SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1999
Tuesday, March 10, 1998.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
WITNESS
HON. BRUCE BABBITT, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. REGULA [presiding]. I call the meeting of the Subcommittee of Appropriations on Interior and Related Agencies to order. We are happy this morning to welcome Secretary Babbitt and to hear your testimony. I am quite sure you have a number of important things you would like to share with us.
Your statement will be made a part of the record, and you can summarize any way you choose. So thank you for coming.
Opening Statement, Summary
Secretary BABBITT. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I appreciate the chance to be back here and talk about what we have been doing during the past year, and where we go from here.
I guess I should start just briefly with—Congressman Dicks, good morning.
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Just start briefly with the numbers. The President's request for the Department for fiscal 1999 represents a decrease of one half of one percent, but I would hasten to add that that is computed by including Title V funds from last year.
If you remove the Title V funds and look just at the operating and regular side of the budget, the request is for an increase of approximately 6.5 percent.
I know the committee is always interested in staffing and FTE numbers, so I would start by pointing out that the downsizing of the Department from the 1993 base is the second highest percentage of any civilian agency—arguably the highest, in any event, from the 1993 base of 78,000.
We were down in 1997 to 66,000, and that is a decrease of—Mary Ann, what is the percentage?
Ms. LAWLER. 17%.
Secretary BABBITT. Now, with that prelude, the request this year does have an FTE increase of approximately 1,400. It is driven principally by the need for more personnel in the land management agencies—Fish and Wildlife Service; very, very much the National Park Service driven by the visitor demand and by some increases which I can explain a little later on; in the Bureau of Indian Affairs; in Trust Management Probate; a variety of related areas.
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
Mr. Chairman, I think I am going to start today by talking about a subject which we have discussed with the committee and with you at some length and on which I think we are making real progress, and that is your concern for the construction and maintenance budgets in the land management agencies.
So I guess starting with this could be seen as a form of pandering to the chairman's expressed concerns.
Mr. REGULA. Pretty good choice of topics. [Laughter.]
Secretary BABBITT. Well, I think we are in fact making some real progress. I acknowledge that your interest and at your urging we have made a lot of progress.
We have presented the construction and maintenance budget under the title of Safe Visits. Now what we have done under the leadership of Mr. Berry is attempt to refocus construction and maintenance toward maintenance and upgrading of properties throughout the land management agencies based on a rating system.
All of the projects have now been presented in a rank ordered manner which says our first priority is going to be health and safety. We do not have enough money to do all of the maintenance, but we have to do priorities first.
What is health and safety? Well, in some of the parks, it is going to be waste water treatment facilities. In other parks, upgrading the fire protection for buildings. So there is a long list. We have rank ordered it, and we will present that to you.
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now, reflecting the emphasis on maintenance, the maintenance budget request this year is up by $82 million dollars, and the construction part of the budget is down in the request by about $14 million dollars.
The construction priorities all relate to the health and safety issue and obviously to finishing projects which are already underway.
I would like, briefly, to talk about some of the cross cutting issues in the budget. Each year, as we come back here, it seems more and more that, rather than going through one agency at a time, you can get a better picture of what is going on by looking at the large multi-agency issues that are increasingly characteristic of this Department.
THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST FOREST PLAN
Of course, we have talked about the Forest Plan over the last five years. It continues to unfold, I think, as one of the great conservation success stories of this Administration. The request for the coming year is down slightly at $68 million dollars.
The BLM has met its timber harvest commitments and will meet them again next year. Much of the money, of course, is for restoration which will have important impacts on the salmon streams of the northwest and provide us a leg up on some of the oncoming listing issues for the various stocks of Pacific salmon.
EVERGLADES RESTORATION
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, I believe you have been in the Everglades recently. I think the restoration of the Everglades is again a great success story characterized by bipartisan cooperation both in the Florida delegation and in the Florida legislature; and more generally, a high degree of involvement by the State of Florida, by the Water Management District, and by local governments.
We are moving, in the coming year, toward a very important decision point which will come in the summer of 1999. That is the completion of the so-called restudy by the Army Corps of Engineers, which will bring us back before these committees to review how it is that all of these strands come together in the ultimate reconstruction and restoration of the entire Everglades ecosystem.
In the meantime, our budget request is for $144 million dollars. A large part of that is land acquisition, science, and funding ongoing commitments.
Mr. YATES. Good morning, Mr. Secretary. Sorry I am late.
Secretary BABBITT. Mr. Yates, I heard a——
Mr. YATES. You did?
Secretary BABBITT. I heard a discouraging rumor that this will be my last appearance before you in this committee, and I just want to say that I can hardly believe that an institution of your quality and longevity is——
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. YATES. Longevity certainly. [Laughter.]
Thank you, thank you. I appreciate that very much. Even though it was mostly unsaid, I appreciate it very much. [Laughter.]
Secretary BABBITT. Well, it has been an extraordinary pleasure.
Mr. YATES. It has been fun. It has been fulfilling, and we are glad to welcome you here, Mr. Secretary.
I am sorry to have interrupted, Mr. Chairman.
It is very kind of you to say those things. I appreciate it.
Secretary BABBITT. Well, let us see. We have been through the Forest Plan, the Everglades segment.
CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA RESTORATION
A word about the California Bay Delta Restoration issue. This is a project which is now coming to fruition very nicely with many of the same characteristics as the Everglades, characterized by bipartisan cooperation with local governments, the California legislature, the Congress, and a high degree of cost sharing in the form of a large bond issue passed by the California voters.
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It has unfolded over the last three or four years in the Bay-Delta Accords in the resolution of the water supply issues under the Central Valley Project Improvement Act.
Now there will be within the next couple of weeks the unveiling of an environmental impact statement for the final configuration of flood control, fish and wildlife, and water supply issues in the San Francisco Bay-Delta.
We are really within striking distance of one of the most historic achievements in a long time, actually bringing together northern and southern California, the competing urban/agricultural and environmental interests.
The request, which I recognize is mostly outside this committee, but not entirely because it is a multi-agency request, is for $143 million dollars.
INTERIOR COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN
Mr. Nethercutt is not here, but I will pretend that he is because I would like to say a word or two about the Columbia Basin. I know that is on the minds of both him and other committee members.
In the wake of the President's Forest Plan, the Forest Service and the BLM, at the President's request, moved to the upper Columbia River across the Cascades to see if we could put in place a large scale plan for the management of the forest, fishery, grazing, and mineral resources.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We have been at it now for three, perhaps four years. And the draft environmental impact statements are now out. What is driving this Columbia River process is, of course, resource management and our desire to avoid litigation—this piecemeal litigation which results in injunctions against activity because of the courts on a piecemeal basis—and a failure of compliance with water quality, Endangered Species Act, and the other issues.
The environmental impact statements, which would be the blueprint for administration of this area by the land management agencies, have not been met with much enthusiasm either by the environmentalists or by industry.
That has led some to suggest that we should step away from the commitment to try to do this. My response to the critics is that the alternatives are all worse. If this is not a perfect plan, we need to engage people, keep at this process, and see if we can find some consensus on the big issues in the Columbia River Basin which are forest health, the use of controlled fire and thinning to restore health to the forest——
Mr. Kolbe, good morning. Excellent timing. I am just coming to the southwest from the Columbia Basin.
Mr. KOLBE. That is a big change.
Mr. SKEEN. That is a good change.
SOUTHWEST STRATEGY
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secretary BABBITT. Yes. And in that context, I would simply say to the committee we have made some modest requests to keep moving forward with this. I think it is essential that we keep working with Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Montana, the states up there. We have to move forward on the forest health and restoration and on the stream, watershed, and fisheries issues.
I just do not think we can walk away from this. It would not be in the public interest and ultimately not in the interest of the local governments. We will see if we cannot find something—very likely a repeat of what happened on the west slope of the Cascades with the avalanche of injunctions that came down in the 1980's.
Now, to the southwest. I believe at the instigation of Mr. Kolbe last year, there was a footnote in our budget saying, if I can sort of summarize it, get moving proactively to deal with the southwestern issues.
And that advice was given in the context, I think, of us being behind the curve. No question about it.
The litigation developing over a variety of issues—the Endangered Species Act; the listing of the Southwest Willow Flycatcher with large impacts potentially upon grazing; the renown ferruginous pygmy owl which has made its appearance in the suburbs of Tucson causing some concern; a whole variety of issues relating to timber plans and water; and in the eyes of some, kind of the makings of an oncoming regional crisis.
We are getting on top of those issues. We are not entirely there, but I do think that we have heard the message. We are going to try to deploy some of the techniques out in the southwest that have worked pretty well in other areas of the country such as the northwest and elsewhere by looking into conservation agreements, habitat management, these broader scale proactive efforts to avoid disruptions in the local economy.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There are modest increases in the budgets once again of several agencies—the Bureau of Land Management, the Geological Survey, and notably, the Fish and Wildlife Service.
ENDANGERED SPECIES ISSUES
Just a word about the endangered species issues in this budget. There are substantial increases in the agencies I just mentioned for the administration of the Endangered Species Act.
Those requests were originally put in with the expectation that this would be the year to reauthorize the Endangered Species Act. There is a bill—a consensus bill—which moved out of the Senate Environment Committee, but its fate beyond there is, at this point, I would say, uncertain even though it passed by a 15:3 margin with bipartisan support.
In any event, if we are going to stay ahead of the curve on the Endangered Species Act, we need the resources to keep these habitat conservation plans, safe harbor agreements, and other issues moving. I would urge your close attention to those requests.
SCIENCE ISSUES
Okay, two more issues. The first is science, and there are three subjects briefly on my mind. The first is a $15 million dollar request to fund an interagency, multi-agency disaster information network.
We are finding out several things about this. One, it seems like each year we have more and more natural disasters: floods, mud slides, fires. It seems to be kind of a continual progression. And secondly, our ability to respond to natural disasters is improving by leaps and bounds.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I was out in Menlo Park last week amidst all the water in California and saw just one example of it with the ability of the Geological Survey to bring down satellite information, geological information and respond to the mud slides.
Actually, they are going out in some of these areas along the Pacific coast and prioritizing the problems in these neighborhoods and ''red taging,'' as they call it, particular structures by combining all this knowledge and saying, ''the problem in the next 48 hours is going to be here and here and here is a kind of predictive capacity.'' They have already managed to do that almost to perfection with volcanic problems, but they are still struggling in terms of earthquakes.
The reason for the disaster information network concept is the need to bring together the information from literally dozens of sources and get it out in real time as these disaster scenarios start to unfold.
The reason for doing it—for centering it at the Geological Survey—is because of their information processing capability. Much of this information now comes down from satellites, including the use of a variety of classified resources.
This committee and the Congress, over the last years, have funded a secure facility out in Reston which is the appropriate place to bring this information together through the security screens and all of the different sources.
There are proposed increases in the Geological Survey water research accounts. I would call your attention to those simply because we used to think of the water issues as western issues driven by drought and reclamation.
But in fact, the water issues are now national issues. They come at us from all kinds of different quarters. We have the pfiesteria problem in Chesapeake Bay. We have nitrification problems now spreading out in the Gulf of Mexico beyond the mouth of the Mississippi River. We have contamination plumes in ground water. It is a national problem. The Geological Survey is not a regulatory agency, but it is the best base from which to power up the kind of data and scientific research that we need.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The other science issue is fire science. We have discussed that in the last several years, and we are making real progress.
I think we have gathered a consensus now about the importance of managing fire hazards through the management of the landscape and the fuel accumulation on the landscape. This means spending money to get back into these forests, thin them out, and try to restore some semblance of the natural fire cycle that these forests evolved with and which in fact is the key to keeping them healthy and free of insect outbreaks and disease and nutrient deficiencies.
NATIVE AMERICANS
A word quickly about Native Americans and the increases that are proposed in the budget. I would like to focus on just a couple of issues. One is law enforcement. The reservations in this country have a serious onrushing of criminal activity, a crime problem.
It has many roots, of course, but one is the lack of law enforcement capability which by any measure is vastly underfunded. You will see in the budget a $25 million dollar increase request for uniformed police, criminal investigations, and detention facilities.
It is matched by a very important commitment from the Justice Department, which I think is in the neighborhood of $100 million dollars, for investment in detention facilities and related issues.
The Indian Trust Account Reconciliation issue is again present in the budget. This is a problem which has accumulated for 150 years in terms of records and accounting of the trust funds that have been handled by the bureau across that time period.
It is a very complex issue. I think we are now on course to begin cleaning up the accounts and putting in new accounting systems.
A small footnote about the Alaska subsistence issue. This is an issue that relates to whether or not the Department will be required by law to intervene in the management of Alaska fisheries to protect the subsistence priority for Alaska natives. We are working with the Alaska delegation to try to avert that by an amendment to the Alaska constitution and legislation to put it into effect.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It will be a close call as to whether or not that gets done. If it is not done, we may well be back for a substantial budget request to implement a Federal subsistence program. We have done our best for the last six years to find some way around that issue.
Again, this is a 100% bipartisan issue. We are all working on it, the delegation, the governor, but we are not there yet.
There are many other items that we could be talking about—the land and water acquisitions, oil production in the Gulf of Mexico, the upcoming lease sale decisions on the Alaska slope and others. But in aid of time, perhaps I will rest my account there and invite you to flail me in your customary, generous, and high-spirited fashion.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. SKEEN. Are you volunteering this or——
Secretary BABBITT. Absolutely.
Mr. REGULA. Thank you.
What we will do is take questions in the order of appearance. Try to hold these to five minutes per member. Then we will come back around for another series of questions.
LAND EXCHANGES
My first concern is some of the policies on land exchanges on use of park assets. First of all, the Wall Street Journal, as you are well aware, had a report on a $50 million dollar land exchange involving the ''highest price ever paid for a private home in the United States.''
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It was an unprecedented deal, involved a major developer, the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service. And the Wall Street Journal article was obviously quite critical.
Tell me about this exchange. Was this initiated by the Federal agency or the private sector? And if it is complete, who is going to benefit from it? It seems to me, at least reading the story, that we are giving away a lot more than we are getting.
Secretary BABBITT. Well, the issue, of course, is appraisals. Land exchanges involve the question of the appraisals being appropriate and reasonable. It is complicated by the fact that in a land exchange half of the land exchange goes from private into public, and the appreciation and value stops on the public side. We saw this in the acquisition of the San Pedro conservation area notably in which the efforts of Mr. Kolbe, the governor of Arizona, and others resulted in a land exchange which brought down the Arizona press like a fire storm on all of us alleging every kind of skullduggery imaginable.
It was one of the best things that ever happened in Arizona, and the citizens of Arizona and the press will tell you that to this day.
Now, Nevada. Number one, I have recused myself from all land exchanges involving the Del Webb Corporation from 1993 to the present. There is no legal requirement to do that. I have done it. Therefore, my observations on this are not as a decision maker.
I believe those land exchanges will bear scrutiny from any source. The appraisal record is crystal clear. Those land exchanges were elevated to the national level and the appraisals were reviewed and redone in several cases.
I do not hesitate to tell you that I think that Wall Street Journal article is an outrageous piece of innuendo.
Mr. REGULA. Well——
Mr. YATES. Is it not true?
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secretary BABBITT. Yes.
Mr. REGULA. I think the facts that they set out in the article are based on the information they have, and I think any land exchange ought to be scrutinized with the greatest care to ensure that the United States is not losing something.
Secretary BABBITT. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to bring the record of that exchange over. Again, I am recused from it, but I can bring the facts over. And I would meet any person anywhere in a public forum to talk about it. That is an outrageous smear on the agencies involved. That is just the bottom line.
Mr. REGULA. I would suggest then that a summarization of the facts be brought, and we will include it in the record.
Secretary BABBITT. I would be happy to do that. I really would.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
SALE OF MICROBES
Mr. REGULA. Next is an article from the Salt Lake Tribune about the sale of microbes. It said, ''The microbe suit puts park in hot water.'' And apparently there is a licensing agreement in Yellowstone to Diversa Corporation of San Diego in which we, the government, receive a small yearly fee.
And the question is, is it proper to give an exclusive contract to one organization for access to these microbes which apparently they can commercialize to their advantage?
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secretary BABBITT. Mr. Chairman, I have to tell you something. This really stretches the bounds of reasonableness. For 100 years, the national parks have been allowing people to come in and take these kinds of resources for free.
Now under my administration, I said to the National Park Service it is time to do what other countries in this world have done, notably Costa Rica. That is to say, to the extent that someone is using a public resource, whether it be grazing, timber, minerals, whatever, it is appropriate for the public and the taxpayer to get a return.
This contract is the first time in the history of the United States Government that the National Park Service has moved to make a deal. I am absolutely astounded that that kind of innovation immediately provokes this kind of response.
Now, is there a lawsuit? Sure, there is a lawsuit. There are always lawsuits. This is some group up in Seattle, Washington that has a—well, I will not describe their agenda. It is all a matter of public record.
The contract was negotiated by reference to contracts that have been negotiated elsewhere. Now, there are not many of them. The Merck Company has some of these contracts for bio-prospecting in Costa Rica.
There are a few in other areas. This is the first one that has ever been done in the United States. I guess the bottom line is no good deed goes unpunished. Once again, I would be happy to come up here, haul out those contracts and go through them with this committee line by line by line to make one simple point: we are finally getting a return on public assets for the first time.
Mr. REGULA. Well, Mr. Hansen, who is chairman of our counterpart committee, and the authorizers advise me that he tried to get the information on this deal from the Department and they refused to give him this information.
Now that does not square with what you are saying this morning.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secretary BABBITT. I would be happy to bring the information to this committee or Mr. Hansen on 24 hours notice.
Mr. REGULA. I will so advise Mr. Hansen.
Secretary BABBITT. There is an issue in these contracts about public disclosure of the exact terms of the royalty. Why is that? That is because the commercial practice is not to paste the royalty rates in these biological prospecting things on every bulletin board, thereby setting the maximum for every future deal.
It is the way the Costa Rican ones are done, the Merck ones are done. That is standard practice. But again, Mr. Hansen, rather than acquainting himself with the facts in the commercial practice, is busy spreading all this innuendo.
And I resent it. And I would be perfectly happy on 24 hours notice to bring the contracts and have it out.
Mr. REGULA. Well, I think we have signed a letter requesting that, so——
Secretary BABBITT. Okay, you have got it.
CHARGING FEES FOR MOVIE SETS
Mr. REGULA [continuing]. There will be a response. I have more questions such as whether you charge for movie sets. They use a lot of our public lands and likewise ski resorts. But my time is up.
Secretary BABBITT. Mr. Chairman, in the history of the United States, no one has ever proposed charging for the use of public lands for movies. Now what I want to know is why all this innuendo when we make a proposal?
For the first time, we are saying the taxpayers ought to get a return, and all of the sudden there is all this innuendo.
Mr. REGULA. On movies?
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secretary BABBITT. Yes.
Mr. REGULA. Well, I agree with you.
Secretary BABBITT. Okay.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Obey.
HUDSON DOG TRACK
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Secretary, I would like to raise the issue of the infamous Hudson dog track in Wisconsin because frankly, the more I see what is written about this, the angrier I get.
And so, Mr. Secretary, I simply want to thank you for making the right decision in turning down that ridiculous request to allow some failing dog track owners in Wisconsin to turn a losing economic proposition into a money maker by abusing the ability of tribes to take land into trust under the Constitution of the United States and Treasury of the United States.
The way this story is portrayed normally is that this is an issue of rich tribes versus poor tribes. The fact is, this was an issue of rich dog track owners in the State of Wisconsin trying to take a losing proposition and turning it into a money maker by getting a number of tribes that had nothing to do with the area to come in and take over land and thereby enable them to add a casino facility to the dog tracks.
The impression given by a lot of these stories is that you have three poor Wisconsin tribes who are trying to establish casinos on their reservation in order to increase their income.
In fact, all three of the tribes in question have casinos on their reservation. I have a map of the State of Wisconsin here. Hudson is over here at the end of the state. The three tribes that wanted to establish their casinos in Hudson are located here, here and here.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The nearest is 100 miles away in a different congressional district. Two of the three tribes who wanted to establish those casino rights happen to be from my district, and one had been from Congressman Roth's district.
All three of them wanted to establish a casino in Mr. Gunderson's district. And Mr. Roth, Mr. Gunderson and I all opposed their request because of the ludicrous nature of that request. What we had here, in my view, is simply an abuse of the trust privilege which tribes have in this country, or at least an attempt to abuse that trust privilege.
If you take a look at public opinion in Wisconsin on this issue, you will discover that on the April ballot in 1993, the Wisconsin legislature got fed up with dealing with all of these gambling issues because we have gone in just a few short years from a state that allowed no gambling into a state that looks like a second rate Las Vegas in some places.
And so the legislature put six questions on the ballot. Ballot question number one, ''Do you favor a law that would allow gambling casinos and excursion vessels in the state on the Mississippi River, Lake Michigan and Lake Superior?''
The entire State said no by a 44% to 56% vote on the ballot. And in the Hudson area in question, the populace said no by a vote of 27% to 72%. On the second question, ''Do you favor a constitutional amendment that would restrict gambling casinos in this State,'' the entire vote stood at 61% to 39% for those restrictions. In the Hudson area, they voted 70% to 30% for those restrictions.
On ballot question three, ''Do you favor expanding gambling to allow video poker and other forms of video gambling in the state,'' 34% yes, 66% no statewide. And in the Hudson area, 29% yes, 71% no.
On the last question, asking whether or not the constitution should be revised to clarify that all forms of gambling should be prohibited except bingo, raffles, parimutuel on-track betting and the current state-run lottery, the entire state voted 59% to 41% to shrink gambling.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Hudson area voted 67% to 33% to shrink gambling. The only two questions—there were two questions on the ballot which asked whether the votes would like to wipe out gambling totally, and there the state voted no on one question by a narrow margin. But even in those two cases, the Hudson area votes voted overwhelmingly to wipe it out. So I simply want to make that statement to say that I have no idea what the internal actions of your Department were, but on the merits on the issue, you made the right choice.
We have, I think, a serious problem in this country where anytime a gambling high roller decides he wants to expand his profits, he can go to a tribe and say hey, why don't we work it out so you can buy a piece of land that has nothing whatsoever to do with the reservation, which is hundreds of miles away, take it off the tax roll, give it to the tribe, and what have you got?
You have a new gambling casino. I have one tribe, the Ho-Chunk Tribe, which is at least 100 miles from the community in question. They wanted to take a piece of land into trust and put a gambling casino on it two blocks from a school in my district.
I strongly support the concept of tribal sovereignty, and I support the ability of tribes to be able to recapture their land on their original reservations so that they can have a sensible economic entity. But I think we have a real problem in this country when you can have huge financial interests manipulating the right of tribes to engage in this legitimate rebuilding of their reservations for the purpose of making huge profits for somebody who has no relationship to the tribe—except that he is trying to use them to establish profits for his own business.
So I do not know how events are going to proceed legally, Mr. Secretary, but I am mad enough on this question to simply tell you that I think that you did the right thing. The people of the State of Wisconsin certainly believe you did the right thing.
The congressional delegation certainly thinks you did the right thing. And most certainly the people in the community of Hudson think you did the right thing because they removed from office every single official who was on the side of granting the tribe that ability to establish that casino.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And I just wanted to say that because I am hot under the collar on it and I wanted to get it off my chest.
Secretary BABBITT. Thank you.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Secretary, the first time Mr. Obey ever got mad. [Laughter.]
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Skeen.
Mr. SKEEN. With that great introduction, Mr. Secretary, great to have you here.
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS IN THE SOUTHWEST
I note that we have an increasing frustration by the action of the so-called environmental groups in the southwest, and I would like to ask that in your Southwest initiative outreach effort on endangered species issues that groups which threaten to sue and collect legal fees over and over with the designer ECA Environmental Species Act lawsuits, not be invited to participate.
These groups have made it clear through their words and actions that they do not want to see these issues resolved. And they have also made it clear that they will not be happy until all but the environmental elite are fenced out of the public lands and forests.
Having said that, I will be waiting for details on your initiative for the southwest endangered species crisis.
As a follow up to that displeasure, the Department's failure to appeal many of these Environmental Species lawsuits—as you are aware, the 9th Circuit Court does not have a very good record on appeals with the Supreme Court. Also, by not appealing and accepting the lower court adverse decisions, you open up a whole new funding stream for these so-called eco-legal terrorists in the southwest. It is quite a group.
As I recall in one case, even though the Department's position was in opposition to identifying critical habitat, because it would not add one bit of protection to the Southwest Willow Flycatcher, they still decided not to recommend an appeal. And the Department expended funds for an effort that did not benefit the species at all.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And as I understand it, in many of these cases the plaintiff then is allowed to collect legal fees which they use in turn to turn around and file another designer lawsuit. And this leads to the belief by the victims of the eco-legal terrorism that you are working hand in hand with these groups.
I realize that this is not the case because you and I have had great conversations about this issue before. But there is widespread belief in the southwest of this type of collusion, and I would like to have your comment and assurance that this is not the case.
Secretary BABBITT. Well, Mr. Skeen, it is not the case. And again, I am astonished at the tone that this hearing has taken. I must say I have been over here for—this is the sixth year I have been here, and I do not——
Mr. SKEEN. You should be used to it by now.
Secretary BABBITT. Well, no, frankly, I do not recognize what is going on here today. Clearly quite extraordinary. We have yet to discuss a budget issue of any kind. I do not know who orchestrated this, but something is going on.
Okay, now, in the spirit of your question, I must say that I am administering the Endangered Species Act according to the law. I am proud of the record that we have put together. We have introduced a great variety of innovations that I think have won a lot of acquiescence in the business community and the timber community.
Any implication that we are colluding with environmental groups, I must say, is (a) false; and secondly, I resent the implication.
Mr. SKEEN. I understand that, but that feeling is there and I want to let you know that it is there because you did not appeal some of these cases. It gives the impression——
Secretary BABBITT. Mr. Skeen, the decision not to appeal is made by the solicitor and it is made in accordance with my judgment of the best way to administer this law.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SKEEN. But it is also funding a stream of legal response that goes to the same question once again, that the environmental groups over there get paid for putting these lawsuits together.
Secretary BABBITT. Mr. Skeen, the provision for attorney fees is in the law. It was passed by the United——
Mr. SKEEN. I understand that.
Secretary BABBITT [continuing]. States Congress.
And if you have a problem with people collecting attorney fees, rather than an innuendo against me, you might examine the law.
Mr. SKEEN. We are not presenting innuendo—this is bare-faced fact.
I will submit additional questions for the record.
Mr. REGULA. Yes, we will have another round.
Mr. SKEEN. Thank you.
Mr. REGULA. Let me assure you, Mr. Secretary, there is no orchestration here, and these questions do have relevance. A $50 million deal in Tahoe has some budget implications.
Mr. Skaggs.
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS IN COLORADO
Mr. SKAGGS. Maybe I can provide a quick antidote in that there are some environmental groups in Colorado that are worried that we may be end running the Endangered Species Act by current efforts to deal with a working group looking toward a habitat conservation plan on the Prebles Meadow Jumping Mouse.
So there is some concern even from the environmental side that the administration of the Endangered Species Act may not be rigorous enough by the Department.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And not that you need to comment on that, but I do hope that as we get down toward mark up, the effort that the committee was kind enough to make to allocate a little bit of money to try to avoid the proverbial train wreck in this particular pending listing matter will be continued, because it is far preferable and your leadership in trying to avoid confrontational incidents with the ESA I think has been a very healthy and welcome one.
I do not know whether you wish to comment.
Secretary BABBITT. Mr. Skaggs, I think the issues that you referred to are really ripe for the very kind of effort that we have made in southern California and the northwest and elsewhere.
I was in Denver yesterday and heard a great deal of discussion about this, and it seems to me that we ought to be able to work this one out. Whether or not there is a listing, there is a problem, and I believe we have the tools at hand to work it out.
Mr. SKAGGS. You bet.
PRIORITIZING MAINTENANCE AND CONSTRUCTION
I wanted to pick up on one of your opening comments about how you have prioritized the maintenance and construction budget as a function of health and safety risks. I hope it is not the case, but I wanted to ask you whether there comes to mind any instances in which that scheme of prioritization may get in the way of what needs to be done to preserve particularly historic structures that are in decay.
And those being irreplaceable, the question would then possibly arise whether we need to examine exactly what the prioritization scheme ought to be.
Secretary BABBITT. Congressman, I think it is a fair question. What we have done with these lists that have been submitted is set up the matrix and laid out the priorities. I would guess that in most cases, if an historic structure has fallen into that state of disrepair, it is probably bumped into the health and safety category for obvious reasons.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SKAGGS. Perhaps Mr. Berry, who I know is superintending this effort for you, could see whether there are any of those sorts of trade offs that we ought to be aware of.
ELLIS ISLAND
I recently had a chance to visit Ellis Island for the first time since I left the New York area as a boy and was just stunned by its power and effect, and also by the fact that the Park Service, for all of its good work there, and while doing substantial renovation, has much left to be done.
There is no fee charged at Ellis Island. It would seem to me that this might be a real likely candidate for our efforts to invite the public to help with the kind of work that obviously still needs to be done at Ellis Island.
If the group that I was with is any measure, I think people wish that they had been asked to contribute because it was clear that this was a place that needed even more attention, as beautiful and meaningful as it already is.
Secretary BABBITT. Mr. Skaggs, we have had a vigorous discussion about the Ellis Island issue. It is complicated by the fact that visitors already pay—I think it is a seven dollar fee on the circle line to get out there.
And there is a sense among many members of both the New York and New Jersey delegations that that is an adequate price to pay. It is mostly transportation. But the fact is, it is tantamount to an admission fee because it is the only way to get there.
We have not managed to find a consensus on that.
Mr. SKAGGS. Do you need permission to make voluntary contributions available or a place for visitors to do that as we do at the Smithsonian?
Secretary BABBITT. No, we do not, and there are in a fair number of parks those kinds of——
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SKAGGS. I think that would be a——
Secretary BABBITT [continuing]. Facilities. That is a good suggestion. I would be happy to have a look at it.
Mr. SKAGGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. YATES. What is the state of the bridge?
Mr. SKAGGS. What is the state of the bridge, Mr. Yates inquires.
Mr. YATES. So you do not have to have the circle trip there.
Secretary BABBITT. Well, the bridge was built to——
Mr. YATES. From land to the island.
Secretary BABBITT. It was built from the New Jersey side to facilitate construction.
Mr. YATES. Right.
Secretary BABBITT. There is a vigorous difference of opinion as to whether or not—the bridge would need a lot of upgrading if it were to become a permanent facility, and I believe that the New York delegation is very strongly opposed to that.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Dicks.
HABITAT CONSERVATION PLANS
Mr. DICKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I want to welcome you here today. I want to thank you and appreciate your efforts on the northwest timber plan. We, I think, made some considerable progress, and I appreciate the fact that the Administration was willing to extend this beyond the first five years in terms of the Community Assistance Program and to work on watersheds and—all of which will not only help us in terms of the habitat for the Spotted Owl and Marbled Murrelet, but in our efforts to restore salmon runs, which is very important.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
One of the things in your budget and that I have strongly supported, and I think is one of the best ways to deal with many of the endangered species issues, is Habitat Conservation Plans. In my State of Washington, we had the first multi-specie HCP done on the lands of Murray Pacific.
I know you are very well aware of this, and may have been there when we actually signed that agreement. And I notice that you are trying to expand that effort, and there has been some resistance from the environmental community on this.
Can you tell us where the Administration is on HCP's and how you see the future for them?
Secretary BABBITT. Congressman, I believe that the Habitat Conservation Plans and the Conservation Agreements, which is sort of a pre-listing version of it, are really the future for the Endangered Species Act because it addresses the problem of how you reconcile species protection with the land owner's expectation of a reasonable economic return.
The Pacific northwest has really been the proving ground with Murray Pacific, Plum Creek, Weyerhauser, and a variety of other timber companies. What we have managed to work out is an accommodation in which the timber companies make some concessions about the length of the rotation, maintenance, stand structure, buffers along streams.
The Fish and Wildlife Service and marine fisheries then agree to issue a so-called takings permit, which simply acknowledges that there may be some inadvertent taking of the species. It is working in an urban context in southern California now, and I think we are going to see it increasingly with the salmon runs that are now candidates in the Pacific northwest.
Our hope was that we could get a reauthorization bill that would, in effect, sanction these in legislation, but I do not know whether that will happen or not.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DICKS. Does the Administration remain committed to the ''no surprises policy?''
Secretary BABBITT. Congressman, the answer from this member of the Administration is yes. Because there is no other incentive for a land owner to enter into a Habitat Conservation Plan if it is open ended and the agencies can come back, say, in a year or five years or whenever and take a second, third, or fourth bite at the apple.
There is a good debate going about the experience and the conditions with no surprises. How long should a Habitat Conservation Plan run? Is 100 years too long? Fifty? Thirty? I think it depends on whether it is resource extraction or subdivision development or whatever.
There are some questions that have been raised about monitoring, about the use of science. These are all fair questions, and we are learning as we go. Again, we kind of started from ground zero.
Mr. DICKS. The only criticism that I have heard that troubled me a little bit was the question about—that some of the university professors had raised recently in an article suggesting that maybe there was not enough science underpinning these HCP's.
And my experience with them is that the people who are working on these things at the Fish and Wildlife Service are very trained and skilled biologists. I kind of resented the implication that somehow there was not a good scientific underpinning.
I think that is one thing we need to make certain that we can explain to the public is that there is good science behind these HCP's.
Secretary BABBITT. Yes, I think we can do better on this. But I think the understandable tendency of professors is to say there is never enough science because we never have a perfect understanding of an ecosystem, and on the margins judgments have to be made.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But I think we can do better, and I think we can learn from those kinds of critiques.
Mr. DICKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Miller.
COORDINATION OF EVERGLADES PROJECT
Mr. MILLER. Mr. Secretary, hi.
I am not in the Everglades area of Florida, but I am close by and have a special interest in it. I was with Mr. Regula when we visited the Everglades in January, and it was a very educational. We spent two days down there.
I have to commend the Administration, actually Congress too, for giving a high priority to trying to address the problems of the Everglades, which are caused by a variety of things from development to agriculture and such.
One thing I learned was how complicated the whole process is. It is something like—is it 23 different Federal, State, local, and regional agencies involved? I mean, at the Federal level, the coordination between the Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Indian—BIA to, the Park Service is amazing.
At this stage how do you feel we are doing with the coordination of the Everglades project?
Secretary BABBITT. Congressman, I think it is a remarkable phenomenon down there. I think it is probably the first time, certainly in my knowledge, that we have had agencies working together on this scale.
The Corps of Engineers and the Interior Department are obviously kind of the lead, but everybody else is in—Agriculture, the Bureau of Indian Affairs because of the Miccosukees and the Seminoles—it goes on and on and on.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
How do you get coordination? I think the answer is a mandate from the top to the agencies. In this case, that was really the Vice President at the Federal level and the governor at the State level, and I am quite satisfied that we are all moving together.
Mr. MILLER. You mentioned a couple of possible problem areas. One, we have lost about half of the Everglades also and we are never going to totally recover from that. But, control of water down there as water flows through the Everglades.
We have had a lot of success in the restoration of the Everglades recently, but it is mainly because of heavy rains over the past number of years. We have had a lot of rain in Florida.
Secretary BABBITT. Too heavy.
Mr. MILLER. Yes, too heavy. But it has helped increase the flow of water through the Everglades. And then, of course, all the land acquisition is going to help in the future.
But one concern is, who is going to control the water? I mean, we have the Corps of Engineers versus the Water Management District—South Florida Water Management District. But the Interior Dept. is not part of that.
It is really outside of your control because there are two different agencies responsible. Does that put us in a secondary position because we are not involved? Controlling water is one of the keys to the successful restoration of the Everglades.
Let me ask you that question. How much of a concern is that?
Secretary BABBITT. Well, I think the existing law is okay. What it basically does is recognize, as I think is appropriate, that the primary management of the water resource is a State function, which in this case, is by the South Florida Water Management District.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Federal Government should not be making broad scale allocation issues. The Corps of Engineers gets into this because, in a typical flood control project like the one that is on the ground in south Florida, there will be a master agreement laying out how the project is to be operated to meet the multiple objectives.
So my view is that that is appropriate.
Mr. MILLER. What happens if you get into conflict—you know, with the development—they need more water for the people living down in Broward County or Dade County versus, you know, the concerns of the endangered species, the sparrow, the alligators, what have you?
Who is going to make the choices? How are we going to make decisions versus development for drinking water?
Secretary BABBITT. Well, there is a very interesting example of that going on right now. We have too much rain in Florida. Rain is now backing up in the water conservation areas, and it is a system which is full of water and we are operating it kind of on the margins.
The question is, who is going to take the hit if we step up our releases through the system? Will it be the wildlife in the east side of the peninsula, or will it be some flooding of roads and some infrastructure on the east side where the development is?
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Those issues have to be worked out between the Corps as the operator of many of the structures and the Water Management District. Now, they refer to Federal and State law. So we are involved because the Endangered Species Act obviously sets some guidelines on how that system ought to be operated.
TALISMAN TRACT
Mr. MILLER. Well, obviously the answer has not—we have not reached that stage yet, but I see a potential conflict, you know, years in the future as to who is controlling for what purpose and what goal.
Let me ask you a question about land acquisition. Lots of money is going to the Land Acquisition Fund, and there is a significant unobligated balance sitting there right now, and I think you requested another $80 million dollars.
This year they are trying to finalize the purchase of the Talisman tract, which, of course, I think we all agree is critical down there, at least most of that land is critical. But the question is, when you start spending huge amounts of money and you announce the Federal Government is going to pay for it—and I know you talk about appraisals.
It is hard to say what the value of swamp land is. Years ago, the developers sold swamp land and made a lot of money in Florida which was wrong, and we are having to buy some of that back, as you know, in some of those developments.
But the rumor in Florida is that we may pay more for the Talisman tract than its worth. Now, it is sugar land and I do not know if we did or not. But you know, all of a sudden you say, ''Well, how do you know we are not overpaying for land?''
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And this goes back to the question Mr. Regula asked earlier. How do you know we are not getting a bad deal when the Federal Government says we are going to buy your land regardless?
Specifically on the Talisman tract, do we feel comfortable we have not overpaid?
Secretary BABBITT. Well, the issue of appraisals is always going to be controversial. The law makes it very clear what it is the Federal agency must do. You must get appraisals. And this Talisman tract, I think, has been appraised six ways from Sunday.
The problem with appraisals is that they are not numerically objective coming out of a computer. An appraisal is a judgment. And beneath all of the stuff ultimately is judgment. It is hard when there are not a lot of comparables.
The alternative is condemnation, in which effectively a judge or a jury makes the determination. So the appraisal has to be weighed by us against the pros and cons of using——
Mr. MILLER. Could I get a report verifying that you are comfortable with the valuation and that we are making a fair—I do not think that has been closed yet anyway. But as I say, we all agree on the goal of it, but the question is——
Secretary BABBITT. Certainly.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The information follows:]
APPRAISAL REPORT ON THE TAILISMAN TRACT
The Department of the Interior has reviewed the two-year old appraisal of the State and is conducting a current appraisal on the value of the Talisman tract. The Department expects to be able to provide the appraisal report to the Committees by June 1, 1998.
Mr. MILLER [continuing]. Are we really not overpaying for that. And I have a concern when you have multiple people contributing money to it because it is not just Federal dollars and such.
Is my time up, Mr. Chairman, or do I have time for——
Mr. REGULA. We will be coming around again. And we will hold the record open for a submission of that.
Mr. Yates.
RELATIONSHIP WITH SUBCOMMITTEE
Mr. YATES. Mr. Secretary, you have been in office now for, what, five years, six years? A long time. Has the Department of the Interior prospered under your administration? Are there things that you want——
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. REGULA. Here comes a softball right across the plate. [Laughter.]
Mr. YATES. Have you done everything you wanted to do, or are there things that the Department should have done that you would have liked to do? Have you received full cooperation from this committee?
We have the impression that you have. And with that cooperation, were you able to do the things that you thought the Department needed?
Secretary BABBITT. Well, Mr. Yates, notwithstanding the rocky start this morning, I must acknowledge gratefully that we have had a very nice relationship with this committee. I would say that——
Mr. YATES. What do you mean rocky start?
Secretary BABBITT. This morning?
Mr. YATES. Have you had a rocky start?
Mr. DICKS. You were not here at the beginning.
LACK OF LEGISLATION
Secretary BABBITT. Well, we just had a vigorous discussion of a few items.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would say the most interesting thing to me over the last five or six years or longer is that, in these resource areas and environmental areas, there has been virtually no legislation, almost none.
We have passed in six years two pieces of legislation involving my Department. That is it, other than sort of administrative and operational tidying up. Only two: the California Desert Protection Act at the end of '93 and an Organic Act for the Refuge System this past year.
So all——
Mr. YATES. Is that what you wanted? Or did you want other legislation?
Secretary BABBITT. Well, I have proposed again and again and again each year a whole variety of issues relating to wilderness areas: reform of concessions in the National Park Service, reform of the mining law—to name a few.
But there is not in the Congress in the 1990's a sort of direction or the votes to do that. In contrast, the things that we have done in this committee, I think, add up quite impressively. And that is why I deliberately highlighted these multi-agency regional restoration plans.
This is a new chapter in conservation history, and we should not underestimate the importance of the Forest Plan, the Everglades, the Bay-Delta; these issues where we are bringing agencies together using the appropriation power; looking for stakeholder consensus, State match, and local participation.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A lot of that is happening under the Endangered Species Act, and I think it is really quite remarkable. You know, the impetus comes through this committee because it is about money. It is not about new laws.
INDIAN TRUST FUNDS
Mr. YATES. One of the things with which this committee was concerned, and I think has not yet been solved, is what happens to the Indian Trust Funds? We had been trying for years to find some procedure which would assure that the Indian interests were protected by an appropriate depositary.
I do not think that the Department of the Interior has an outstanding record on this subject. It seems to me, oh, several years ago when we were attacking this problem that the Indians were losing a great deal of money as a result of what I thought was the mishandling of their trust funds.
At least not being handled adequately, and that there was a lawsuit against the United States by the Indians for having mishandled their funds. What is the status of the trust funds now?
Secretary BABBITT. Mr. Yates, I spoke briefly to that in my opening statement.
We have made considerable progress. First of all, you may remember that we did set up a special trustee to deal with these issues three or four years ago.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. YATES. Right.
Secretary BABBITT. And appointed a trustee who has now laid out a plan. It is a daunting task. It is 150 years of records which are in some cases there, and in some cases they are not. There is now litigation on all fronts.
But the plan is now moving forward. It has essentially three parts. One is to get at the individual trust account. Second is to get at the history of the tribal trust funds. And the third is to sort of dredge up the past and sort it out to get information and data systems which can from here forward deal with it.
Now, the information systems for the individual accounts are going to be put up on a trial basis in the Phoenix area, and rolled out to the remaining areas by March 2000.
The reconciliation of past accounts is going forward. It is wrapped up very much in a couple of lawsuits. There is one thing I would like to get from this Congress on the authorizing side in which we have been unable to do, and that is legislation dealing with the fractionation of the allotments.
This is simply the issue under the Dawes Act when they began breaking up the Indian reservations with individual allotments, which are all held in trust. And typically, say, 40 acres which was allotted to an individual in 1890 has now descended through six or seven generations and is owned in common under existing law often by as many as two or three hundred people—tenants in common on 40 acres of land. Part of our record keeping problem is we spend, hypothetically, maybe ten or twelve dollars a year on each of those accounts and, in many cases, the accounts earn maybe five or ten cents a year as the sort of prorata share of a grazing fee on a piece of desert land.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We need legislation to take care of that one.
Mr. YATES. What is your appraisal or your view as to what the status of it is now? Are you on the way to achieving some kind of solution of this terrible mess?
Secretary BABBITT. Yes, absolutely.
Mr. YATES. Thank you.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Wamp.
Mr. WAMP. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Before I ask two questions, let me convene the bipartisan Sidney Yates fan club—again, I was reminded a moment ago that this is one of the last times, if not the last time, that Mr. Yates will have the distinguished Secretary of the Interior come before this subcommittee.
And for a person who spent the first half of my life as a Democrat and the second half of my life as a Republican, I just want to say again you are a class act and we are going to sorely miss you. You are a real credit to this country.
I appreciate your tutelage here in just the short time that I have been here, and I want to recognize that again.
PARK SERVICE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
My two questions, Mr. Secretary, both had bipartisan concern expressed as we had two hearings——since your last appearance here, we had two hearings where there were some bipartisan concerns expressed around the Park Service construction problems such as the infamous outhouses and the employee housing that ran too high.
And through that, the IG and the GAO exempted any accusations towards the Denver Service Center, but they did identify what they called serious management problems at the Park Service. I just want your assessment of that, what is being done to improve the management of the Park Service—that is question one.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And question two is another hearing we had about maintenance backlog where three agencies under your purview—BLM, Fish and Wildlife, and the Park Service—were unable to clearly articulate a definition for backlog maintenance.
There were new construction projects like visitor centers and land acquisition that were included in the backlog maintenance budget. And we are trying to make sure that there is adequate funding to address backlog maintenance, yet no one could really put their finger on how they determine backlog maintenance.
It looks like there are a lot of new things being thrown in there. I think it is fair to say at both hearings, there was bipartisan concerns about those two issues. So if you could hit them both, please, sir, and thank you for coming.
Secretary BABBITT. Mr. Wamp, I will take the second one first because it is, I think, the easiest one. We have put together, at the urging of this committee which recognized the problem, a prioritized list of every maintenance repair and rehabilitation issue on all of the land agencies. It is real, it has been scrubbed down, and I believe is the appropriate starting point for this.
If we can, working together, keep the available funds focused at this list without too much leakage out to special priority projects and keep from inflating the construction budget because of member requests and stay with this—I recognize the reality, but your criticism in years past was well founded. I believe that John Berry is going to do a staff briefing for the appropriation subcommittees on both sides on the response that we have prepared, and I believe you will be satisfied. We have really made a major effort, and I think it is a quality result.
Mr. YATES. May you yield, Mr. Secretary?
I just want to say thank you very much.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secretary BABBITT. You are welcome.
With respect to Park Service construction, we are kind of at the front end of dealing with this problem. Let me first see if I can kind of explain why I think the problem arose, just very briefly.
Some years ago the Park Service set up the Denver Service Center as a way to kind of rationalize and utilize architects, engineers, estimators, impact statement writers, all that sort of stuff.
It was a correct thing to do. But what has happened, and I think you can understand, is that with two centers of decision making, things kind of fall between the cracks. The superintendent at Yosemite National Park says the Denver Service Center, which reports to Washington, is overseeing this, so I do not need to spend quite as much time out looking at that housing thing.
The Denver Service Center, because of its budget structure, has a different set of priorities which are not quite as tightly linked to the budget as the superintendent of the park.
Everything kind of falls in the cracks. We have commissioned a study by the National Academy of Public Administration and it is underway. And you and I know that the National Academy of Public Administration is not the answer to every problem, but I think it is a good starting point.
We recognize the problem. That study will be final in June, and we are prepared to act on the recommendations and discuss them with you and tell you what we can get from it. Because it is a problem. I mean, it is absolutely undeniable.
Mr. WAMP. Let me just point out in closing that we were looking for a person that would either accept responsibility or that we could determine was responsible, and there was no one to be found. And there are agencies in the Federal Government, and I will just use the Post Office, for example.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Marvin Runyon accepted the accountability at the Post Office I think up and down the line. I think that is commendable and they are going in the right direction. I would really encourage that, that we improve the management practices.
I would commend you for the things you are doing well, but there is still much more to be done. I will come back on the next time around.
Thank you.
Mr. REGULA. I would say, Mr. Secretary, I think the NAPA report requested by this subcommittee on study of the Denver Service Center will aid us in addressing the accountability problems.
Mr. Kolbe.
Mr. KOLBE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I certainly do not want to be confrontational here, but I do think—I just feel compelled to say—that the comments you made to Mr. Skeen were really uncalled for. I do not think you can find in the evidence that there is an orchestration or anything here.
I do not think you would suggest that Mr. Obey's comments, which immediately preceded, were orchestrated by the chairman of this committee. So, I just do not think that is correct.
I also think that it is a legitimate oversight function of this committee to ask questions about policy, to ask questions about exchanges or any of the other multitude of legislation that comes under the jurisdiction of your agency.
DEL WEBB CORPORATION LAND EXCHANGE
So I just wanted to get that off my chest. I do have some budget questions, but I do have just one question. Frankly, I do not think that Wall Street Journal article is terribly unfair to you.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It raises some legitimate questions about the whole process of appraisals and it raises some legitimate questions—or perhaps you may think they are not legitimate questions—about the Department and the way appraisals and exchanges are handled.
I have been through enough of these exchanges. I know the difficulty of this. I know the problem that exists in Las Vegas, the lack of land that is available up there.
But just one question that I did want to ask on that, because the only thing in there that in any way involves you, it seems to me, is the question about whether or not the priority list was approved by you, and I think that is an accurate statement. Is it not true?
Secretary BABBITT. Mr. Kolbe, here is the problem with that and why I find it so absolutely outrageous.
I came to work for the United States Government in January of 1993. Now the ethics rules, as I understand them, say that you must recuse yourself for one year on matters where you had some connection.
In this case, I had done some work for the Del Webb Corporation. The issue is recusal for one year.
Mr. KOLBE. And you have continued to recuse yourself even beyond that.
Secretary BABBITT. My point, Congressman, is that there is no requirement of any kind beyond one year. And in year five, in an excess of caution, no requirement of any kind, I have still recused myself. This guy comes along in year five and says, ''Ah ha, but in year five, you were a party to a discussion in which some broad scale decisions were made about land exchanges in Nevada.''
Now, I have to tell you, I really resent being smeared on the front page of the Wall Street Journal five years later when the recusal requirement expired after one year.
Mr. KOLBE. I am not going to pursue this, Mr. Secretary. It was three years, January '96, exactly three years after.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secretary BABBITT. Three years.
Mr. KOLBE. But it was—you are correct. And you have continued to recuse yourself for the obvious reasons.
Secretary BABBITT. But the reasons are not even obvious. I have done this——
Mr. KOLBE. Well, they must have been if you decided to recuse yourself.
Secretary BABBITT. Well, I am trying to be as careful as I possibly can.
Mr. KOLBE. I understand that.
Secretary BABBITT. Had I not recused myself, presumably, they would have been satisfied, and I simply do not understand the results. And that is why I tend to get excited when this article is waived in my face.
STREAMLINING SAVINGS
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Secretary, on the budget, you have said in your statement that you have aggressively streamlined the agency and reduced headquarter staff management layers, reengineered processes; you have improved efficiency effectiveness of customer services, and I think that is all very, very good and well.
I assume from all of this you have saved some money. Do you have any way of quantifying for us what you think you have been able to save for the Department? Is there any way to quantify that?
Secretary BABBITT. Could I give you an example?
Mr. KOLBE. Yes, I was—okay, sure.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secretary BABBITT. I would like——
Mr. KOLBE. That does not quantify it, but——
Secretary BABBITT. I had some discussions with the committee last summer when a great crisis arose about Menlo Park and its facilities and the Geological Survey. You may remember this thing erupted onto the front page of the newspaper because I had had the temerity to go out to Menlo Park and say these rentals are outrageous, and I am going to move the GS out of Menlo Park unless we can do something.
Maybe we will move them to Arizona. We were back in Menlo Park last week. We have done a down sizing there. We have struck a rent stabilization agreement with the GSA, and it is going to save us about $50 million over the next ten years.
Now why is that important? Because we were willing to rock the boat. A lot of people got excited and that has to be done.
Now, can I answer your question directly? It is awfully hard. We abolished the Bureau of Mines, so I can give you savings there. I do not remember what their yearly budget was.
Mr. KOLBE. I understand.
Secretary BABBITT. Eighty percent of that is gone.
Mr. KOLBE. I understand the difficulty of quantifying this. That is the reason I was trying to come around to this question. You have got a $461 million dollar increase over last year's appropriations. And really, what I am trying to say is actually the budget increase is clearly larger than that if you include these savings. I mean, you are not only able to apply those savings, but then you have a budget increase.
And I was trying to get some handle on what is the real increase we have in this budget.
Mr. DICKS. Does that take into account inflation?
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KOLBE. Inflation has to be a part of that obviously. Labor costs and so forth, that all is a part of that. But I am trying to get an idea what the real increase is.
Secretary BABBITT. Well, that is an interesting question, and frankly I do not know whether we could give you a little more specificity. Maybe we could.
YEAR 2000 COMPUTER PROBLEM
Mr. KOLBE. I think my time is about expired, and I will ask some questions for the record. But I want to go on with a question or a statement to you about an issue I have been dealing with in the subcommittee that I chair, and coming to realize the complexity and the difficulty of this—about the year 2000 computer problems.
Is this a priority for you? What are you doing personally on this issue in your Department, and what are the problems you see that you face, and how are you dealing with them?
Secretary BABBITT. It is a fair question, an important question. We are dealing with it in a variety of ways. I think what I really would like to do is write you a letter in response to that because the Interior issues are somewhat different.
We do not do much entitlement or check writing, and our computer systems tend to be focused a little more narrowly.
Mr. KOLBE. We are finding in every agency that did not think they have a problem there are enormous problems.
Secretary BABBITT. Well, that is why I would like to write you a letter because I agree.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KOLBE. Everything that has a date in it has to have a change, and it is a tremendous problem. We are finding some agencies are on top of it, and some are not.
Mr. Secretary, I will submit a series of questions. If you could just respond to those, it would be very helpful to me.
Secretary BABBITT. Okay, I am notified by Mr. Berry that we have just been moved into the ''best'' category by OMB for our plan.
Mr. KOLBE. Good. So you are on target for March '99.
Secretary BABBITT. Oh, I think so.
Mr. KOLBE. I will submit a series of questions.
Secretary BABBITT. Now, there are some surprises out there, and everybody who says they know they are on target for '99 had better qualify.
Mr. KOLBE. Thank you.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Nethercutt.
INTERIOR COLUMBIA BASIN ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Mr. Secretary.
I found your comment interesting a little while ago that we will never have a perfect understanding of ecosystems. I could not agree with you more, and I think an example on the ground of that comment is right in the Pacific Northwest, with the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project.
As you know, we have spent some $30-plus million on the study. We have urged your Department, others within your Department, and other agencies, to extend public comment periods, so we can understand the economic consequences to the regions, the rural forested regions of my state and other states. I commend those agencies for extending that comment period.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I see in the budget request that there is a request that looks like, another $25 million, not to say another $10 million beyond—for the Forest Service, that is requested for this project. I understand you made some reference to it earlier in your testimony, and I am sorry I missed that. But my understanding is that you said the project is intended to—departments must go forward to avoid litigation.
I have been concerned about the implementation costs of this project and this study and so-called body of science that is out there, and what it will do to the lifestyle of the people of the Pacific Northwest, the people of my district, for example, in Colville, who have a production economy using the forest in a balanced way to run those communities.
And so my question is, how much more money do you believe the agency will put into this particular project? If the $25 million that I have alleged is correct—I would appreciate your confirming that if it is not—then I would be happy to be advised of it.
Second of all, I think your Department is going to have some difficult challenges ahead in the implementation of whatever decision comes out. It looks to me like the natural consequence of not having enough money to implement whatever the decision is, will have a no decision effect, which will be a decision that will negatively impact my region and other western states.
So I would appreciate having your thoughts on it, as well as the explanation of the funding request for this next fiscal year.
Secretary BABBITT. Okay. The $25 million I think is BLM and Forest Service. I think our increase this year is $8 million, but it is a lot of money.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. It is BLM and Fish and Wildlife Service.
Secretary BABBITT. That is right. That is correct.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Forest Service comes under USDA——
Secretary BABBITT. Yes.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. NETHERCUTT [continuing]. But I think it is $10 million under Forest Service, under the Ag budget, about $1 1/2 million for Fish and Wildlife, and about $22 or $23 million——
Secretary BABBITT. That sounds about right, yes.
I recognize that there does not seem to be much enthusiasm for the alternatives that are in the draft impact statements from either the environmental group or the industry. I mean, this is a process in search of friends to join its one defender, who is now talking to you.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. There are times when I wish you would recuse yourself on other things, Mr. Secretary. [Laughter.]
But anyway——
Secretary BABBITT. My approach to this is simply this. The alternatives are worse, in my judgment. If we abandon this and lapse back into the traditional pattern of land management, one plan at a time, decisions in isolation, we are going to get back into the specific rivers kind of litigation where there will be injunctions against activities for failure to factor the cumulative impacts across the landscape. So it seems to me that calls for a coordinated response. If this one is not right, we have got to find the right one.
Now, let me say a word about the costs. As I read the restoration alternatives, there are some big numbers here. They are principally for forest restoration and stream restoration. Now, I think the forest restoration has got a lot of positives. First of all, the money is all jobs, trying to get these forests thinned out and get fire back on the land.
There are also forest products that come out of this. They are not the traditional forest products, but you can see, I think, up in the Blue Mountains and in Oregon—and presumably in your part of the country—some industries which are retooling to take a different kind of forest product. If we could get this restoration underway on a broader basis, I think it has some potential to support local wood products industries.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
They cannot do it on their own because the bottom line is this stuff is not economical if they are bearing all of the costs of restoration in terms of preparation and some of the thinning. That is the bottom line. It has to be subsidized by this kind of restoration effort.
So I would argue that this is not about resource jobs, the present, or nothing. I think it is a more mixed kind of thing. It is about a transition in which there will be a resource economy. It will be a different one.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. It sure will be a different one, because the levels of harvest are so low under the plan, and the mentality in my region is that the Department of the Interior is seeking to move people from the forests and the small timber communities into the cities and retraining for, you know, waiter jobs, not retraining within the context of what these people know and where they want to live.
So I am not going to assume that that is your policy, but I do not see anything in the study that is going to stop one lawsuit if someone does not like what the decision is. I do not see it anywhere.
Secretary BABBITT. Well, I would respectfully differ with that, and my evidence would be the forest plan in the northwest. There is no litigation of any significance going on on the west side of the Cascades now. And the reason is that we put a big plan up front, took it in front of a judge, and got it approved.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. I understand. And I heard your comment about HCPs, and generally I can agree. But there is a tremendous cost to that. I mean, those people that you mentioned who got their HCP spent literally millions of dollars dealing with your agency—and I do not mean that disrespectfully—dealing with Interior agencies costs them a fortune to do it. Little guys cannot do that.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secretary BABBITT. Little guys——
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Big ones can.
Secretary BABBITT. Little guys cannot do it. What we have to do for the little guy is put out a boilerplate kind of product which says, you know, ''Here is a set of guidelines. If those are workable, go do it.''
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Thank you.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Moran?
Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My colleague here, Mr. Dicks, had mentioned that his forest lost 98 percent, so there are some other points of view on this.
But first of all, I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, what a great job you are doing. Because from day one, you have proven to be a terrific choice. You have the guts and the integrity and the intellect we need as Secretary of the Interior, and you have used that to guide this Department in a principled, common sense approach, in my estimation. I want you to understand that a lot of us appreciate the difficulties that you encounter, and we are proud of the job that you are doing.
I am glad that David Obey gave you credit for making the right decision on that casino issue in Wisconsin. And that Republican candidate for State Senate who politicized that issue so much, he discredits the other Indian tribes that I think are very legitimately pursuing gambling interests.
You know, the American law has worked throughout most of American history against the interests of Native Americans, and so it does not bother some of us that it finally is being used in their interests. We think you did the right thing.
WATERSHED RESTORATION EFFORTS
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Let me get back to an issue here that probably would not come up if I did not mention it. But you have talked in your testimony about the watershed restoration, the fact that the Vice President is leading this effort to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Clean Water Act by funding these watershed restoration efforts in local communities and watershed councils, and your budget includes an additional increase for the U.S. Geological Survey to participate in that.
They evaluate the impacts of pollution and non-point sources of pollution, Pfiesteria in the Chesapeake Bay, and so on, and you have additional funding for the Bureau of Land Management, for Office of Surface Mining, the Fish and Wildlife Service, to improve the quality of watersheds.
What I want to get at is that since EPA is the primary agency for these efforts—and, in fact, they started this unprecedented effort to get manure out of our rivers and streams by regulating large livestock farms, just like factories and other waste-producing industries—that regulatory effort will affect, in a very positive fashion, those communities that are living downstream, obviously. But is EPA using the data that the U.S. Geological Survey is gathering? Because they have some great data, and there is a lot of effort going on across the Federal Government in this area. Do we have an umbrella coordination mechanism so that you are able to give the EPA the data it needs rather than repeating the effort over in their budget? How are we coordinating this and making it most efficient and using the good work that your various agencies are doing in pursuit of this initiative that the Vice President talked about?
Secretary BABBITT. Congressman, I think that is a perceptive question, because I think of the USGS as doing the research out on the ground and EPA as formulating the regulatory response. I think at the field level, out of the regional offices, the level of coordination and use is really very, very good.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would like to think a little more about whether or not we ought to be doing more at the top level to examine our budgets and see how they relate to each other and to ask whether or not we are doing the right job of setting longer-term priorities in terms of their regulatory need. So there is a nice example of that coming up right now with all of this farm stuff.
Mr. MORAN. Yes. I have a suspicion that EPA is trying to reinvent a lot of wheels over there to carry out this initiative when you have much of the data and you have the professionals. And while they may be working at the local level, it does not appear that we have the kind of coordination we need at the top level.
So thank you. I have some stuff on the Endangered Species Act, but I am not going to get into that. We probably have gotten into that enough.
Do I have time?
Mr. REGULA. You have a couple of minutes.
DISASTER INFORMATION NETWORK
Mr. MORAN. A couple of minutes. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You are setting up a new disaster information network within the U.S. Geological Survey. Tell us a little about how you are going to work with the local communities in advance of natural disasters.
We are finding with El Niño, obviously, that this is becoming a concern for a whole lot of communities now across the country, and particularly those who are located in more active natural hazard areas from the impact of storms and the loss of life we have seen in Florida and other States.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
You are trying to set up this multi-agency integrated program office, it said in the budget, and you put in an extra $15 million. Again, this is a similar kind of issue. We have FEMA over there, and we are setting up something here, but the objective is the same. The professionals seem to be coming from the same level of knowledge and interest. How are we coordinating at the federal level? What needs to be coordinated at the local level?
Secretary BABBITT. Mr. Moran, before I answer that, I would like to respond to Mr. Kolbe's comments and say that I did not intend to impugn Mr. Skeen personally, and I have written him a note to that effect, because I admire him enormously. We have had a strong and mutually productive relationship, and I just want Mr. Kolbe to know that I have responded to his comments.
Mr. SKEEN. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Skeen.
Mr. SKEEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. There is no offense taken and no offense intended either way. It is just a good discussion.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary BABBITT. Okay. Now, Congressman, I think the parallel is very interesting, because FEMA has the lead on disaster. They are the people who respond, and I might add they have done really quite an exceptional job I think of reinventing that agency and being out on the front lines. That is not our job.
Our job is to get information. It really is an exact parallel—to get information out. And there is an interagency committee working on these information issues that has been established by the Vice President.
The reason that this interagency committee suggests the Geological Survey as at the center of the funnel for the information is this: we have, and this committee has helped establish, an information center in Reston which deals with all of the satellite information and has the screens to scrub classified satellite information.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In these disaster scenarios, more and more the satellite technology is central not only to getting baseline data, but to real-time monitoring of what is happening. That is the reason that the plan that has been put forward is focused on that facility.
But just as we do not regulate water quality in any way, we do not propose to be doing anything on the ground at the time of a disaster other than getting information out to FEMA and to the community.
Mr. MORAN. Okay. My time is exhausted.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. REGULA. I would say to the members, if you would like to submit questions for the record, you may. And I hope we can have a prompt response to those from your agency. We will try to get another round here and get finished at a decent time.
HEADWATERS FUNDING AND MANAGEMENT
After being out in the Headwaters with the BLM State Director last year, I am pleased to note that BLM is the designated manager of the property. Your 1999 budget includes a request for $400,000 in BLM's budget for development of a coordinated research management plan. Will this involve the State and county in the effort? And can I assume that these funds will not be obligated until the acquisition of the Headwaters has been completed? And as part of this, what is the status of the HCP vis-a-vis the land owner, MAXXAM Corporation?
Secretary BABBITT. Mr. Chairman, I heard your suggestion. The funds will not be allocated, in accordance with your instructions, until the plan is complete. I think I can say that. I do not think we needed any force on the ground.
The HCP agreement, the framework agreement, has been reached. I believe there will be a hearing either in April or May—there will be a public hearing—with some of the detail in the HCP. I am pretty confident that the deal will hold. It has got enough specificity in it that both parties' expectations coincide on that.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We have, to my knowledge, not yet worked out with the State of California how title to this land will be held when our money is put up and their match is put up. There is a lot of discussion going on. I would be interested in anybody's thoughts on that. Should we divvy it into two pieces? Should we take title in common? I am not sure that that has ever been done. I do not know if it is workable or not.
Mr. REGULA. Well, then you get into management problems. It is bad enough that the access to this tract of land is not great, not good at all. And then if you diffuse the management, the public never will get to see it.
Secretary BABBITT. Yes. I would agree that the real issue is what is in the management agreement.
Mr. REGULA. But it is planned to have BLM the lead agency for the Federal government, is that correct?
Secretary BABBITT. Yes.
BETTER MANAGEMENT AND STAFFING NEEDS
Mr. REGULA. The other day I spoke with the park superintendents, and they asked me if I had any one thing I would want and I said better management. And I hope you are focusing, at every opportunity, with a critical eye, to management, not only in the Park Service but all up and down the line. And particularly, I have some concerns with Denver, as you are well aware.
I am waiting until the report comes out, but as I said to the park superintendents, I hope they are skilled people. I hope they are able to manage projects within their park on their own initiatives, with maybe some local A&E help. This is not a question, but I hope that you are taking a good look at management all across the board.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I do note that your budget request includes 1,463 more people. That does not quite square with the Vice President's downsizing that I can see, because, the elimination of the Bureau of Mines, which was an initiative of this subcommittee, comes out of there and we have still have 1,463 more employees. And I suspect a lot of those are in the centralized areas here in the capital and not necessarily on the ground. You might want to comment on that.
Secretary BABBITT. Mr. Chairman, just a couple of thoughts. Our 1993 base was 78,000. We went clear down to 65,000 the biggest percentage reduction. Now, the important thing about this management efficiency is you cannot start from x and just keep cutting down forever——
Mr. REGULA. No, I understand that.
Secretary BABBITT [continuing]. Because we do have an enormous increase in workload and demands, out on these land management units particularly.
Now, the 1999 request will bring us back up to 69,000, which is still 9,000 fewer employees than we had five years ago in light of all of the things that have moved.
We made a huge headquarters reduction. I think we had the highest percentage of headquarters reduction of any agency, and these people are not going to be in headquarters. What percentage of these people are going to be outside of headquarters? 90 percent? I would guess 90 percent.
And let me just say the BIA piece is driven by workload, and there is nothing——
Mr. REGULA. No, I understand.
Secretary BABBITT [continuing]. We can do there. We have to get additional policemen.
Mr. REGULA. No, I understand. That is a special situation. But are you fostering, as much as possible, a management culture among the decisionmakers?
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secretary BABBITT. The reason I raised the Menlo Park issue is because you do break some crockery in attempting to get people focused on management issues and to persuade them that there are rewards for doing that.
I think we produced a huge savings out of the reconfiguration of that center and out of some hardball negotiations, both with private lessors and with the GSA. There are obviously thousands of ways to be doing that on the margin.
NEW FWS REGIONAL OFFICE
Mr. REGULA. Well, that is why I have some skepticism about the California proposal of the Fish and Wildlife Service. That goes contrary to Menlo Park.
Secretary BABBITT. I understand your concerns. The Fish and Wildlife Service is the most problematical of all of the agencies, and the reason is that these issues have just avalanched down on what was once a fairly quiet, reactive agency, and now, in the context of these larger——
Mr. REGULA. It is the Endangered Species Act requirements?
Secretary BABBITT. Yes, that is the bottom line. We find that an agency which grew up by hiring kids out of college who wanted to be biologists and go off and do biology is now really a regulatory agency that is way undergraded comparable to the National Park System and others. We are constantly having to import people skills, negotiation skills, management skills, to some shellshocked biologists who coming off these raucous public meetings are saying, ''You know, I just wanted to go out and study critters, and here I am.''
Congressman Kolbe has just had a meeting to put them on the spot in front of hundreds of people—700 people in Tucson. So the agency is really moving, and I have acknowledged in the southwest that we have moved far less than elsewhere and we need a lot of attention. That is a long answer to a short question.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DICKS. If you would yield on that point just for one brief comment.
The problem is there are so many people trying to do HCPs, and every one of them has to go in and consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service. So the time of this agency is being enormously stressed, I believe, and that is why I think we have to do something about this.
Secretary BABBITT. Norm, if I could play off that just with one suggestion, because I am not sure whether we could do much of this in the short term. The Endangered Species Act is virtually the only Federal environmental law which was put up as a Federal operation without a systematic Federal-State delegation backed up by grants to States.
If we are going to make this thing work in the long run and get these HCP things to work, we have to find a way to get a State grant program out to those Fish and Game Commissions to power them up, so that they can take some of this. It would make it work better and more efficiently for everybody. We do not do that.
Look at the Clean Water Act. Basically, what Carole Browner does is set standards, hand out grants, and the States implement. The Endangered Species Act does not work that way. We are trying to push it out, but we find again and again and again that State agencies are underpowered and need some help.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Obey.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I wish Mr. Wamp was still here. He indicated that he spent the first half of his life as a Democrat and then changed parties. I spent the first third of my life as a Republican and then changed parties. I do not know why one of us took a wrong turn. [Laughter.]
I presume it is because of that well-known reluctance of the American male to ask directions. [Laughter.]
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
WHITTLESLEY CREEK PROJECT
Let me simply ask two questions, Mr. Secretary. One is a question I will submit to you for the record involving what is known as the Whittlesley Creek Project in my district. It involves the grass roots efforts of local people to establish a wildlife refuge in the Lake Superior area near Ashland.
Unexpected controversy has arisen because of the long-term usage of part of that area as a snowmobile trail. No one locally objects to its being used, and there is some confusion about the decision of the regional office of the Fish and Wildlife Service to try to discontinue snowmobiling on a trail which has been used for a good 20 years.
KODIAK TIMBER AND HALIBUT FISHING
And then I would like to simply ask you to also get back to me with your reaction to the following. Mr. Livingston and I were in Alaska together this summer, and when we were on Kodiak it came to our attention that a critical and beautiful area of timber is under some pressure to be put up for clearcutting by the native corporation there.
It was explained to us that the reason they are doing that is because they have very few other sources of revenue. And one of the reasons they do is because when the individual quotas were established for halibut fishing, that the particular years which were established as the base period to determine what the individual entitlement was to fish for halibut excluded the Native Americans because they, in that base period, had switched to salmon fishing and had not done any halibut fishing. And since salmon was selling for two cents a pound up there, that was hardly worth the effort.
It appeared to an outsider that this was a case where some of your larger, more sophisticated commercial fishing interests were aware of what the long-term plans were on the part of Interior for establishing those rules and those base periods, and that the Native Americans, because of that, were substantially disadvantaged.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would simply like to know whether, in fact, your understanding of that conforms with ours, and what prospects there might be for making adjustments in that base period so that you do not have pressures on the tribe to clear-cut an area which otherwise they would not be looking at because they would not need the revenue.
We ran into people whose families had been fishing halibut for three generations and who, because of the peculiar base period, have been excluded from doing so. And it just did not seem equitable, and I think to most people on the trip it did not seem equitable.
I do not expect you to respond now, but if you would look at that for the record, I would appreciate it.
Secretary BABBITT. Certainly. I would be happy to do that on both Whittlesley Creek and the Alaska issue.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. OBEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Skaggs?
COLORADO DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
Mr. SKAGGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A few things, probably mostly for the record also. Back in the early and mid '70s, the State of Colorado split up its Division of Wildlife and Department of Parks, and after some negotiation I believe got the blessing of at least regional Fish and Wildlife about that. The issue now, some 20 years later, is being revisited with the threat of some sanction against the State because of the current standards being applied for the use of funds from the Fish and Wildlife Service to acquire some of these lands.
Anyway, all of us who went to law school are excited at the prospect of reviving our knowledge of laches and estoppel and things like that, so I hope you would take a look at whether the equities in this are ones that weigh in favor of letting the State alone.
Secretary BABBITT. Good. I will have a look at that. I think this probably involves the apportionment of Wallop-Breaux funds, and the results of the audits that we are required to do under Federal law.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
INTELLIGENCE BUDGET
Mr. SKAGGS. Good. I was glad that you made mention of the USGS facility at Reston and the cooperation there, particularly on the use of remote sensing assets that the intelligence community has. Mr. Dicks and I both are on the Intelligence Committee. As I am sure you are aware, like everybody else, we have got our budget problems.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I am not sure of the extent to which there is any effort to kind of spread the budget hit among user agencies for the value of the product that is now coming out of the intelligence community, in scrubbed version as you described earlier.
But I wonder if you might take a look at least at your agencies and whether they are being assessed or could stand to be assessed for some of what comes out of that cooperative venture, because there every year as we do our intelligence budget, there is, of course, a look at that program and the amount that is being directly funded out of the intelligence budget to sustain it.
And I do not know whether you have any comment on that or would just respond for the record.
Secretary BABBITT. Yes. I guess my view is, compared to the intelligence establishment, the USGS is sort of a 99-pound weakling. Be merciful. [Laughter.]
Mr. SKAGGS. Oh, no. Do not misjudge my disposition on this. I just want to be prepared for the questions that are inevitably raised.
Secretary BABBITT. It is an interesting area of endeavor, including this issue of, to what extent can you charge for products, and to what extent is that even desirable. There is a lot of discussion going on now in the entire GIS community about should we charge for derived products, or should we view that as a public service. It is a complex issue. I think it requires some attention, and I do not purport to have an answer.
Mr. SKAGGS. Well, I think it is appropriate to say, in an open setting like this, I was very taken by one presentation that I heard at a session about a year ago, I guess, involving some Fish and Wildlife Service pilots that were spared some very risky survey flights in typically nasty weather up off Alaska, because we are now able to get through remote sensing much of the assessment of wildlife and habitat concerns that they otherwise had to go out and risk their life to get. So, presumably, that has value to the Department and we could find a way to measure and account for that.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
WEATHER SERVICE BUDGET
A final question, particularly since you mentioned the impact on the agencies in your Department of natural-caused disasters, weather in particular. Mr. Kolbe and the Chairman and I also sit on the Commerce-Justice Subcommittee, where funding for the Weather Service is always a matter of interest.
To the extent that the experience of you and your agencies might inform us of the appropriate budget decisions to be taken there on your sister agency, I just would invite, again, a submission that would help us judge the impact of the work done within that part of the Department of Commerce on saving lives and protecting property, and so forth, under your jurisdiction.
Secretary BABBITT. Mr. Skaggs, if I can respond briefly. I think the interface between this committee and the committee of jurisdiction over NOAA really raises some interesting issues. All sorts of stuff is divided right down the middle, the Endangered Species Act being the most notable example. There are a lot of other issues there.
The division of on-shore/near-shore functions, between marine sanctuaries and national parks, is another example of the division in research and administration between the Mineral Management Service off-shore and NOAA functions.
I think there is an oceans bill moving somewhere that may affect some of this, but I think there may be some possibilities in all of that.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SKAGGS. Well, we would be glad to have your further advice.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Dicks?
Mr. DICKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, just a couple of things. There is a great deal of interest in our State—I think a lot of it because of the Ambrose book on the Lewis & Clark expedition—and I just urge the Department to do everything they can to cooperate with the other agencies in order to make this a memorable occasion.
Secretary BABBITT. Do you mean they could reach the Pacific Ocean in a reenactment to see a wolf howling in the Olympic——
[Laughter.]
Mr. DICKS. That was my second issue. You anticipated me beautifully. [Laughter.]
Now they will think there was a plot between you and me. [Laughter.]
WOLF REINTRODUCTION
I am very concerned about the recent court decision that I think held that because this was an experimental population, the wolves that have been reintroduced—if this court decision is not overturned, I think in the Yellowstone area—maybe it is in Idaho—would have to then be taken and killed because they had not bureaucratically complied with the law just the way this Federal judge wanted it done.
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
What is the Administration's view of this? I think it is a disaster. I know we are appealing the