressurized spacesuit, and they knew
it would be difficult for him to operate the camera. So they
added the pistol grip and added a shutter release and an
advanced mechanism which you will see here, which was all
machined out at NASA. It was all attached, and they laid out
all of the different cameras that he could choose from, and he
tried it out with the spacesuit glove on, and he picked his own
camera, not surprisingly, for use in space.
Over the years the story of this camera has gotten a bit
confused because he actually carried two cameras in space. The
famous Life photographer, Ralph Morris, had suggested a Leica
camera, which was a very high-quality camera at the time. He
carried that camera and this Ansco into space. This camera
happened to also be modified for astronomical observations,
making it the first scientific experiment, at least
astronomical experiment performed in space.
The front of it was modified with a special prism so that
he could take photographs of Orion, a constellation commonly
targeted by astronomers. The camera was very easy to use, he
felt very natural using it in space, just letting it go and
float around. He returned with the camera, and the camera's one
roll of film was processed. There were six exposures of about
15 seconds each.
The interesting thing about this particular experiment,
even though it was the first, it actually did not seem to go
anywhere. There was never any big scientific paper to come from
it, but he did, perform the task, and the Smithsonian then
received this camera as part of the transfer of Friendship 7
and all of the accompanying items in 1963.
And I would say that this camera for our museum, especially
in this anniversary year, really reminds us of that moment in
the early 60s when there was an incredible excitement for space
exploration and for innovation and ingenuity. I think this
camera above anything shows the ingenuity of a place like NASA
which would go through an incredible amount of creativity in
coming up with a way for him to bring home images of space.
Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. What happened to the photographs that were
taken?
Ms. Levasseur. That is a very good question.
Mr. Simpson. That is why I asked it.
Ms. Levasseur. And I have been asking that question. In my
research the only evidence I have seen of anything that came
from it is that the films were processed, they were processed
very early in one format. They were sent to Eastman Kodak for
ultraviolet processing, and things seemed to disappear at that
point. There was no scientific paper that was ever produced.
There is no reproduction of those images.
So it is a little disappointing to find out it did not seem
to go anywhere. The Leica camera, on the other hand, he used
that quite a bit and took some color and black and white
photographs which are widely reproduced in newspapers and
publications.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Chairman, if you would yield.
Jennifer, do you spell your name with one N or two N's?
Ms. Levasseur. Two N's.
Mr. Lewis. Okay. Well, that is unfortunate but--my
``nifer'' would have said that he forgot to put the film in the
camera.
Mr. Simpson. If it would have been me, I would have
forgotten to put the film in the camera.
Mr. Lewis. Sorry.
Mr. Simpson. Well, thank you. That is very interesting. It
is fascinating.
Do you have an opening statement you would like to make,
Jim, or----
OPENING STATEMENT OF MR. MORAN
Mr. Moran. Well, I could make one, but I do not want to
interrupt the----
Mr. Simpson. You are not interrupting. They just got done
testifying.
Mr. Lewis. You have 30 seconds.
Mr. Simpson. They just got done testifying, and we were
going to go into questions.
Voice. Do you have a quote from Teddy Roosevelt today?
Mr. Simpson. He had a quote I know.
Mr. Moran. Well, I do have a quote since you brought it up.
I have a quote, and this is going to be a good one, and it is
from a great American.
Noted actress Audrey Hepburn. Okay. Did you not have a
crush on her at Breakfast at Tiffany's?
Mr. Simpson. Everybody had a crush on her. Spencer Tracey
did.
Mr. Moran. She never ate, but she was a wonderful actress.
``Life is like tearing through a museum. Not until later do you
really start absorbing what you saw, thinking about it, looking
it up in a book, and remembering because you cannot take it in
all at once.'' So while Audrey Hepburn was providing an analogy
of life, she encapsulated a very important aspect of the
Smithsonian as an institution of learning and enlightenment.
Each year millions of our constituents and visitors from
around the world visit the Smithsonian to see its exhibits and
partake in its program. Ms. Hepburn was right about a quality
museum. You cannot take it in all at once, but if the
Smithsonian is successful in its presentation, what visitors
take away is a quest to learn more about the subjects that they
see. It is not by chance that the Smithsonian internet domain,
its name ends in edu. It is an institution of learning, and it
does it so right, and we as a society and a Nation benefit from
the advancement of knowledge it provides its visitors and the
public in general.
So I know we are all struck by the scope of activities
undertaken by the Smithsonian; science, history, art, culture,
in addition to its work as stewards of significant aspects of
America's heritage, and I understand that you are sharing some
of that this morning. We will need to carefully review the
budget with an eye towards any savings of perhaps initiatives
that are not absolutely essential right now or that will
require more federal money in the future. I think we have got
to be careful of implied commitments, and we will get into that
in a few minutes.
But we have to make sure that the resources are there for
the Smithsonian to carry out its most basic mission. The fiscal
year 2012 budget request for the Smithsonian is basically flat.
We are anxious to understand how you are going to be able to
maintain that core mission with the quality that we have come
to take for granted as Americans.
So with that, there is my statement, Mr. Chairman. Thanks
for giving me an opportunity. No thanks to you, Jerry, because
you clearly knew it was going to take more than 30 seconds, but
thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. I have to drive across that same
bridge, and I was going to come in early this morning. It took
me an hour and 15 minutes.
Mr. Moran. That is what it took me.
Mr. Simpson. It normally takes about 20 minutes.
Mr. Moran. I had to do something in the district, and you
know, what I normally can do in 10 to 15 minutes took an hour
and 15 minutes. I do want everyone to know, though, that the
construction delay on the bridge was not the result of one of
my earmarks. It was a change in traffic pattern. My earmark was
for the Humpback Bridge.
Mr. Simpson. This is the bridge to somewhere.
Mr. Lewis. Is your district that close by?
Mr. Moran. That is it. Everything on the other side of the
river and with the new redistricting as far as you can see
north and south. It is all my district, Jerry, and I love it,
you know that.
Anyway, maybe we should get back on track, and thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
JOHN GLENN'S CAMERA
Mr. Simpson. I will just keep us off track just a little
bit, but thank you for coming today, and thanks for bringing
these artifacts that are very, very interesting. When I look at
this camera that John Glenn used, what year was that?
Mr. Clough. 1962.
Mr. Simpson. 1962. It is one of those things that, I mean,
people can generally remember where they were when that
happened, or when man landed on the moon and that type of
thing. You know, I had to give a speech, this is 20 years ago
probably, when I was the Speaker of the Idaho House, and I had
a bunch of people that were scientists that were presenting
papers on, you know, black box theory of whatever, you know,
and they wanted me to give a speech at one of their dinners,
and I am sitting there, what do you tell these people?
And so I tried to tell them the other side of technology,
not just the advancement of it, and I used my grandfather as
the example. He was born in 1900. He knew people that fought in
the Civil War, and he died in 1988, so he lived 88 years. He
moved to Southeast Idaho when he was a child. When he first got
there, the male students would have to get up--they got
assigned a week--and they would ride to the one-room
schoolhouse to put logs on the wood burning stove to heat the
one-room schoolhouse. Later on he saw the first automobiles
come into the Cache Valley. Later on he saw the first airplane
fly overhead. Later on he saw a guy take off, land on the moon,
and come back to Earth.
That was in the space of one lifetime, and I look back at
this, and I say, boy, that is ancient technology, and you know
what a child that is born now is going to see during the span
of his lifetime is almost unbelievable, and it puts incredible
pressures on all of our institutions--governmental, social,
religious, everything--because we are animals that kind of like
things to be the same tomorrow as they are today. I like to
know the sun is going to come up over there, instead of over
there.
And, I mean, what was it in the Declaration when Jefferson
wrote that men are more disposed to suffer, while evils are
sufferable, than to right themselves and correct them, and I
mean, that is kind of the way we are. What it is going to do to
our educational institutions is going to be incredible.
So, anyway, I appreciate you bringing these artifacts for
us to take a look at. They make you think a little.
RESEARCH
Mr. Clough. Not to plug my monograph on scientific
literacy, mainly to point out the challenges we face but
particularly that the growth of knowledge right now is so
intense, and it is going to get more intense because there are
so many people in the world doing research today that were not
in the past, and so knowledge will continue to grow, and it
will get even more complicated.
And so how do we help our teachers keep up with that? I
think it is a major challenge for our country.
Mr. Simpson. You know, 30 years ago without the computers
we have today, you would not have been able to do human genome,
and what took them a year to do or longer can now be done in
hours.
Mr. Clough. High school students can do it now.
NATIONAL MUSEUM OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN HISTORY AND CULTURE
Mr. Simpson. Yes. It is amazing.
Anyway, as you know, the dollars are tight as we have
mentioned here today. Your budget request includes a total of
$225 million for the Facilities Capital Programs for fiscal
year 2012. The Smithsonian is requesting $125 million for
construction of the National Museum of African-American History
and Culture, as well as $100 million for repairs and
revitalization of other Smithsonian assets and for planning
future projects.
Given the subcommittee is anticipating a very lean
allocation, and as we have seen it is about $2 billion below
what we had last year, are there any planned projects contained
in the Facilities Capital Account, not including the new
African-American Museum, that can be deferred or delayed? And
with the African-American Museum, what is the total
appropriation going to be, and what will be the impact of doing
it multi-year if we cannot find all the money for it right as
it is.
Mr. Clough. Well, let me first just mention the National
Museum of African-American History and Culture. Of course,
Congress asked us to take on this, and we willingly accepted
the challenge, and the task was set forth for the design and
construction of that facility would be $500 million, that
Congress and the Executive Branch would provide $250 million of
federal funding, we would raise $250 million.
And so a big part of my job is being on the road trying to
raise that money from corporations, foundations, and
individuals. We have made great success in the private
fundraising, and the credit really goes to Lonnie Bunch, who is
an absolutely outstanding director for that museum. He was
absolutely the right person to pick for that, because he not
only has to go through the process of designing and ultimately
construction of the museum, but he has to build up collections.
Now, we had collections to begin with, but he has
significantly increased the number of collections that he will
need to open the museum. The intent was to open the museum in
2015. That would be a historic date, because it is the 150th
anniversary of the ending of the Civil War. The intent is to
have a museum that speaks to the African-American contributions
to us as a people, not for this to be a museum just for
African-American individuals who are American citizens but for
all of us to speak to that larger history.
And I have seen the collections that he is building. It
starts with a powder horn from a free Black who fought in the
Revolutionary War who inscribes his own personal history on
that powder horn, and there were 5,000 free Blacks who fought
in the Revolutionary War, and so you can see how you expand and
tell the story as you work your way from that to the present.
So we are well on our way in terms of raising the money. I
have worked with Lonnie and Richard Kurin, who is here as the
Undersecretary of History, Art, and Culture, on the pipeline,
if you will. Do we have the donors out there who can get us
from $100 million to $250 million, and we think definitely. We
have had tremendous success, a positive reception of this
project from the corporate side, the foundation side, and from
individuals.
So we are confident we will raise the private money. I hope
we will raise more because as we know, it is going to be tough
to operate museums in the future, and we want to build an
endowment for it. So I want to go blast right past that and try
to raise the endowment.
So the federal side of it is the commitment that was made
for the other $250 million, and so far $45 million has been
committed to the project, and so that is underway. The project
is designed, the site is almost prepared at 14th and
Constitution. We have to be careful not to damage the view line
for visitors for the Washington Monument. That is almost
complete, and it is one of those things that we have had to go
through with some very careful deliberations on it. And it is
going to be a beautiful project, very subtly placed, very
subtly designed, and it will be a magnificent experience for
the American people.
So we have now reached the point where if we are going to
do this in 2015, it is time for the bigger increments to be
applied to the project for actual construction. That is where
the $125 million comes in. OMB realized that there are actually
$205 million yet to be applied, there is $45 million that we
have gotten so far, and so they plan in fiscal year 2013, to
ask for the next $85 million, which would complete the project,
and we would be able to finish it in 2015. That is our intent.
Mr. Simpson. If we do not do the 125 this year, we would
essentially be setting off the 2015 date?
Mr. Clough. You start delaying the project, and to go back
to my other life, I am a civil engineer. Any time you delay a
project of that size, even though the economy may be down
today, we are getting great bids right now, that by 2016, the
economy may heat up and you would end up with inflation really
taking a chunk out of the project.
So it is important that we try to keep it on track.
ARTS AND INDUSTRIES BUILDING
Mr. Simpson. Where are we with the Arts and Science
Building?
Mr. Clough. The Arts and Industries Building?
Mr. Simpson. Arts and Industries Building.
Mr. Clough. Arts and Industries Building. We are going
through what we call phase one of that building. Actually,
there was a first small phase. Thank goodness that we got $5
million out of the Recovery Act which we, in fact, used and
applied to that project well. We got $25 million all total, and
we did obligate all those. I think we are ahead of any federal
agency in obligating our federal funds.
But thanks to the Legacy Fund the Senate and the House both
helped create for us there was a $30 million Legacy Fund that
was created that we had to develop a match for, and we worked
hard to get that match. We had a marvelous gift by Bob Kogod
and Arlene Kogod, of $10 million that completed the match. We
actually had $40 million in private money for program and
building.
So also good news. When we did the project we probably
gained about $8 million on it because now is the time to build,
and so it is underway, about a $55 million project to stabilize
that building. I was very concerned as a civil engineer, I was
here when the snow loads were the heaviest and went through
that building, and it was kind of creaking and groaning at that
point, a lot of corrosion on the wrought iron structure, and so
we needed to fix that.
So fortunately we have the money now to take the entire
roof off, which needs to be done, and to replace the wrought
iron with structural steel and to replace the windows which are
not historic windows, and that will be what we call phase one.
Phase two will be where you actually start programming. We
need to move the mechanical plant underground. It should not be
in the building. The building is a very small building actually
and we would probably turn it into what we think would be a
very exciting place for learning to allow what we were just
talking about, students come in and learn about science,
current events where most of our museum activities are about
past events, but really about current events.
And so we are well on our way. The project will take 2
years to complete this so-called phase one.
SMITHSONIAN STAFF
Mr. Simpson. One other question before I turn it over to
Jim. We may, you know, congratulate our staff here and thank
them for all their great work, but I also want to thank your
staff for the great work that they have done in helping us as
we have tried to make a budget that makes sense, that you can
live with, and your staff has been great to work with. So we
appreciate that very much.
You mentioned in your opening testimony that the
Smithsonian ranked fourth in best places to work, best places,
I guess, within the Federal Government, best agency or
whatever.
Mr. Clough. Large agencies.
Mr. Simpson. Talk about that just a minute, because I think
that is very important.
Mr. Clough. Well, when I came to the Smithsonian, I think
there was a morale problem. I think people had felt beaten down
a little bit over some of the activities that occurred in the
last Administration. We think about budget cuts today, but
because of what was called base erosion, the budget had been
going up slightly over the years, but because of inflation and
mandated salary increases, we are actually losing ground.
And so over a period of 10 years we lost 600 people at the
Smithsonian, by retirements, resignations, and no replacements.
And so there was sort of a feeling that, you know, how do you
get out of this cycle, and we created a strategic plan by
getting over 1,000 people engaged in it, so this was not a top-
down deal. This was a joint consensus vision. We got people
from outside the Smithsonian, people from the Hill actually
participated in helping us put this together, and it was a
shared vision, and I think that has worked.
It was also based on what I call scenario-based planning.
That is, we considered a scenario where the budget might be
better than that day, that was two years ago, or steady or
worse. Now it turns out that that third is where we are, and so
we have actually planned for this kind of environment that we
can keep our progress and momentum going, and we also agreed to
do everything we could to increase the private funding of the
Smithsonian, but we had to have great ideas if we were going to
do that.
PRIVATE FUNDRAISING
We have had success in philanthropy and private
fundraising. We are very proud of that. We are looking at
having a national campaign, which would be an even more
organized way to do that. So people are working on really
productive things, and I think the folks at the Smithsonian
came together in a way they had not come together before, using
what we call interdisciplinary approaches. We were able to
raise funding, the Gates Foundation is a good example there,
that allows us to do things we had not done before by combining
our assets.
And our goal is to be more inclusive about telling
America's story and not to try to do it in just one museum but
to think of all of our museums, telling a comprehensive story.
And so we are working hard on trying to do that, and people are
getting together and talking to each other. I was at an
education meeting that we had called STEAM, where we add arts
to STEM. So using arts to help people learn science is a very
exciting way to do it, and we had 80 people there, and I asked
how many of them had met someone they never met before at the
Smithsonian. They have all worked at the Smithsonian many
years. They all raised their hands. They are now meeting each
other, and they are really excited.
And this is a joint effort. It is something that I think is
joyful. The Smithsonian folks are passionate about what they
do. They need to be respected for what they do, and they have
been in essence under-funded for a long time, and so we are
finding ways to take care of these big problems.
Mr. Simpson. Appreciate that.
Mr. Moran.
NEW MUSEUMS ON THE NATIONAL MALL
Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The line of questioning I am going to bring up I know is
going to be mischaracterized, and my motivations are going to
be questioned, and it is probably going to bring me into
conflict with some of my best friends in this body, but I think
we need to pursue it.
You talked about the inclusivity of our Nation, the fact
that we are such a strong society of such a strong fabric
really because it is a whole host of different fabrics
interwoven together. E pluribus unum.
But I am concerned about the direction we are taking on the
Smithsonian. The Administration just released a report on the
National Museum of the American Latino. It recommends that this
new museum be a part of the Smithsonian and occupy a spot on
the National Mall.
Two concerns. One, of course, is that the Mall is becoming
a very private place, monuments, memorials, museums, there are
160 monuments and memorials in the Mall. I mean, basically we
have gone from two in the beginning to where we have 13 museums
today. We are losing open space, and of course, future
generations are going to have virtually no space to honor their
heroes, their iconic figures.
The Congress back about 8 or 9 years ago said that the Mall
is a substantially completed work of civic art and imposed a
moratorium on any further construction there. I do not think
that is going to be sustained.
The second issue is, you know, perhaps less pragmatic but I
think nevertheless a serious one. I voted for the National
Museum of African-American History and Culture. Obviously I
support it. I think it is a wonderful thing that we would tell
the full story, but I am concerned that we are breaking up the
American story into separate narratives based upon specific
ethnicities.
And virtually every indigenous or immigrant community,
particularly those who were brought here enslaved, has a story
to tell, and it should be told, and it should be part of our
history. The problem is that as much as we would like to think
that all Americans are going to go to the African-American
Museum, that all Americans will go to the museum of American
History, that all will go to the Latino Museum, I am afraid
that is not going to happen, that the Museum of American
History is where the white folks are going to go, and the
American Indian Museum is where Indians are going to feel at
home, even though I think it is a disappointment. Up until now
it has been largely a glorified arts and crafts fair, very
disappointing.
And African-Americans are going to go to their own museum,
and Latinos are going to go to their own museum, and that is
not what America is all about, and I am bringing this up
because I greatly respect not just your management ability but,
you know, your understanding of the concept of what the
Smithsonian is all about.
And I would like you to address this concern. It is a
matter of the overcrowding of the Mall, it is a matter of
future financial commitments, which are very substantial and
are going to crowd out the quality I fear of the museums that
we have, but it also a matter of how we depict the American
story and where do we stop. The next one is going to be Asian
Americans, and then God help us it will probably be Irish
Americans or, you know, who knows.
Do not forget who?
Voice. The Norwegians.
Mr. Moran. The Norwegians. Gosh, no, but I think it is a
legitimate concern. I know it is a serious concern of mine, and
one I would like you to address if you would not mind, Mr.
Secretary.
Mr. Clough. Sure. Well, there were two questions or
comments. I think one about the Mall itself, and I think we all
share concerns. This is America's front yard. It is the place
where democracy happens. You need to have green space, people
need to be able to enjoy that, they need to be able to gather.
That is all part of the process, and so I think we all share
concerns about that. I am not sure what we can do about some of
these things other than, of course, there is a master plan to
expand the Mall, and that would take it down towards Southwest.
Since I live in Southwest, I would kind of welcome a little bit
of new development over there.
So I think that is one possible solution. I think you
raised a serious question, and it needs to be asked to the Park
Service and others and the planners who really think this thing
through, but it is a very serious challenge for us with all the
monuments as you describe and so forth. For the Smithsonian, of
course, our property ends at the curb, and so the Mall itself
is actually part of the Park Service.
On the question then of the ethnic approach to museums,
that is an interesting philosophical question. I think the
Smithsonian frankly did not do what it should have done in the
'60s, '70s, and '80s, to really broaden its reach to tell the
more inclusive story, honestly, in a more inclusive way, and I
think it is important for everyone to realize when we say we
have 19 museums and galleries overall, that throughout those
museums you should be able to tell anybody's story. Through the
Smithsonian American Art Museum there is art for everybody, art
that tells all American stories. In the National Portrait
Gallery they have worked hard to be more inclusive at what they
are doing. In the American History Museum they have worked hard
to be more inclusive, but we were not there at a timely point
where people, I think, felt themselves left out.
And I have talked to a lot of different groups that feel
they are not seen, and so our new strategic plan really calls
for us to take this more inclusive approach to things, and when
we say we have 100 exhibitions a year, to think about how those
represent the fabric of this country as opposed to just a
singular vision from one museum and one set of collections.
So we are going to work on that. You will certainly see the
way we present ourselves on the web and the way we present
materials out in the K through 12 in a much more inclusive way
in approaching the American story in that way.
And when we say, for example, we want to reach new
audiences, that is an audience we are not reaching. For
example, we are not reaching the Hispanic, Latino audience, and
we need to, and I spoke to the Latino Commission myself and
indicated that we were going to be very aggressive about that
in the future.
And I think the Smithsonian some time in the past maybe
missed this boat. Now, we are where we are with the present set
of circumstances, and I think that Lonnie Bunch's approach in
the African-American museum, I think we will all be positively
surprised. Lonnie has studied other museums to understand how
this one can be more inclusive in its story, and I think you
will find that he has really worked hard at that.
Mr. Moran. I think he is terrific. He won me over, and I
fear that the creator of the Latino Museum is going to win me
over, and you know, they know what they want to do. I think it
is very valuable, but we need to see it in context as well.
A member of this subcommittee, Maurice Hinchey, has
introduced a bill for the National Museum of the American
People to tell the story of, you know, how each wave of
immigrants became Americans. I dismissed it at first as just
one more idea, but he wants to put it over in the Banneker
plot. I talked to Eleanor Holmes Norton, she thought that was a
great idea because that extends the Mall, gets it out into
Southwest, other places. You know, maybe something like that
works. I do not know. I suspect that, you know, we are too far
down the line to, you know, to really change direction.
But with the Latino Museum, and this will be my last
question, do they have to raise the money and then we match
what they raise so that we do not start construction and as you
suggested wind up in a situation where we cannot complete it
unless the Congress pays all? I mean, that is what we did with
the Capitol Visitors' Center, you know. We were told it was not
going to cost anything, you know, $670 million later, and I
still cannot find my way around the darn thing, but, you know,
is it going to be controlled by the level of contributions that
initially are made by the private sector and then we match
those dollars after they are raised, or is it a matter we start
and then the taxpayer has to complete it?
Mr. Clough. No. I think that the Smithsonian has always
lived up to its commitments in these types of partnerships, and
we have had many of them where, for example, the Legacy Fund
was a great one. We actually raised more money than was needed
for the match. For African-American History I am confident we
are going to raise more private funding than is necessary for
the match.
So what needs to be done with the Latino Museum if Congress
decides to go ahead with it would be to develop this concept of
a partnership and a commitment in both parties to get it done
and hold everybody to their commitments, and we will live up to
our commitments.
Now, having said that, there is no way, I believe, that you
could successfully build a museum, whatever the name would be,
without a substantive base of federal funding. I do not think
you can make it work. You do not want to embarrass either
Congress or the constituents you are trying to represent in
this museum. That would not be fair to anybody.
And to build collections, to raise money costs money. You
have to go out and start developing that. I think there is a
strong base of people who would support the programmatic
initiative, maybe even a museum in the Latino community. But
you need money to do that, and so it is not a good way to
proceed to assume somehow that you could do all this with
private funding. You simply cannot do it.
Mr. Moran. Do you have any thoughts on the preferred
location which is basically on the Capitol grounds, an
extension on the Senate side there?
Mr. Clough. Well, I think they did a great deal of work to
look at alternative sites, and as you suggest, the problem is
there are not many alternatives, and so I think they chose a
site where they felt they could build a new museum where the
architecture would be reflective of their culture and their
history, as opposed to trying to adapt an older building, which
fundamentally could never be a good museum to begin with, like
Arts and Industries, and one that could serve their purposes.
I do believe in the future we will all ask the question and
should ask the question, how big a building do you really need
physically when you can do so much digitally. In other words,
you can reach a far larger audience, we will reach 300 million
people digitally, and that experience is going to get better
and better.
Now, that will never replace the personal visit, but it is
a question of designing those things together in today's era.
Mr. Moran. Thank you for your very responsive answers, and
it is an ongoing issue, but I appreciate you addressing it.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Lewis.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
Director, Secretary Clough, for your presentation and your
colleagues' presentation. You reminded me of something a
chairman did as well when we looked at the John Glenn camera. I
remember shaving in the morning listening to television down
the hall, walking into the family room, and my children who
were then, you know, much younger than David LesStrang when we
first met him, and they were talking about the apogee and the
epogee of that flight like it was yesterday's cornflakes and
just kind of sparked one's imagination about this explosive
future that the chairman talks about.
OVERCROWDING OF THE MALL
Crowding out the Mall with museums is a very legitimate
question, and I thank Mr. Moran for raising the question the
way he did. We had a gathering adjacent to the Appropriations
Committee Chairman's office on the balcony last evening, and
you can look down the Mall. It is a fabulous view. I mean,
really incredible view looking to the west.
And I must say that I do not know who actually signed off
on the design on that very sizable and impressive Indian
Museum, but some way it does not fit in my head to that Mall
that we have all grown to love, and not speaking to the final
design but I do know in my own territory where there are like
14 Indian tribes, just one of them from the gaming reserves,
each member of the tribe takes home tax free over $100,000 a
year. I mean, that is an incredible reflection of one of the
designs of our history, and I hope that museum reflects the
best in mix and otherwise, and so far there is some doubt in
the minds. I have many a person who has visited, including some
friends.
Mr. Lewis. It might very well pay for the overhead, indeed,
but that is separate from the question. I have done some
controversial things in my life. I mentioned David LesStrang
being a right wing kook when I first met him, and we do change
our view as we go forward, and the liberal Democrats in our
life do have those influences as his wife has him.
My mother has had a significant influence on me, and she,
as I was a youngster, talked a lot about the Depression Era,
indeed, the New Deal Era, and she would be very proud of the
fact that I served on that commission that eventually led to
the FDR Museum.
Now, within the more conservative sides of my broader
family, that was not necessarily the most popular thing to do.
There is room without any question to recognize our history in
many a way, but I think we should be very cautious as we take
those steps, and Jim raises very much the point. We do not want
groups in our country to visit our history by way of singular
kinds of channels of review, and I am very concerned about
that.
Now, just one more mention, if you will be patient.
Mr. Clough. Sure.
Mr. Lewis. That mother that I mentioned, my great great
grandfather, Jasper O'Farrell, laid out the streets of San
Francisco according to my Irish mother. She also told me she
was born on March 17, and we found that she was actually born
on the 22nd. In the meantime, we ought to consider an Irish
museum because what they did for the development of the East
Coast, especially around Boston, is, you know, it is
incredible. So one of those museums, too, ought to be in
somebody's mind's eye.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Clough. Can I respond quickly?
Mr. Simpson. Surely.
Mr. Clough. My wife is a Burke on her mother's side, and
they came here in the late 1800s. We got married on St.
Patrick's Day, so I can never forget my anniversary, but my
mother and father are like your mother and father. They went
through the Depression. Their whole goal in life was to see
their kids go to college because they did not get to go to
college. So that was the generation that was a great, great
generation for all of us.
And I do get letters frequently from the Irish American
folks saying, where is our museum, but, again, one quick thing,
coming back to both of the comments that you have made, in our
new strategic plan we talk about coming up with big ideas that
capture the American experience, and one of these big ideas,
certainly Congressman Moran referred to that, is immigration
and migration.
And so we are going to focus a big part of our effort on
telling the story of migrants and immigrants, and that is
coming from this new idea of how do we use all these museums
together to tell a bigger story? And you will see a big push
placed because some people migrated here and others immigrated
here.
And that captures the people who came to this new world
18,000 years ago and have created a culture before the
Europeans got here. So that shows you a different kind of
approach, I think, that we hope will begin to address some of
these concerns.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Dicks.
SOCIAL MEDIA
Mr. Dicks. Well, we want to welcome you back, Mr.
Secretary, and in reading through your biography I am just
amazed at all the different things that you have done and done
very well, and we are very glad you are here.
Mr. Simpson. Checkered career.
Mr. Dicks. The highlight was being the provost at the
University of Washington, I am sure, but we are glad to have
you here at the Smithsonian. You came into a very difficult
situation. I think you stabilized the organization and are
leading it in a very good way.
You mentioned in your statement that we have more than 400
web and social media accounts, and that number is growing every
day. On our main Facebook account we have more than 85,000
fans. On our main Twitter account we have 320,000 fans, and our
YouTube offerings have been viewed nearly a million times. And
our refreshed website has a more modern look, and it is easier
to use, to navigate. It just won the 2011 People's Voice Webby
Award for best cultural institution website.
Well, tell us about this. Tell us what your kind of vision
is of how you want this to interrelate with the American
people.
Mr. Clough. We were just discussing that, the way young
people think today is different than the way we think,
different in the way we communicate, and different in the way
we learn, and we have to adapt as an institution to help
communicate and capture the imagination and inspire those young
people. You know, no one is required to go to the Smithsonian
or go to our website, and so we have to engage them and make
them want to actually be part of the Smithsonian, to learn from
us.
We have worked on these new processes to try to engage
people, and we have Twitter sites. For example, when this watch
was opened, we Tweeted about it, and all of a sudden millions
of people around the country knew that we are going to do that,
and they would not have known it otherwise.
YouTube: what we are trying to do there is to show how
people like Harry and Jennifer do this marvelous work, because
otherwise it is hidden, but one of the wonderful stories about
the zoo was the chef at the zoo prepares 2,300 meals a day for
different appetites, widely different appetites, and we did a
YouTube Video on the chef, and he became enormously popular. He
appeared on food shows all over the place, but, you know, the
point was----
Voice. What do the tigers like?
Mr. Clough. You and me. But it got people thinking about
what goes on behind the scenes, you know, the work that goes on
to sustain these great creatures and the science behind it.
That is really the purpose of these things, and to some extent
it is just an enabling thing that we have done, and that is to
say it is okay for the different museums to have their own
Twitter sites as they have events and they want to engage
people in their next activity.
A simple other approach was the Smithsonian American Art
Museum next year will host an exhibition on the idea of
computer games as art. I mean, some of them are very artful,
some of them are a little dangerous for young people, but they
offered up 240 of them for a vote. Six million people voted.
Voice. That is amazing.
Mr. Clough. Now they will all want to come and see what is
in the Smithsonian American Art Museum, and so it is a means to
engage and to connect and to deepen people's understanding. I
think the quote that Congressman Moran was using by Audrey
Hepburn, what we want to do is we want to help people before
they get there to understand what they are going to see and
then after they leave we want them to be able to do their deep
dive through the web materials that we have.
So we call it a journey, not just a visit, and today, for
example, you can, if you have your iPhone, you can download a
number of Smithsonian apps, and one that I love that just came
out, it is called LeafSnap, and if you have an iPhone it is
free. This was done with funding from the National Science
Foundation, Columbia University, and the Smithsonian, and if
you would like to seem intelligent when you are in the woods
and you want to identify a tree, LeafSnap will identify any
tree for you based on the leaf shape that it sees.
You have to have a little white background for it, but you
can do that. And in June we will issue our first Smithsonian-
wide app, which will be free for visitors, and so visitors can
plan their visits on their own iPhone or their Android,
whatever they have got, and when they get here after they are
getting a little worn out, they can say, where is the
restaurant or where is the restroom or whatever, and it will
all be on the app.
So it is a way of connecting the people, deepening their
experience, and then making them hopefully want to access the
next level of our educational materials.
Mr. Dicks. Good. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Dicks. I yield to Mr. Lewis.
SMITHSONIAN MAGAZINE
Mr. Lewis. You raised the Smithsonian Magazine.
Mr. Clough. Yes.
Mr. Lewis. And the 150th anniversary of the Civil War.
Mr. Clough. Yes.
Mr. Lewis. That magazine is available by way of
subscription I am assuming?
Mr. Clough. Yes, it is.
Mr. Lewis. It occurred to me when you were providing this
testimony that what a fabulous Christmas gift for children and
others. I mean, it really truly is an interesting----
Mr. Clough. We encourage that.
Mr. Lewis. Yes. Thank you.
Mr. Clough. That does provide revenues for the Smithsonian,
but the thing I really enjoy about this group is that they are
very mission focused, so you will not find extraneous articles
in here. The articles will be very much in and around the
Smithsonian mission, so they have really bought into our
strategic plan, and for those people who read every last page,
there is a Secretary's column in there.
Mr. Simpson. Ms. McCollum.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I own a copy of
Breakfast at Tiffany's. I bet you guys do not. But I did not
have a crush on her.
And, you know, I hear what Mr. Moran is saying, but at the
same time I sit here and, you know, everybody was kind of
talking about their mother or their grandmother, and of course,
I have mothers and grandmothers and a great aunt who is still
alive who did not have the right to vote when she born, and now
she has her greatest niece serving in Congress.
So there are so many stories to tell.
Mr. Clough. Yes. Very rich.
Ms. McCollum. And everybody wants to share their story that
at some point we need to be mindful of the fact that
everybody's story is important, and so I wish you luck, and I
still hope that you are trying to make sure as we go through
these major important museums that everybody's story continues
to be told on a journey.
And Mr. Lewis, I want you to think of me the next time you
look at the Native American Museum. It is Minnesota sandstone,
and it is now your favorite rock. That is what that is made
from out there, and when you go, I think part of the reason----
Mr. Lewis. Minnesota sandstone?
Ms. McCollum. Minnesota sandstone and there is Minnesota
pipestone, which was traded by a lot of the tribes, but, you
know, I know that the architecture is kind of shell, but that
was to reflect all Native Americans, not one tribe, one nation
over another, and I have spoken with tribal members outside,
and some will say I see an igloo in here, and other people say
I see this in here. And so it does not have anything that is a
gotcha moment, and I think the architects probably had a
struggle with that a lot, and that would probably be very
interesting reading, I think, for people going in, how the
design and the shape came to be.
ADMISSIONS
When you make a decision on what to cut or what to do, and
I have been here when the bills, and I am sure we are going to
have amendments on the Floor to charge admission to the
Smithsonian, because they are going to pop up.
If you could maybe, you know, know of refresh the committee
your understanding of that, and then, you know, you do not
charge admission and then just keep all the money. You charge
admission, you have got a contractor taking a cut, you have got
maintenance doing things, and so it is not like the Smithsonian
would get a dollar for every dollar that got charged.
Mr. Clough. Absolutely not.
Ms. McCollum. You know, because people say, well, if
everybody just does a dollar, I mean, you have got accounting,
you have got to start worrying about internal theft. I mean,
there is all kinds of things that go on with that. So that is
probably going to come up on the Floor, and so talk to us a
little bit about that.
Mr. Clough. Okay. First, let me just back up a second and
one of the other things about social media that helps us a
great deal in terms, as you said, everybody has a story to
tell. We can now let them tell those stories and share those
stories with other people, and so many of our exhibitions now
encourage people to tell us what they think and to tell what
they saw of themselves and their family story in that
exhibition.
And we are gathering that information. We are going to use
that information to enrich what we are doing. We just did
something on freedom riders, and we were able to go all over
the country with it to have the freedom riders who were still,
John Lewis does a great story, but to have kids and young
people participate in that and then to blog about it and then
to talk amongst themselves about it. Sharing is a big thing,
and we are trying to encourage that.
Just a little bit on the American Indian Museum. Kevin
Gover is the director there. He is a fabulous man. He has got
great experience. He has been a university faculty member. He
is a member of I think the Pawnee Tribe. He is a real
intellect. He is trying to really get that museum to do what it
was expected to do and that was to tell the story of all the
cultures that existed here before Europeans came here, and so
that takes you back to 18,000 years ago possibly and to speak
to that entire development. And then the impact of the cultures
that came together and then what is the next part of that
story.
One of the exhibitions they will do, for example, in 2012,
is about the Inca Road, which is an engineering marvel, 26,000
kilometers, that was built. It was an amazing technological
development, still is used today. It is an amazing thing.
Kevin is really working hard to put more exhibitions in, we
could lose a little money but take one of the stores out so we
can have more exhibition space to tell a broader and a richer
story about that.
There is an app also called the Infinity of Nations. I
would encourage you to get it. It is free.
Ms. McCollum. I have a flip phone, so this app stuff is
like disappointing to me.
Mr. Clough. Okay, but it is a marvelous exhibition. Out of
the George Gustav Heye Center, which is part of the American
Indian, that tells that richer story. It is an amazing app, and
it is free for all folks.
Now, coming to the question of charging admissions. You are
exactly right.
Mr. Serrano. Could you yield? Could I make a suggestion?
That you send a note to Members of Congress when the apps are
available?
Mr. Clough. Sure. I will be glad to.
Mr. Serrano. Because I do not know. I cannot keep up.
Mr. Clough. We will definitely do that.
But coming to the question of charging admissions, you are
exactly right. It is not a free lunch by a long stretch. To
even break even you would have to charge $3 or $4 because you
are going to have to pay for all the infrastructure to collect
it, plus we get 30 million visits a year to our museums, and
you see huge lines of people trying to get through, paying
admissions, using credit cards, slowing things down enormously.
So there would be a real price to pay.
I love it. I live close by. I walk up on the Mall every
weekend, and I love seeing the families up there and seeing the
families go from one museum to the other. A lot of them have
saved for years to get here. They want to have a rich
experience, and if you charged admission, it would diminish
that experience. I think we should not charge admission. The
people have already paid for these museums. They paid through
their tax dollars. They paid for the collections and the
collections' care through their tax dollars.
And so just on that philosophical basis I do not think we
should charge admission. A lot of people will say, well, okay.
You get 30 million visits a year. Well, that is actually not 30
million visitors, because that may be one person who went to
the Natural History on one day and went to American History on
the second day. They get counted. And so the numbers quickly
diminish as non-workable as a way actually to make much
revenue, and it is not the good way to do it, I do not think,
because folks have already paid for this museum through their
tax dollars.
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair, I happen to agree, but I am
mindful of the fact that I would be surprised if it did not
come up on the Floor, and I think it is always good to be able
to say that the committee recently asked, and so thank you for
that.
Mr. Simpson. I have to agree with you. I think one of the
great things about it is that it is free.
Mr. Clough. Right. Absolutely.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Chairman, I do not remember when there was
an amendment proposing that we charge. I guess we have seen
them in the past. I just do not remember one, but I think you
would get very broadly-based, almost non-partisan support
opposing that idea.
Mr. Clough. There are many other ways for us to try to
raise money before you ever get to that point.
LATINO MUSEUM
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you so much, and thank you for your
testimony and for the work that you do. You are one of my
favorite institutions, federal agencies, if you will.
Let me just touch a little bit on some of the comments made
by my brother, Mr. Moran, and some other folks. In a perfect
world Latinos I can tell you for sure and I dare speak for some
African-Americans would rather be part of rather than separated
and apart in exhibitions.
But that is not our fault. That is trying to make up for
400 years of not being included, and so what you see today is
trying to remedy that, and it upsets some people, and some
carry it either in jocular fashion or in a serious fashion
about the Irish and the Italians and others. Well, to ethnic
minorities those were the folks in charge, and it seems that
everything was about their story and none about ours. It did
not get specific perhaps at times, but I knew, for instance, in
school I was taught that the subway system was built by the
Irish in New York City, and I was never told that the trains
out west were built by the Chinese. I was always told that the
police department was set up by the Irish, and the sanitation
department was set up by the Italian or for the Italian
Americans, and that was a fact. I knew that. I saw it.
No one told me about Puerto Ricans in 1899, coming to New
York and joining up with Cubans on the Spanish American War and
that the Puerto Rican flag was designed in New York City, not
in Puerto Rico by the Cuban Revolutionary party against Spain.
We are left out of that story.
So in a perfect world we do not want, I personally do not
want the Latin Grammies, but there was never any recognition of
another music that was making a lot of people, non-Latinos,
rich in this country by recording it and selling it and so on.
And so I repeat, in a perfect world we want to walk into a
museum and see the history of our country, but for 400 years
people were not included, and even at times the story we tell
may not be related to what we are talking about, and I look at
Mr. Lewis, because he has been very strong, and Mr. Lewis has
done some things of dealing with my monture of included
territories, and he even did it on an area that satisfied his
need but satisfied mine, which was if you are not going to try
people from Guantanamo somewhere else, do not try them in the
territories either, and a lot of people were saying, well, we
can always try them in the territories since we are not
bringing them to the states.
But I will give you a related incident that speaks to the
need to have these kinds of situations, be they at the
university level or the Smithsonian. A prominent member of the
New York State legislature came to my father's funeral some
years ago, in the 1980s, and asked me, Joe, why is the American
flag on your father's coffin? And I said, because he was a
member of the Armed Services, in the Army, and he always wanted
the flag, and we wanted the American flag to be there. About
half an hour later this prominent, and I will not mention names
because you know him, came to me and said, you know, I learned
something tonight. I never knew that the Puerto Rican Army uses
the American flag.
A prominent member of Congress about 15 years ago asked me
if I would get him currency from Puerto Rico for his
collection, so I took a dollar out of my pocket, and I think he
is still embarrassed.
Mr. Simpson. He ought to be.
Mr. Serrano. But that is part of what we are dealing with
here. Yes, there is a concern about another museum and another
museum and another museum, but it is because this generation
has been called on to remedy a lot of stuff that happened in
the past, and in that we should not get upset about what is
happening but feel proud of the fact that we have come up and
stepped up to the plate and said, you know something? That
happened, and we have to take care of it.
So that is my take on it. Do I want a Latino Museum? Yeah,
because for 400 years I did not know inclusion. Which brings me
to my first question, my only question really, and my comment,
and that is that I have always pushed for the territories to be
included, and I hope that the Smithsonian continues to be
aggressive in seeing the territories as Americans that need
their artifacts and their things included.
What happens in Puerto Rico on a daily basis, what has
happened in Puerto Rico since 1898, is part of American
history. It is part of American history. What happens in the
Northern Mariana Islands and in Guam and American Samoa is part
of American history, and we forget that at times.
But I tell you how frustrating it gets. Do you remember
Bobby Bonilla, the baseball player? Okay. Baseball listed him,
major league baseball as American born, and it listed Roberto
Clemente as foreign born. It lists Jose Cheo Cruz from the
Houston Astros as foreign born, and it lists his son, who was
born in Houston as American born. And a few years ago National
Journal listed foreign-born members of Congress, Tom Lantos,
Nydia Velazquez, Jose Serrano. Hello! That is the problem, and
that is why the Latino museum and the African-American museum
are both things that are necessary until we reach that point
where it is not necessary any longer. But until then it has to
be because there is a lot of story that has not been told.
We are now in my community documenting the history of the
65th regiment, which was an old Puerto Rican regiment that
fought in World War II, much to the amazement of that member of
the New York State Legislature; they were not fighting their
own war. They were fighting the American War, you know, against
the Nazis and the Japanese and so on.
So to my colleagues, I know it presents a space problem,
and I am not being sarcastic, and I know from the goodness of
your heart you would rather that we have one America, but that
is not the reality of our history, and so let's keep working,
and in closing, again, what I said before, rather than feel bad
about it, let's be proud of the fact that we are the first
generation to tackle it and to do the right thing.
Mr. Clough. Well, your comments are heartfelt and very
important. I have been to Puerto Rico quite a few times because
I was President of Georgia Tech, and we had a great stream of
wonderful students who came to Georgia Tech, and the families
there are so loyal, once a family member comes, you get more
family members, and it was a fantastic experience, and the
brightness of the young people from there were remarkable.
We do have a Latino Center, I want to mention that, at the
Smithsonian. We have an Asian American Center. These are both
working hard with us to help develop this inclusivity approach.
As I said, frankly, I do not know if you heard my first
remarks, we missed the boat. The Smithsonian was not there when
it should have been there to reach out, and so, yes, we have a
lot of work to do to rectify this thing.
We have a lot of stories to tell right there in front of
us. Two of the most prominent statues for our Art Museum and
our American History Museum were designed by a Latino artist--
Vaquero and the beautiful Infinity sculpture. We need to tell
those stories.
Our traveling exhibition service is working with American
History to put on an exhibition called Bittersweet Harvest, so
speaking of a story that has not been told, and this is about
the Bracero Program, where guest workers were invited to this
country because there was not enough manpower during World War
II to mount the war effort, and people came to this country and
did remarkable things. They were in all states but four. They
helped this country mount the war effort, and that was a great
story to tell.
Hilda Solis, who is Secretary of Labor, had tears in her
eyes. She said, my father was a bracero, and people realized
how important that was, and to tell you how, again, the untold
story, to be able to see it. The traveling exhibition means it
travels, and so we were going to travel I think originally to
about 15 cities, and we had one version of it. It turned out to
be enormously impactful, and so as a result now we have
multiple versions of it, and it is going to 100 cities because
people see themselves in this, and they see their story.
Mr. Serrano. Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, in closing, also
if for 400 years for African-Americans and 100 years for Puerto
Ricans in my case, you are told basically by the society, by
the media, by TV stations you are not part of us, there reaches
a point where you say, okay. I have a chance to be part of you,
but first as I become part of you let me tell you what happened
during that period of time when you were not including us, let
me tell you what you missed out on, what we did, what we
accomplished, everything from African-Americans inventing the
traffic light to whatever happened. You know, those are little
things that people may not pay attention to.
Mr. Simpson. Constructing the Capitol.
Mr. Serrano. Constructing the Capitol. Absolutely.
Voice. The traffic light?
Mr. Serrano. The traffic light. Not very popular thing.
Maybe I should not have mentioned that on behalf of the
community. But, you know, what happens is it is almost like a
catch up, catching up to tell that story first and then moving
on, but it does not in any way, shape, or form make us feel
less Americans. On the contrary. When our story is told, then
we become even deeper into this, you know. We are who we are,
and we are a country of people. It is wonderful, all of the
color and cultures, and so somehow we all come together on July
4 and every other day of the year as Americans, and no one
should fear it. It is diversity, but it is not division.
Mr. Clough. I have one quick comment, and then I will close
on this issue, but Richard Kurin is here, and he helped create
our Folkways Division, and Folkways has a marvelous collection
of music and spoken words, and a lot of that is Latino music,
and it has won more Emmys for us than any other source of
music. And so it is a very rich and diverse source of history
and culture.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Clough.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. I appreciate your comments, Mr.
Serrano. I said in our testimony one the Humanities, Mr. Leach,
that our diversity in this country is actually our greatest
strength.
Mr. Serrano. Of course.
Mr. Simpson. It also presents our greatest challenges, but
it is something that, as you said, we ought to celebrate.
Mr. Serrano. Yes. There are those who fear it but I
celebrate it. I mean----
Mr. Simpson. Yes.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Chairman, if you would just give me a
moment----
Mr. Simpson. Sure.
Mr. Lewis [continuing]. To respond to some of this. I could
not feel more strongly and positively about this line of
discussion. I am flying out this weekend to celebrate my oldest
brother's 85th birthday. The first time I remember seeing him
as a youngster in uniform, he was in the Marine Corps uniform,
spent most of his time in the Pacific, I was chatting with him
about the 85th birthday and his experience and that which his
generation contributed to our ability to enjoy what we enjoy.
And talked with him out loud about the problems, the challenges
of the Japanese right now with this horrendous earthquake and
the tsunami, et cetera, and to hear him almost with tears say
that, Jerry, I never really thought I would have the day when I
felt sorry for the Japanese.
I was the chairman of the Defense Subcommittee of
Appropriations for only 2 weeks when I went to the swearing in
of a new chief of the U.S. Army, and the fellow being sworn in
I learned when he was born was a foreign alien born in Hawaii,
Eric Shinseki, all these years later becomes the chief of the
U.S. Army, now the Director, the Secretary of Veterans'
Affairs.
It is an incredible story and lest we forget we are all a
part of it.
THE NATIONAL MALL
Mr. Simpson. Just a final question, for me anyway, is that
while we talk about the people that come out here, the visitors
from Idaho and around the country that love the Smithsonian,
their biggest disappointment that they talk to me about is the
Mall and the shape of the Mall, and we have been trying to
restore the Mall with the National Park Service and so forth
and so on. Folk Life Festival has been an issue with that, and
you have been working with the Park Service to try to remedy
that because it is kind of like some of our national parks. You
know, we love them to death. And somehow we have got to find a
way so that we do not destroy the Mall just because of all the
people that want to see it.
What have you been doing, and how is that working with the
Park Service now?
Mr. Clough. We have met a number of times with the head of
the Park Service, and particularly Eva Pell, who is here in the
audience who is our Undersecretary for Science, is working
closely with the head of their science program, because it
really is a science issue. It is a question of how to maintain
access to the Mall by so many people who love it to death as
you say, and at the same time have a robust infrastructure so
it continues to restore itself.
One of the things we want to do is to green the
Smithsonian, and one of the ways we do that is we have a lot of
flat roofs out there on the Mall, and so we are building
cisterns to collect water, big cisterns to collect water off of
our roofs. The Park Service has no irrigation equipment out
there, and we have offered to provide the water to the Mall as
they experiment with different kinds of grasses, some of them
are more successful than others. It is not a terribly rich soil
because it is basically the sediment basin for Washington, DC,
the old Tiber River was there.
FOLKLIFE FESTIVAL
And so we are working with them, and as far as the Folk
Life Festival itself is concerned, it is designed specifically
to have minimal impact based on their recommendations for us.
So we have worked closely with them. We provided them with
comments on their report. We are meeting with their chief
scientists and doing everything we can to offer assistance and
to form a partnership to do this.
NATIONAL ZOO
Mr. Simpson. Appreciate that. I enjoyed our trip with the
staff out to National Zoo. Do we have anybody here from the
National Zoo? If not, just pass on they have invited me, being
a former dentist, to watch several dentistry programs on
animals. I was always kind of interested in that, and several
other things. So far I have not been able to fit it in my
schedule, but I appreciate the invitation and have them keep
asking me because I will do it eventually.
Mr. Clough. I did see a root canal performed on a tiger.
That is quite an interesting process.
Mr. Simpson. Yes. I would not want to do that.
Mr. Dicks. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Yes.
Mr. Dicks. One quick question here. We are looking at your
staffing chart, and you have come down from about 4,400 to
3,701 in '10.
STAFFING
Mr. Dicks. How has that affected the Smithsonian?
Mr. Clough. It has had a dramatic impact on the
Smithsonian. Now, those are our federal employees, not our
trust employees but our federal employees, and it affects us in
those basic kind of things that we must do, collections care,
the exhibitions that we put on, the scholarship and research
that has to be done behind the scenes, the maintenance of the
buildings, those kind of basic functions that I believe the
Federal Government is responsible for funding for the
Smithsonian. We can only do so much with private funding. These
are the kind of things that you cannot do with private funding.
No one is going to give us funding just for collections care.
It is fundamentally crucial to us because we have these
wonderful collections that we try to maintain.
SMITHSONIAN REDESIGN
So we are trying to develop a strategy to best use our
resources. For example, you may not have been here when I
mentioned that we are doing something called Smithsonian
Redesign, and that is to try to better use the people we have,
because we know we are not going to get a lot more in the
future, to use technology wherever we can to improve.
And I will give you one example of that. If we can digitize
our collections, number one, it allows us if we have good web
systems to let people see the thing that we own and tell the
stories that we tell behind them. But it also cuts down on
handling of the objects because if someone wants to see them,
most likely we can show them the digital image. If it is a
high-quality three dimensional image, that may be enough. So
you do not have to go get it and bring it out and show it to
someone and handle it and then maybe not get it back to the
right place where it went in the first place.
And so we will try to use technology where we can, but
ultimately it comes down to the expertise and the skills of our
curators, and that is where we are hurting. We have collections
that, I hear this over and over again, our curators will say
there used to be five people in here. Now we are down to two.
What happens when we are down to one or zero?
And so you see a little stabilization going on. Congress
helped us. We recognized the problem, we asked for help, you
helped us in the past few years, and so we stabilized that
thing, but my concern now is we are going into a period where
we may go into another downturn, and that is a hard place to
be.
So thanks for recognizing it. It is a big problem for us.
Six hundred people gone at the Smithsonian in the last 10
years.
Voice. Do you have stuff that the Baseball Hall of Fame has
or vice versa?
Mr. Clough. Well, we do have a few things, but nowadays
everyone----
Voice. Who has got Babe Ruth's bat?
Mr. Clough. I do not think we have his bat. I know we have
five of his baseballs because I lust after one of those for my
office, but they will not let me have it.
Mr. Simpson. Put it in a vault.
Mr. Clough. Well, they told me my office lights are not the
right lights, and you will lose----
Mr. Simpson. It will hurt the ball.
Mr. Clough. It will hurt the signature and so----
Mr. Simpson. Change the lights.
If there are no further questions----
RECOVERY ACT FUNDING
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Chairman, if you would bear with me, as we
talked about the Stimulus Package which added a trillion
dollars to the mix here and then we have gone forward from
there with some pretty significant levels of funding from the
appropriations process for non-defense discretionary monies,
one of our early concerns was that many an agency would find
the pipeline so clogged with money that it would hardly know
what to do with it, and some, indeed, have had some stumbling
in connection with that.
Did the Smithsonian receive significant flows? I think the
answer to that is yes, but the question is did the Smithsonian
try to go about getting prepared for the cliff. You answered
almost yes to that. Eventually if the Stimulus money runs out,
then there is a cliff if you expanded your funding flows.
The personnel question that you are raising is a really,
really important one.
Mr. Clough. On the facility side the answer is, no, we did
not get a lot of Stimulus money. We only got $25 million for
various reasons. We used it well in some of our most critical
projects.
If you go by industry standards we should be getting about
$100 million a year in maintenance and about $150 million a
year in facility revitalization. And as was pointed out, $125
million for African-American History and Culture and only $100
million for the other facilities at the Smithsonian, which is
not enough to do it.
We have I think one of the very best track records, I am
proud of our people, in the Federal Government of obligating
our facilities funding. We are always around 90 percent in
obligating our facilities' money, and we----
Mr. Simpson. We better keep that because they are going to
be looking around for change.
Mr. Lewis. Yes, they are.
Mr. Clough. So we will stay on top of that. Thank you for
reminding us.
Mr. Lewis. Yeah. Thanks for bringing that up.
Mr. Clough. So the answer is, no, we do not have a cliff.
We would like to have a cliff to look at. We do not have that
right now.
Mr. Simpson. Other questions? Thank you for being here
today, and thank you for bringing the items and stuff. We
appreciate it. The hearing is adjourned.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6897P3.001
I N D E X
----------
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies
2012 Volume 7--Hearing Indices
Major Management Challenges at the US Forest Service
March 10, 2:00 PM
Page
Aerial Firefighting Resources....................................73, 88
Albuquerque Service Center.......................................34, 50
Biography: Anu K. Mittal......................................... 19
Biography: Phyllis K. Fong....................................... 33
Border Patrol.................................................... 37
Climate Change................................................... 46
Cohesive Strategy for Fuels and Wildfire.........................54, 79
Deferred Maintenance Backlog.....................................57, 81
Duplicative Inspections for Contracted Fire Crews................75, 94
Fire Program Analysis Tool....................................... 45
Fire Suppression................................................. 36
History of Management Challenges at USFS.........................48, 77
Implementation of OIG Recommendations............................ 34
Integrated Resource Restoration Program.......................... 35
Invasive Species................................................. 46
Inventory of Resources........................................... 38
Land Exchanges................................................... 38
Law Enforcement on Federal Lands.................................55, 80
Law Enforcement Technology....................................... 40
Management & Performance Issues..................................58, 82
Opening Remarks: Chairman Simpson................................ 1
Opening Remarks: Mr. Moran....................................... 1
Performance Measurement..........................................51, 77
Personnel Turnover............................................... 41
Questions for GAO from Chairman Simpson.......................... 48
Questions for GAO from Mr. Flake................................. 75
Questions for GAO from Mr. Moran................................. 58
Questions for the Record: GAO.................................... 48
Questions for the Record: USDA IG................................ 77
Questions for USDA IG from Chairman Simpson...................... 77
Questions for USDA IG from Mr. Flake............................. 94
Questions for USDA IG from Mr. Moran............................. 82
Recovery Act--ARRA...........................................90, 39, 44
Risk Management.................................................. 81
Special Use Permits..............................................36, 91
Stewardship Contracting Program.................................. 36
Testimony of GAO Director Anu K. Mittal.......................... 2
Testimony of USDA Inspector General Phyllis K. Fong.............. 20
Wildland Fire Management Issues..............................64, 84, 89
Work on Forest Legacy............................................ 92
US Forest Service FY12 Budget Oversight Hearing
March 11, 9:30 AM
Additional Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR) Questions....... 157
Air Tankers...................................................... 145
Albuquerque Centralized Business Center.......................... 156
Alternative Energy............................................... 138
America's Great Outdoors......................................... 150
American Reinvestment and Recovery Act........................... 156
Bark Beetles..................................................... 147
Biography: Kathleen Atkinson..................................... 111
Biography: Tom Tidwell........................................... 110
Climate Change............................................104, 137, 155
Cohesive Strategy................................................ 145
Community Forest and Open Space Program.......................... 153
Continuing Resolution Impacts.................................... 115
Continuing Resolutions and Management Difficulties............... 150
Cost Recovery.................................................... 114
Cost Recovery Fees............................................... 140
El Yunque........................................................ 128
Employee Retention............................................... 119
Fire Fighting Contract Crews..................................... 162
Forest Conservation.............................................. 149
Forest Restoration Projects...................................... 141
Forest Service Planning Rule..................................... 155
Fuel Reduction Funds............................................. 159
Gas Drilling--Hydro Fracking..................................... 124
Government Accountability Office & Inspector General............. 144
Grazing Allotments............................................... 112
Hazardous Fuels................................................118, 154
HR1--House Passed--Forest Service Transportation Planning
Stoppage....................................................... 150
Idaho Grazing Permits............................................ 140
Integrated Resource Restoration...........................129, 142, 152
Interagency Cooperation on the Border............................ 162
International Forestry.........................................121, 152
Land Acquisition................................................. 117
Land Exchanges................................................... 160
Law Enforcement--Interagency Cooperation......................... 120
Legacy Road and Trail Remediation................................ 152
Litigation....................................................... 144
Opening Remarks: Chairman Simpson................................ 97
Opening Remarks: Mr. Moran....................................... 98
Questions for the Record......................................... 140
Questions from Chairman Simpson.................................. 140
Questions from Mr. Calvert....................................... 159
Questions from Mr. Flake......................................... 162
Questions from Mr. Lummis........................................ 163
Questions from Mr. Moran......................................... 150
Recreation--Forest Management Plans.............................. 126
Recreation, Visitation and Economic Impact....................... 156
Reducing Deferred Maintenance Backlog............................ 157
Secure Rural Schools......................................132, 141, 151
Testimony of Chief Tidwell....................................... 100
Travel Management..............................................116, 135
U.S. Border Security............................................. 160
Urban and Community Forestry...................................127, 153
USFS Staffing.................................................... 159
Wildfire Suppression............................................. 113
Wildland Fire Management.......................................109, 147
Wildland Fire Suppression and FLAME Fund......................... 153
Fish and Wildlife Service FY12 Budget Oversight Hearing
March 16, 1:00 PM
Adaptive Science...............................................174, 202
Adaptive Science and Refuge Inventory and Monitoring............. 239
Administrative Cost Savings...................................... 249
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).................... 250
America's Great Outdoors......................................... 229
Arizona Wildlife Conservation Organizations as Stakeholders...... 270
Asian Carp and Lacey Act......................................... 193
Asian Carp: Status of Bighead Species Under Lacey Act............ 194
Asian Carp: Use of Funding....................................... 194
Bay Delta Conservation Plan...................................... 263
Biography of Christine L. Nolin.................................. 181
Biography of Daniel M. Ashe...................................... 179
Biography of Rowan Gould......................................... 178
BP Transocean Deepwater Horizon Oil Disaster in Gulf of Mexico... 237
Chesapeake Bay................................................... 186
Chesapeake Bay Efforts........................................... 233
Climate Change................................................... 230
Climate Change Impacts........................................... 185
Coastal Impact Assistance Program................................ 176
Continuing Resolution Impacts.................................... 184
Cooperative Landscape Conservation.............................174, 210
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge............................... 218
Delta Smelt...................................................... 263
Endangered Species............................................... 175
Endangered Species Act.........................................195, 247
Endangered Species Act Consultations............................. 271
Endangered Species Lawsuits...................................... 197
Endangered Species Listing and Recovery.......................... 201
Endangered Species Petitions Cap................................. 196
Environmental Contaminants--Ecological Services.................. 234
Everglades....................................................... 192
Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Conservation...................... 176
Fisheries Program................................................ 192
Gray Wolf........................................................ 198
Grizzly Bears.................................................... 217
HR1--House Passed Full Year Continuing Resolution................ 229
Idaho Bull Trout Decision........................................ 215
International Affairs............................................ 176
Ivory Billed Woodpecker.......................................... 257
Lake Lowell...................................................... 208
Land Acquisition...............................................206, 213
Landscape Conservation Cooperatives.............................. 200
Law Enforcement.................................................. 175
Law Enforcement and International Trade in Wildlife and
Endangered Species............................................. 243
Lawsuits Rather Than Science..................................... 271
Mexican Gray Wolf Recovery Population............................ 270
Migratory Birds.................................................. 176
Mississippi River..............................................188, 267
Mitigation Hatcheries............................................ 182
Multinational Species Conservation Fund.......................... 256
National Fish Hatchery Operations--Decrease for Mitigation....... 249
National Wildlife Refuge Fund.............................206, 214, 241
National Wildlife Refuge System.................................. 174
North American Wetlands Conservation Fund........................ 244
Opening Remarks of Congressman Simpson........................... 165
Opening Statement of Rowan Gould................................. 171
Overnight Accommodations at Marinas.............................. 259
Questions for the Record from Chairman Simpson................... 210
Questions for the Record from Committee Chairman Hal Rogers...... 259
Questions for the Record from Congressman Calvert................ 260
Questions for the Record from Congressman Flake.................. 270
Questions for the Record from Congresswoman McCollum............. 267
Questions for the Record from Ranking Member Moran............... 229
Santa Ana Sucker...............................................186, 261
Spotted Owl Recovery Plan........................................ 219
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants................................. 246
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants (Competitive).................191, 203
Tribal Programs.................................................. 189
Western Riverside County MSHCP.................................260, 266
White Nose Syndrome in Bats...................................... 252
US Geological Survey FY12 Budget Oversight Hearing
March 17, 9:30 AM
Administrative Cost Savings...................................... 325
Asian Carp....................................................... 327
Biography for Carla M. Burzyk.................................... 283
Biography for Marcia K. McNutt................................... 281
Biography for Suzette Kimball.................................... 282
BP Transocean Deepwater Horizon Disaster......................... 318
Budget Summary by Budget Activity................................ 279
Climate Change.................................................288, 321
Climate Science.................................................. 299
Endocrine Disruptors and Contaminants in Streams................. 310
Facilities Maintenance Reduction................................. 326
Great Lakes Restoration and Ecosystem Restoration................ 326
Hazards Program...........................................285, 301, 306
International Role of the USGS................................... 292
Land Remote Sensing and New Rocket Costs......................... 314
Landsat.......................................................... 287
Landsat Taking Up Future Budgets................................. 304
Major Changes.................................................... 278
Mineral Resources Program......................................293, 297
National Biological Information Infrastructure................... 317
National Land Imaging (LandSat).................................. 297
National Minerals Information Center............................. 328
Opening Remarks of Chairman Simpson.............................. 272
Opening Remarks of Congressman Moran............................. 273
Opening Remarks of Marcia K. McNutt, Director.................... 274
Outyear Costs of Landsat......................................... 284
Program Quality and Performance.................................. 284
Questions for the Record from Congressman Simpson................ 295
Questions for the Record from Congresswoman McCollum............. 331
Questions for the Record from Ranking Member Moran............... 304
Reductions to Core Science at USGS............................... 304
Streamgages...................................................... 289
Water Resources Cuts............................................. 295
Water Resources Program........................................286, 290
Water Shortages.................................................. 291
WaterSMART Initiative and Reductions to key Water Science
Programs....................................................... 308
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE)
and Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) FY12 Budget Oversight
Hearing
March 17, 1:00 PM
Alaska Oil Drilling.............................................. 406
Arctic Drilling.................................................. 388
Arctic Offshore Drilling......................................... 437
Auditing and Compliance.......................................... 377
Biography of Deborah Gibbs Tschudy............................... 370
Biography of Gregory Gould....................................... 369
Biography of Michael R. Bromwich................................. 357
Chukchi Sea...................................................... 439
Civil Penalties.................................................. 380
Deep Water Royalty Relief........................................ 375
Division of BOEMRE to BOEM & BSEE................................ 395
Encouraging Lease Development.................................... 382
Expand State and Tribal Audit Program............................ 435
FY 12 BOEMRE Budget Request...................................... 391
Gas Prices and Demand............................................ 405
General Accountability Office: High Risk Report................374, 412
Geothermal Revenue Sharing with Counties......................... 436
Goals for Domestic Energy Production............................. 400
Human Capital Deficiencies in Oil and Gas Management............. 426
Inspection Fee to Offset Cost of Industrial Review............... 431
Investigations and Review Unit................................... 385
Leases with Viable Resources...................................387, 390
Legislative Proposal on Non-Producing Oil and Gas Leases......... 433
Marine Minerals Reduction........................................ 430
New Fees......................................................... 402
Non-Producing Lease Fee.......................................... 379
OCS Permits...................................................... 442
Office of Natural Resources Revenue.............................. 407
Oil and Gas Production........................................... 404
Oil and Gas Royalty Collection................................... 408
Opening Remarks of Chairman Simpson.............................. 333
Opening Remarks of Congressman Maurice Hinchey................... 381
Opening Remarks of Congresswoman Cynthia Lummis.................. 378
Opening Remarks of Director Gregory Gould........................ 359
Opening Remarks of Director Michael Bromwich..................... 336
Opening Remarks of Ranking Member Moran.......................... 334
Permitting.....................................................378, 384
Permitting Delays................................................ 448
Production Measurement/Inspection at ONRR........................ 434
Questions for the Record from Chairman Simpson................... 391
Questions for the Record from Congressman Calvert................ 442
Questions for the Record from Congressman Flake.................. 447
Questions for the Record from Ranking Member Moran............... 412
Reform of Offshore Oil and Gas Regulation........................ 419
Renewable Energy and Strengthening Resource Protection........... 433
Reorganization................................................... 373
Retaining Personnel.............................................. 371
Royalty Collection............................................... 371
Royalty in Kind Program Transition............................... 410
State Audit Program.............................................. 386
Stopping the Use of Categorical Exclusions....................... 447
Transitional Programs............................................ 411
Tribal Royalties................................................. 387
Well Containment................................................. 378
Bureau of Indian Affairs FY12 Budget Oversight Hearing
March 30, 1:00 PM
Advancing Indian Nations......................................... 453
Alaska Lands..................................................... 479
Appraisals....................................................... 478
BIA Construction Program......................................... 506
BIA Website...................................................... 475
Biography of Keith Moore......................................... 465
Biography of Larry Echo Hawk..................................... 463
Biography of Michael S. Black.................................... 464
Carcieri......................................................... 472
Carcieri Decision................................................ 479
Catawba Tribe.................................................... 480
Coal-Fired Power Plants.......................................... 472
Cobell Settlement................................................ 478
Consultation with Indian Tribes.................................. 506
Contract Support...............................................467, 491
Detention Operations............................................. 468
Detention Operations and Staffing................................ 469
Detention/Corrections............................................ 493
Domestic Violence and Substance Abuse............................ 501
Education........................................................ 486
Education Annual Criteria........................................ 482
Education Assistance............................................. 476
Education Construction....................................477, 481, 497
Education Construction Backlog................................... 477
Education Facility Maintenance................................... 482
Education Funding................................................ 487
Elimination of BIA............................................... 475
ESEA Reauthorization............................................. 483
Facilities Negotiated Rulemaking................................. 477
Facility Space................................................... 476
Federal Agencies Shared Responsibilities......................... 475
Federal Summit................................................... 474
Fort Hall........................................................ 470
FY 2012 Budget................................................... 453
H.R. 1........................................................... 453
Head Start....................................................... 487
Improving Trust Land Management.................................. 454
Indian Affairs................................................... 453
Indian Education................................................. 454
Indian Guaranteed Loan Program.................................470, 480
Indian School Construction and Safety............................ 503
Interagency Law Enforcement...................................... 473
Juvenile Detention/Educational Services Cut...................... 503
Land and Water Claims Settlements................................ 507
Land Into Trust.................................................. 478
Land Into Trust Database......................................... 502
Law Enforcement.................................................. 507
Lease Compliance................................................. 471
Legal and Moral Obligations...................................... 452
NAGPRA........................................................... 485
Nation-to-Nation Relationships................................... 508
Native American Artifacts Issues................................. 502
New Mexico School................................................ 481
OMB.............................................................. 467
Opening Remarks of Chairman Simpson.............................. 451
Opening Remarks of Mr. Moran..................................... 452
Performance Measurement.......................................... 495
Program Reductions............................................... 470
Protecting Indian Country........................................ 454
Public Safety and Justice Construction........................... 495
Questions for the Record from Chairman Simpson................... 490
Questions for the Record from Mr. Cole........................... 509
Questions for the Record from Ranking Member Moran............... 506
Regional Detention Centers....................................... 494
Residential Placement............................................ 471
Rights Protection................................................ 501
School Contributions............................................. 476
Small and Needy Tribes........................................... 454
Sullivan County.................................................. 480
Testimony of Mr. Echo Hawk....................................... 453
Tribal Conflicts................................................. 473
Tribal Courts.................................................... 496
Tribal Distribution.............................................. 454
Tribal Input..................................................... 488
Tribal Interior Budget Council................................... 467
Tribal Law and Order Act.......................................468, 491
Tribal/Interior Budget Council (ITBC)............................ 490
Tribal-State Law Enforcement Agreements.......................... 484
Trust Asset and Accounting Management System..................... 506
Violent Crime.................................................... 483
Indian Health Service FY12 Budget Oversight Hearing
March 31, 9:30 AM
Aberdeen, SD Regional Office...................................552, 561
Biography: Dr. Yvette Roubideaux................................. 521
Biography: Randy Grinnell........................................ 522
Childhood Obesity................................................ 537
Contract Health Services.......................................533, 548
Contract Support...............................................547, 560
Coordination with HUD and DOI.................................... 553
Dental Services................................................523, 543
Diabetes......................................................... 536
Domestic Violence..............................................526, 549
Early Childhood Carries Initiative............................... 524
Electronic Dental Records........................................ 524
Equal Employment Opportunity..................................... 539
Head Start....................................................... 534
Health Care Costs................................................ 560
Health Professional Vacancies.................................... 546
HIV/AIDS......................................................... 550
IHCIA--Facilities Provision...................................... 536
Improving Patient Care Initiative................................ 532
Indian Health Care Improvement Act.............................547, 559
Indian Health Care Reauthorization Act........................... 525
Inventory Accountability......................................... 557
Joint Ventures.................................................528, 557
Loan Repayment................................................... 546
Opening Remarks: Acting Chairman Cole............................ 511
Opening Remarks: Mr. Moran....................................... 511
Per Capita Health Care........................................... 547
Questions for the Record......................................... 543
Questions from Acting Chairman Cole.............................. 543
Questions from Mr. Moran......................................... 559
Recovery of Costs................................................ 560
Sanitation.....................................................526, 552
Small Grant Program............................................533, 558
Testimony of Dr. Roubideaux...................................... 512
Tribal Consultation.............................................. 559
Urban Program.................................................... 529
Youth Suicide.................................................... 549
National Endowment for the Arts FY12 Budget Oversight Hearing
May 11, 9:30 AM
Administrative Costs............................................. 590
Applicants vs. Awards............................................ 607
Arts and Community Development............................585, 589, 593
Arts in Rural America............................................ 580
Arts in Schools.................................................. 591
Big Read......................................................... 578
Biography: Rocco Landesman....................................... 577
Blue Star Museums................................................ 572
Challenge America................................................ 578
Clarifying State Matching Requirements........................... 571
Collaborations with Other Agencies............................... 572
Conflict of Interest............................................. 605
Continuation of the National Heritage Fellowship................. 588
Creative Placemaking............................................. 586
Grant Selection Process.......................................... 584
Grants for Individual Artists.................................... 601
Grants to Indian Country......................................... 590
Grants to Organizations and Universities......................... 582
Grants to United States Territories.............................. 588
Grants to Universities...............................583, 591, 594, 604
Honoring Artists of All Disciplines.............................. 571
Importance of Arts in America.................................... 587
Leveraging Effect of Arts Funding................................ 586
NEA Partnerships................................................. 596
NEA Promoting the Arts in the Schools............................ 603
NEA Reauthorization.............................................. 602
NEA Staffing Levels.............................................. 601
Opening Remarks: Chairman Simpson................................ 567
Opening Remarks: Mr. Moran....................................... 568
Our Town..................................................569, 579, 595
Proposed Reductions.............................................. 570
Quality of Art Programs.......................................... 581
Questions for the Record......................................... 595
Questions from Chairman Simpson.................................. 595
Questions from Mr. Flake......................................... 604
Reductions to Underserved Communities............................ 582
Repeat Grant Recipients........................................584, 604
Role of the National Council on the Arts......................... 580
Salaries and Expenses............................................ 602
Shakespeare in America........................................... 578
Testimony of Chairman Landesman.................................. 569
National Endowment for the Humanities FY12 Budget Oversight Hearing
May 11, 11:00 AM
Opening Remarks: Chairman Simpson................................ 609
Opening Remarks: Mr. Moran....................................... 609
Testimony of Chairman Leach...................................... 610
Biography: Jim Leach............................................. 622
Civility Tour.................................................... 623
``We the People'' Initiative..................................... 624
Documenting Endangered Languages................................. 625
Teaching and Scholarship......................................... 625
``EDSITEment'' Program........................................... 626
Support for Humanities Research vs. The Sciences................. 627
NEH Staffing..................................................... 630
History, New Approaches to the Study of.......................... 630
Smithsonian Institution FY12 Budget Oversight Hearing
May 12, 9:30 AM
Opening Remarks: Chairman Simpson................................ 635
Opening Remarks: Mr. Moran....................................... 657
Testimony of Secretary Clough.................................... 636
Biography: Wayne Clough.......................................... 650
Collections...................................................... 636
Visitors and Exhibitions......................................... 636
Education........................................................ 637
On-line Education and Social Media............................... 637
Outreach......................................................... 637
Strategic Plan................................................... 637
Private Fundraising.............................................. 638
FY12 Request..................................................... 638
Abraham Lincoln's Pocket Watch................................... 654
John Glenn's Camera............................................655, 658
Research......................................................... 659
National Museum of African American History and Culture.......... 659
Arts and Industries Building..................................... 661
Smithsonian Staff................................................ 662
Private Fundraising.............................................. 662
New Museums on the National Mall................................. 663
Overcrowding of the Mall......................................... 666
Social Media..................................................... 668
Smithsonian Magazine............................................. 669
Admissions....................................................... 670
Latino Museum.................................................... 672
The National Mall................................................ 676
Folklife Festival................................................ 677
National Zoo..................................................... 677
Staffing......................................................... 677
Smithsonian Redesign............................................. 678
Recovery Act Funding............................................. 678