[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DOI SPENDING FOR THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (FWS) AND OFFICE
OF INSULAR AFFAIRS (OIA) AND THE PRESIDENT'S FY 2012 BUDGET REQUEST
FOR FWS AND OIA
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE,
OCEANS AND INSULAR AFFAIRS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-3
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
64-955 PDF WASHINGTON : 2011
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, AK Dale E. Kildee, MI
John J. Duncan, Jr., TN Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Louie Gohmert, TX Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS
Rob Bishop, UT Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Doug Lamborn, CO Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Rush D. Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
John Fleming, LA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Mike Coffman, CO Jim Costa, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Dan Boren, OK
Glenn Thompson, PA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Jeff Denham, CA CNMI
Dan Benishek, MI Martin Heinrich, NM
David Rivera, FL Ben Ray Lujan, NM
Jeff Duncan, SC Donna M. Christensen, VI
Scott R. Tipton, CO John P. Sarbanes, MD
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Betty Sutton, OH
Raul R. Labrador, ID Niki Tsongas, MA
Kristi L. Noem, SD Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Steve Southerland II, FL John Garamendi, CA
Bill Flores, TX Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Andy Harris, MD
Jeffrey M. Landry, LA
Charles J. ``Chuck'' Fleischmann,
TN
Jon Runyan, NJ
Bill Johnson, OH
Todd Young, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Jeffrey Duncan, Democrat Staff Director
Rick Healy, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE, OCEANS
AND INSULAR AFFAIRS
JOHN FLEMING, LA, Chairman
DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, VI, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, AK Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS
Robert J. Wittman, VA Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Jeff Duncan, SC Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Steve Southerland, II, FL Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Bill Flores, TX CNMI
Andy Harris, MD Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Jeffrey M. Landry, LA Rush D. Holt, NJ
Jon Runyan, NJ Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio
Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
-------
Page
Hearing held on Wednesday, March 2, 2011......................... 1
Statement of Members:
Christensen, Hon. Donna M., a Delegate in Congress from the
Virgin Islands............................................. 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Fleming, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Louisiana......................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Bussanich, Tom, Director, Budget and Grants Management
Division, Office of Insular Affairs, U.S. Department of the
Interior................................................... 12
Prepared statement of.................................... 13
Gould, Hon. Rowan, Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S. Department of the Interior................... 33
Prepared statement of.................................... 35
Tulafono, Hon. Togiola, Governor of American Samoa........... 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Additional materials supplied:
de Jongh, Hon. John P., Jr., Governor of the U.S. Virgin
Islands, Statement submitted for the record................ 26
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR SPENDING FOR THE
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AND THE OFFICE OF INSULAR AFFAIRS AND
THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2012 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE UNITED STATES
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AND THE OFFICE OF INSULAR AFFAIRS.
----------
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m. in
Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John Fleming
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Fleming, Duncan, Southerland,
Flores, Landry, Runyan, Christensen, Faleomavaega, Bordallo,
Sablan, Pierluisi, and Markey.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN FLEMING, MD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
Dr. Fleming. The Subcommittee will come to order. The
Chairman notes the presence of a quorum, which, under Committee
Rule 3[e], is two Members. Under Committee Rule 4[f], opening
statements are limited to the Chairman and Ranking Member of
the Subcommittee so that we can hear from our witnesses more
quickly. However, I ask unanimous consent to include any other
Members' opening statements in the hearing record if submitted
to the Clerk by the close of business today. Hearing no
objection, so ordered.
Good morning, and welcome to the first hearing of the
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs
for the 112th Congress. I am Dr. John Fleming, the newly
appointed Chairman of this Subcommittee, and I am proud to
represent the citizens of the 4th Congressional District of
Louisiana.
By way of brief background, I served as a medical officer
in the United States Navy for six years, including a tour on
the Island of Guam. And I have operated a family medical
practice in Minden, my hometown, since 1982.
Prior to being elected to Congress, I held no state or
Federal office, yet, like many of my colleagues, I know what it
takes to create and run a successful business, and, more
importantly, to make a payroll.
We are living in extraordinary times. Our national debt now
exceeds $14 trillion, and every man, woman, and child in this
country owes $45,580, even at birth.
The debt is not only unsustainable, but is literally
bankrupting this country. Just six years ago, the national debt
was $7.6 trillion. We have now nearly doubled that amount, and
the government is borrowing a staggering 41 cents for every
dollar it spends.
Two years ago, President Obama told a town hall meeting in
Rio Rancho, New Mexico, that current deficit spending was
unsustainable, and that we are mortgaging our children's future
with more and more debt. I agree with the President.
It was, therefore, alarming to see the President recommend
funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund 145 percent
higher than when he came into office. That is 145 percent.
We simply cannot afford this type of Federal growth, and
the Federal Government should not be profiting from the misery
of our constituents, who have watched their land values fall.
With the Operations and Maintenance backlog for the National
Wildlife Refuge System approaching $4 billion, this is not the
time to further burden the Fish and Wildlife Service with
additional land they will find difficult, if not impossible, to
properly maintain in the future--a problem, by the way, we have
with our highway system.
We must reduce spending. It is my hope that we can work
together in a bipartisan way to examine those programs under
the jurisdiction of this Subcommittee, and to objectively ask
whether our taxpayers are still getting a fair return on their
investments, whether there are programs performing the same or
similar functions, whether there are programs, whether there is
waste in a program, whether the Federal Government should even
be performing certain jobs, and whether a Federal program has
outlived its usefulness and should be terminated.
We will start this process today by examining the Fiscal
Year 2012 budget request for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and the Office of Insular Affairs. Later this month we will
conduct a similar analysis of the Obama Administration's
request for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
In my letter of invitation I asked each witness to be
prepared to answer specific questions about major aspects of
their budget request, and to explain how they spent the
taxpayer money provided to them by the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act. I am particularly interested in hearing how
many full-time, part-time, or temporary jobs were created, and
whether these projects would have been built in the absence of
this huge infusion of Federal money.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. And I am now
pleased to recognize our new Ranking Democrat Member, the
gentlelady from the Virgin Islands, Congresswoman Donna
Christensen; Dr. Christensen, I might add, who has the
distinction of being the first female physician in the history
of the U.S. Congress.
Dr. Christensen, you are recognized for any statement you
would like to make.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Fleming follows:]
Statement of The Honorable John Fleming, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs
Good morning and welcome to the first hearing of the Subcommittee
on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs for the 112th
Congress.
I am Dr. John Fleming, the newly appointed Chairman of this
Subcommittee and I am proud to represent the citizens of the 4th
Congressional District in Louisiana. By way of brief background, I
served as a Medical Officer in the United States Navy for six years
including a tour on the island of Guam and I have operated a family
medical practice in Minden since 1982.
Prior to being elected to Congress, I held no state or federal
office, yet, like many of my colleagues, I know what it takes to create
and run a successful business and more importantly to make a payroll.
We are living in extraordinary times. Our national debt now exceeds
14 trillion and every man, woman and child in this country owes
$45,580. This debt is not only unsustainable but it is literally
bankrupting this country. Just six years ago, the national debt was
$7.6 trillion. We have now nearly doubled that amount and the
government is borrowing a staggering 41 cents for every dollar it
spends.
Two years ago, President Obama told a town hall meeting in Rio
Rancho, New Mexico that current deficit spending was ``unsustainable''
and that: ``We are mortgaging our children's future with more and more
debt''. I agree with the President. It was, therefore, alarming to see
the President recommend funding for the Land and Water Conservation
Fund 145 percent higher than when he came into office. 145 percent. We
simply cannot afford this type of federal growth and the federal
government should not be profiting from the misery of our constituents
who have watched their land values fall. With the operations and
maintenance backlog for the National Wildlife Refuge System approaching
$4 billion, this is not the time to further burden the Fish and
Wildlife Service with additional land they will find difficult, if not
impossible, to properly maintain in the future.
We must reduce spending. It is my hope that we can work together in
a bipartisan way to examine those programs under the jurisdiction of
this Subcommittee and to objectively ask whether our taxpayers are
still getting a fair return on their investments, whether there are
programs performing the same or similar functions, whether there is
waste in a program, whether the federal government should even be
performing certain jobs and whether a federal program has outlived its
usefulness and should be terminated.
We will start this process today by examining the FY'12 budget
requests for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Office of
Insular Affairs. Later this month, we will conduct a similar analysis
of the Obama Administration's request for the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
In my letter of invitation, I asked each witness to be prepared to
answer specific questions about major aspects of their budget requests
and to explain how they spent the taxpayer money provided to them by
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. I am particularly
interested in hearing how many full time, part-time or temporary jobs
were created and whether these projects would have been built in the
absence of this huge infusion of federal money.
I am now pleased to recognize our new Ranking Democratic Member,
the gentle lady from the Virgin Islands, Congresswoman Donna
Christensen who has the distinction of being the first female physician
in the history of the U.S. Congress. Dr. Christensen welcome.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, A DELEGATE TO
CONGRESS FROM THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
Dr. Christensen. Thank you, Dr. Fleming. And it seems we do
share a lot in common, being family physicians and both of us
coming to office it seems like straight from our practices. But
I thank you for welcoming me, and it is a pleasure to join you
for this first hearing of our Subcommittee.
And I would like to take this opportunity to welcome
Governor Tulafono to the hearing, as well as the other
panelists, but especially our Governor.
The Administration has requested $1.7 billion for the Fish
and Wildlife Service, an increase of $48 million from the
enacted levels for Fiscal Year 2010. This request reflects the
difficult fiscal situation in which our country finds itself;
yet, at the same time, by fully funding the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, a fund that every district benefits from and
needs.
The budget request also reflects the importance of legacy
investments in our nation's fish, wildlife, and habitats for
the benefit of the American people, for the enjoyment of
children, who are fascinated by our wildlife, the birdwatchers,
our sportsmen and women, and others.
The Administration's budget stands in sharp contrast to the
Majority's Continuing Resolution, which would indiscriminately
cut almost $400 million, or 25 percent, from the Service's
discretionary budget.
For example, the Majority cuts would eliminate $90 million
in funding for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program,
which provides money to the states--the states--and tribes to
prevent future endangered species listings by implementing
voluntary conservation actions to stabilize declining fish and
wildlife populations.
In my district, these grants provide almost $200,000 to
implement our Wildlife Action Plan, providing jobs and
conserving wildlife in the U.S. Virgin Islands.
And so I commend and wholeheartedly support the
Administration's effort to increase its request for state and
tribal wildlife grant programs, and for making other strategic
choices to protect American jobs, and to preserve sustainable
industries, including hunting, fishing, and wildlife tourism.
But I remain very concerned with the long-term Operations
and Maintenance budget backlog facing the National Wildlife
Refuge System, and the cuts to the multi-national species
conservation programs. I recognize that we face a difficult
funding climate for several years ahead; yet we have to strike
the balance in continuing to support the programs that we care
about, and those that provide the greatest conservation
benefits, while very importantly saving, and even creating,
jobs.
With respect to the insular areas, the President has
proposed a Fiscal Year 2012 budget of $464.3 million for the
Office of Insular Affairs, of which $377.1 million represents
permanent and indefinite appropriations, including $145 million
estimated for fiscal payments to Guam and the U.S. Virgin
Islands, and $232 million for payments under the Compacts of
Free Association. This amount is $13.4 million above the Fiscal
Year 2010 and the current 2011 Continuing Resolution level.
The programs funded under the OIA Fiscal Year 2012 budget
request will focus on the long-term security interests of the
United States in the Western Pacific and the Caribbean, and the
serious economic and fiscal problems impacting the insular
areas. Please note that the recently passed House Continuing
Resolution would reduce the OIA budget by $6.679 million below
the 2010 appropriated level for the remainder of 2011. If these
cuts were to remain unchanged, it would mean that the Office of
Insular Affairs would not be able to award any more technical
assistance grants for the remaining seven months of the fiscal
year. This, at a time when our fiscal, public safety, and
environmental challenges--for example, in the Virgin Islands--
make having these funds more critical than ever. They fund
projects on a short-term immediate basis to meet needs that
cannot be funded anywhere else in the Federal Government's
budget.
It is my hope that through this hearing we will be able to
examine whether OIA, through its proposed Fiscal Year 2012
budget, is sufficiently positioned to fulfill these
responsibilities of the insular areas, and respond to our most
urgent needs.
So thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to make
this brief opening statement. I look forward to hearing from
our witnesses today, and to closely examining these issues so
we can ensure that the Offices, both of them, are able to
fulfill their obligations to the American people.
Thank you, and that is my statement.
Dr. Fleming. My thanks to the Ranking Member. During our
opening remarks, we will have additional Members I would like
to recognize today.
First, Mr. Flores of Texas, thank you for being here; Ms.
Bordallo, the gentlelady from Guam; Mr. Sablan, from the
Northern Marianas; Mr. Pierluisi from Puerto Rico; And finally,
Mr. Faleomavaega from American Samoa. Thank you, sir.
And I would like to now recognize you, sir, for an
introduction.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
you for having this oversight hearing on the Department of the
Interior spending for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
the Office of Insular Affairs on the President's Fiscal Year
2012 budget requests for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as
well as the Office of Insular Affairs.
I believe this hearing gives us the opportunity to review
and discuss Federal spending on fisheries and wildlife
services, and Federal obligations to help the territorial
governments in insular areas.
I also want to personally welcome our distinguished panel
of witnesses, and especially extend a warm welcome and
greetings to The Honorable Togiola Tulafono, the Governor of
American Samoa, who is with us here this morning.
Mr. Chairman, with respect to the Fish and Wildlife
Service, the proposed budget of $1.69 billion, a net increase
of $47.9 million from the Fiscal Year 2010 enacted level, will
provide more resources to help the Fish and Wildlife Service
conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and
other habitats for the American people. With respect to the
territories and insular areas, the 2012 budget request for OIA
includes a reduction in assistance to the territories. The
requested amount of $87.2 million represents a decrease of
$15.3 million from Fiscal Year 2010. This reduction will
greatly restrict OIA's ability to provide critical support that
is otherwise not available to the territorial governments.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the Office of Insular
Affairs and Mr. Babauta for the initiative taken to help
develop a clean-energy future for the territorial governments.
I am pleased that this initiative agrees with Federal policy
that was first established by Congress in 1980, and most
recently revised in 2005, to direct the Secretary of Energy, in
consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, to prepare and
submit to the Congress a comprehensive energy plan with
emphasis on indigenous renewable energy resources for Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern
Mariana Islands (CNMI), the Federated States of Micronesia
(FSM), as well as the Marshall Islands (RMI), and the Republic
of Palau.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I want to ask unanimous consent
that the substance of my statement be made part of the record.
And thank you.
Dr. Fleming. Without objection, accepted.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Christensen follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Donna Christensen, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs
Thank you Mr. Chairman. The Administration has requested $1.7
billion for the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), an increase of $48
million from the enacted level for Fiscal Year 2010. This request
reflects the difficult fiscal situation in which our country finds
itself, yet at the same time, by fully funding the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, the budget request also reflects the importance of
legacy investments in our nation's fish, wildlife, and habitats for the
benefit of the American people.
The Administration's budget request stands in sharp contrast to the
majority's continuing resolution, which would indiscriminately cut
almost $400 million, or 25%, from the Service's discretionary budget.
For example, the majority's cuts would eliminate $90 million in funding
for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program. This Program provides
money to States and Tribes to prevent future endangered species
listings by implementing voluntary conservation actions to stabilize
declining fish and wildlife populations. In my district, these grants
provide almost $200,000 to implement our Wildlife Action Plan,
providing jobs and conserving wildlife in the U.S. Virgin Islands. I
commend the Administration's efforts to increase its request for the
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Programs and for making other
strategic choices to protect American jobs, and to preserve sustainable
industries including hunting, fishing, and wildlife tourism.
Nevertheless, I continue to remain concerned with the long-term
operations and maintenance budget backlog facing the National Wildlife
Refuge System and the cuts to the Multinational Species Conservation
Programs. I recognize that we face a difficult funding climate for
several years ahead, yet we will have to strike the right balance in
continuing to support the programs that we care about and those that
provide the greatest conservation benefits.
With respect to the Insular Areas, the President has proposed a
Fiscal Year 2012 budget of $464.3 million for OIA, of which $377.1
million represents permanent and indefinite appropriations, including
$145 million estimated for fiscal payments to Guam and the USVI and
$232 million for payments under the Compacts of Free Association. This
amount is $13.4 million above the FY 2010 and the current 2011
Continuing Resolution (CR) level. The recently House passed CR would
reduce the OIA budget by $6.679 below the FY2010 appropriated level for
the remainder of FY 2011. If these cut were to remain unchanged, it
would mean that the Office of Insular Affairs, would not be able to
award any more Technical Assistance grants for the remaining seven
months of this fiscal year. TA, funds are critically important to the
islands, because they fund projects on a short-term immediate basis to
meet needs that cannot otherwise be funded elsewhere in the federal
government.
Programs funded under the OIA Fiscal Year 2012 budget request will
focus on the long-term security interests of the United States in the
western Pacific and Caribbean and the serious economic and fiscal
problems impacting the insular areas. It is my hope, that through this
hearing, we will be able to examine whether OIA, through its proposed
FY 2012 budget is sufficiently positioned to fulfill its
responsibilities to the insular areas and respond to their most urgent
needs.
Thank you again Mr. Chairman for allowing me to make this brief
opening statement. I look forward to hearing from our witness today and
exploring these issues more deeply.
______
Dr. Fleming. Thank you. And we will now hear from our first
panel of witnesses.
I would first like to welcome the distinguished Governor of
American Samoa, The Honorable Togiola Tulafono. I hope I got
that name pronounced correctly. Was that close, sir? OK. And
Mr. Tom Bussanich, who is the Director of the Budget and Grants
Management Divisions in the Office of Insular Affairs within
the Department of the Interior.
Like all witnesses, your written testimony will appear in
full in the hearing record, so I ask that you keep your oral
statement to five minutes, as outlined in our invitation letter
to you, and under Committee Rule 4[a]. Our microphones are not
automatic, so please press the button when you are ready to
begin; and likewise, press it when you are finished.
I also want to explain how our timing lights work. When you
begin to speak, our clerk will start the timer, and a green
light will appear. After four minutes a yellow light will
appear and, at that time, you should begin to conclude your
statement because you will have another minute in order to
finish.
You may complete that statement. And I am not going to stop
you in mid-sentence, of course, but again, begin wrapping up at
that point. OK.
So I will first recognize The Honorable Togiola Tulafono
for your opening statement, sir.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE TOGIOLA TULAFONO,
GOVERNOR OF AMERICAN SAMOA
Governor Tulafono. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mrs.
Christensen, and the Honorable Members of the Subcommittee. And
special greetings and Talofa to our own Eni Faleomavaega.
Please allow me to extend our warmest greetings from the
islands of American Samoa. I am honored to sit before you today
to discuss American Samoa's input into the Fiscal Year 2012
budget of the Department of the Interior's Office of Insular
Affairs.
Let me begin by providing a snapshot of the economic
overview of our territory. Following the September 29, 2009
tsunami and earthquake in American Samoa, the territory, on the
very next day, lost one of its two canneries that employed more
than 2,000 employees in the territory.
With the injection of Federal FEMA Disaster Relief and
Recovery monies, National Emergency Grant monies, and Census
jobs into the territory at the same time, the full effects of
the loss of Samoa Packing was mitigated to a certain extent.
However, in this new fiscal year, American Samoa is now
beginning to feel the full impact and the full force of the
loss of Samoa Packing.
In the first quarter of the current fiscal year, ASG began
making plans geared toward furloughs of hours and jobs as a
result of a significant decline in our revenues. The monthly
shortfall just to keep ASG workers employed and the most basic
of bills paid was approximately $600,000 per month. However,
the total shortfall, annualized for the whole of 2011, is
currently projected at close to $10 million.
Beginning on February 6, 2011, employees of the American
Samoa Government have been furloughed hours based on their
annual salaries, with the lowest-salaried employees being
reduced by four hours, up to the maximum reduction of 12 total
hours for Cabinet members and the Lieutenant Governor and the
Governor.
School-level employees of Department of Education are not
affected by the furlough of hours. This includes all classroom
teachers, counselors, principals, and vice principals, bus
drivers, school lunch staff, and all those associated with
school. The choice there is conscious. We need to keep our
schools open.
On top of the furloughed hours, ASG has been working with
the Fono in order to increase revenues through the submission
of legislation that would institute a four-percent wage tax
across the board for all residents of the territory. Increased
taxes on beer, alcohol, and tobacco have also been submitted to
the Fono. Bills to implement a corporate franchise tax and
increase the business license fees charged by ASG are also
before the Fono for consideration.
There is word that the wage tax bill has passed both
Chambers, but must be conferenced before it can be signed into
law. This is but a snapshot for your consideration of the pains
under which the territory is operating. I absolutely understand
that our story is not unique, and that this is just about par
for the course with the rest of the country.
I sit before you today and tell you American Samoa is
hurting much the same as the rest of our sister territories and
states. American Samoa wishes to recognize the efforts of the
Office of Insular Affairs and the Bureau of Economic Analysis
for their commitment to providing data resources for the
territories.
The people of American Samoa have asked for a special
consideration for years simply based upon our vulnerable
economy and amazing disparity between mainland and island
economies. Now we have the hard numbers to back our assertion.
By these numbers, American Samoa's per capita real GDP was
$7,874 in 2007, while the rest of the U.S. was $48,300 for that
same timeframe. Undoubtedly, this will assist American Samoa in
making our case to funding agencies and organizations that we
absolutely need all the help we can get.
We are engaged in cost-cutting savings measures, and we
will continue to do so to help ourselves. We are very grateful
for the CIP programs and the technical assistance programs
administered by the Office of Insular Affairs. And we can't say
enough to support their efforts.
We do require a lot of support for our Tropical Medical
Center. We make referrals off island because of the need to
send our patients away for lack of professional staffing and
specific equipment specialized for certain purposes. That is
absolutely a great need, and it is absolute for the territory's
needs.
We are proposing a market study for air cargo and air
passenger services in American Samoa in order to develop
tourism. Assistance for the tuna industry is also absolutely
required, and we hope that you will look seriously into that.
We also hope that American Samoa and the territories are
taken into consideration as Congress decides on the treatises
that really affects us adversely every time in our economic
developments.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank you and your
colleagues for your time here today, and for considering
American Samoa's input into the Fiscal Year 2012 budget of DOI/
OIA that we have submitted in our written statement. Your
support for American Samoa's dollars as contained in the 2012
budget is greatly appreciated, and your consideration and
support for the proposals discussed here today are critical.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Governor Tulafono follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Togiola T.A. Tulafono,
Governor of American Samoa
Talofa Mr. Chairman and honored members of this Subcommittee.
Please allow me to extend to our warmest greetings from the islands of
American Samoa. I am honored to sit before you today to discuss
American Samoa's input into the FY 2012 budget of the Department of the
Interior's Office of Insular Affairs.
Let me begin by providing a snapshot of the economic overview of
our Territory. Following the September 29, 2009 tsunami and earthquake
in American Samoa, the Territory on the very next day, lost one of its
two canneries that employed more than 2,000 employees in the Territory.
With the injection of federal FEMA disaster relief and recovery monies,
National Emergency Grant monies and census jobs into the Territory, the
full effects of the loss of Samoa Packing was mitigated to a certain
extent. However, in this new fiscal year, American Samoa is now
beginning to feel the impact full force of the loss of Samoa Packing.
In the first quarter of the current fiscal year, ASG began making
plans geared toward furloughs of hours and jobs as a result of a
significant decline in our revenues. The monthly shortfall just to keep
ASG workers employed and the most basic of bills paid was approximately
$600,000 per month. However, the total shortfall annualized for the
whole of 2011 is currently projected at close to $10 million. Beginning
on February 6, 2011, employees of the American Samoa Government have
been furloughed hours based on their annuals salaries with the lowest
salaried employees being reduced by 4 hours up to a maximum reduction
of 12 total hours for cabinet members. School level employees of the
Department of Education are not affected by the furlough of hours. This
includes all classroom teachers, counselors, principals and vice
principals, bus drivers, school lunch staff, etc.
On top of the furloughed hours, ASG has been working with the Fono
in order to increase revenues through the submission of legislation
that would institute a 4% wage tax across the board for all residents
of the Territory. Increased taxes on beer, alcohol and tobacco have
also been submitted to the Fono. Bills to implement a corporate
franchise tax and increase the business license fees charged by ASG are
also before the Fono for consideration. There is word that the wage tax
bill has passed both chambers, but must be conferenced before it can be
signed into law.
This is but a shapshot for your consideration, of the pains under
which the Territory is operating. I absolutely understand that our
story is not unique, and that this is just about par for the course
with the rest of the country. I stand before you today and tell you--
American Samoa is hurting much the same as the rest of our sister
Territories and States.
GDP Project
American Samoa wishes to recognize the efforts of the Office of
Insular Affairs and the Bureau of Economic Analysis for their
commitment to providing data resources for the Territories. The People
of American Samoa have asked for special consideration for years simply
based upon our vulnerable economy and the amazing disparity between
mainland and island economics. Now we have the hard numbers to back our
assertion--by these numbers, American Samoa's per capita real GDP was
$7,874 in 2007 while the rest of the U.S. was $48,300 for that same
time frame.
Undoubtedly, this will assist American Samoa in making our case to
funding agencies and organizations that we absolutely need all the help
we can get.
2012 Cost Savings
American Samoa is appreciative for the work of the OIA in realizing
cost savings in the operation of their offices while not decreasing
services to the Territories. We applaud the efforts of the OIA and
encourage them to continue to find ways to increase the services to the
Territories while realizing efficiencies within their own operations.
CIP Funding
American Samoa is supportive of the newly proposed language which
would reward Territories for timely expenditure and completion of CIP
funded projects. At current, American Samoa is mobilizing the
construction of a full service mental health facility to provide sorely
needed mental health services in the Territory. The Territory's need to
provide these critical treatment and preventive services to all
populations in American Samoa has been underlined by our own High Court
and the Executive will see the creation of the venue and the system
completed as timely as possible. We ask that you support the funding as
outlined in the DOI OIA Budget justifications to speed us on the road
to access to adequate mental health care.
ASG is also looking to upgrade the labor and delivery facilities of
the LBJ Tropical Medical Center as well as its Intensive Care Unit
utilizing CIP funding. This committee is well aware of the challenges
that we face in the islands when it comes to adequate medical care.
With funding in this current fiscal year falling well below
projections, it is likely that our off island medical referral program
will need as much local support as it can get. Therefore, your support
for these critical infrastructure projects as contained in DOI OIA's
2012 budget is greatly appreciated.
Technical Assistance Funding
Last year, American Samoa was proud to become the latest Territory
to collaborate with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory out of
Golden, Colorado in order to conduct an initial energy efficiency/
renewal energy assessment. That assessment will be completed in the
summer of 2011, with a draft to be made available as early as April. We
look forward to this extremely important partnership with NREL and DOI
OIA to find viable energy efficiency initiatives and renewable energy
options that will work for the Territory
Proposals
While American Samoa is grateful for the assistance that it has
received and continues to receive from DOI OIA, we still require
assistance with our most basic needs such as transportation and support
for the tuna industry. The following major projects will be explored in
the current fiscal year and any funding included in the FY 2012 budget
in order to pay for these projects would be greatly appreciated.
Market Study: Air Cargo and Air Passenger Services in American Samoa
Annual IGIA reports have noted the need for improved air services
in the insular territories. Economic development today requires air
service. Without regular and reasonably priced service for both
passengers and cargo, business growth is impossible. Frequent, reliable
air service is also vital for public welfare and safety. For example,
territorial residents who need emergency medical procedures beyond the
capacity of the hospital in American Samoa must wait for one of the two
weekly flights to Honolulu.
When approached by territorial officials in the past, U.S. air
carriers have said that the market demand does not support their entry
and service in Pago Pago. This response is puzzling. The territory's
growing population as matter of course increases demand for air travel
to other parts of the U.S. But due to the limited number of flights,
the annual number of passengers leaving and arriving at Pago Pago
airport has remained static notwithstanding significant population
growth.
Furthermore, the natural demand in the territory for passenger and
cargo services between Pago Pago and other U.S. points is increased by
similar demand from nearby island nations. Pago Pago serves as the U.S.
entry point for the neighboring countries of Western Samoa, Tonga,
Fiji, and the Cook Islands. Residents in these countries also desire
U.S. travel and U.S. products.
To demonstrate to U.S. air carriers that the market demand in fact
exists in American Samoa for their air services, ASG requests a
technical assistance grant in the amount of $500,000. The grant will
pay for a marketing report by professional economists on the market for
U.S. air services in American Samoa. The surveys and evaluations by
market specialists will then document the precise level of demand in
the territory for passenger and cargo service between U.S. points and
Pago Pago. This will also include the additional demand for such
services in Pago Pago coming from the nearby island nations.
The marketing report will enable ASG to persuade U.S. air carriers
that the market demand does exist to justify their providing air
service in the territory for both passenger and cargo transport.
Assistance to Tuna Industry--Purchase of Cold Storage
Star Kist has dismantled its cold storage facility that occupied
ASPA land. Star Kist's loss of its cold storage and the need of the
local fishing fleet to have cold storage access due to an emerging new
market provides American Samoa with a unique opportunity. Thus,
American Samoa proposes to assist its main private sector employer,
responsible for nearly 80% of the Territory's private sector economic
activity, and at the same time, assist the local fishing fleet by
purchasing the 2,400 ton cold storage freezer and relocating it across
the bay at the Port Administration site immediately adjacent to the
Port warehouse and making it available to the local fishing fleet and
the two canneries alike in order to store landed fish.
The assistance to the local fishing fleet has many varied
implications for the community. The ability for quicker turn around on
fishing trips means more trips. More trips means more expenditure of
money in the local economy for the purchase of provisions, fuel,
repairs and manpower. Most importantly, with the revival of the alia
fleet, which has largely lain dormant in recent years, ASG's purchase
and access to a cold storage unit will assist this renewed industry
player which will have much the same benefits as the local longline
fishing fleet. However, access would mean much more to the alia
community as alia have absolutely no capacity for cold storage on their
much smaller vessels.
Because of Star Kist's strategic importance to the Territory, the
continued availability of this cold storage capacity to the cannery is
vital to their interests. Star Kist will be ramping up operations in
March of 2011 in order to increase production pursuant to a significant
contract award. Because the cold storage will be owned by ASG, Star
Kist will be charged rent for their use of space within the cold
storage facility, which will benefit the community through increased
revenues for the government.
The cold storage acquisition supports American Samoa's expansion of
export markets by providing the capacity for the local fishing fleet,
including the Territory's alia fleet, to store fish for market, while
maximizing the opportunities to continue fishing. The opening of the
Asian market for export of fish from American Samoa provides a new and
untapped market for the Territory. This will provide, in turn, greater
opportunities for expansion of American Samoa's fishing industry and
maximize the use of our resources.
South American/Andean Countries Free Trade Agreements
The Kennedy Administration promoted economic development in
American Samoa through trade preferences and tax incentives.
Preferential tariff rates and quotas have supported seafood processing
in American Samoa.
But the trade preference for territorial products has steadily been
diminished by changing American trade policy. Inconsistent
congressional action--in narrowing, then repealing, then extending
year-by-year the investment incentive only for companies that had
qualified in the past--has also undermined the level of economic
development in American Samoa.
The expected approval and extension of U.S. Free Trade Agreements
with Colombia and the Andean countries are additional steps towards the
elimination of trade preferences for American Samoa. Congress and the
Administration in prior trade action have addressed the adverse impact
on American business and workers. The territory requests that the
Administration and Interior Department in the same manner help American
Samoa adjust to these trade policy changes. Assistance to develop
alternative industries and re-train workers is needed.
Conclusion
In Conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank you and your
colleagues for your time here today and for considering American
Samoa's input into the FY 2012 budget of DOI OIA. Your support for
American Samoa's dollars as contained in the 2012 budget is greatly
appreciated and your consideration and support for the proposals
discussed here today are critical. Thank you.
Soifua ma ia manuia.
______
Dr. Fleming. Thank you for that testimony today. And next
up is Mr. Tom Bussanich. Oh, I am sorry. Before we go with our
next witness, I want to recognize another Member here today:
Mr. Southerland from the great State of Florida. Thank you for
being here, sir.
So with that, Mr. Bussanich, you have five minutes. We look
forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF TOM BUSSANICH, DIRECTOR, BUDGET AND GRANTS
MANAGEMENT DIVISION, OFFICE OF INSULAR AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Bussanich. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman and
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify on the President's Fiscal Year 2012 budget request for
Insular Affairs.
The Office of Insular Affairs is responsible for the
Federal Government's relationships with Guam, American Samoa,
the U.S. virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands. OIA also administers financial assistance
provided to the Freely Associated States.
The Fiscal Year 2012 Insular Affairs budget totals $474.4
million, an increase of $23.5 million and two equivalent full-
time positions from the 2012 appropriations. For 2012,
mandatory commitments include an estimated $145 million for
fiscal payments to Guam and the Virgin Islands, and $232.1
million for compact payments to the RMI, FSM, and Palau.
The request for current appropriations is $97.2 million, a
decrease of $5.3 million from the 2010 enacted appropriation.
Included in the current request is also a $10.1 million being
transferred from Defense for vehicles and supplies for the
transportation of civilian students on Guam.
The Assistance to Territories Program includes American
Samoa operations at $22.8 million; Covenant Capital Improvement
Projects at $27.7 million; the Office of Insular Affairs, $9.5
million; General Technical Assistance, $13.8 million;
Maintenance Assistance, $2.2 million; Brown Tree Snake Control
at $3 million; Coral Reef Initiative at $1 million; and
Empowering Insular Communities at $4.1 million.
General technical assistance allows OIA to provide funding
for needs that affect multiple insular areas, or specific needs
that may require quick action. The islands all benefit, and are
very supportive of the program.
The $27.7 million for Covenant capital improvement project
grants is divided among Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin
Islands, and the CNMI, using a competitive allocation system
designed to elicit good government accountability.
For 2012, the $27.7 million will be divided as follows.
CNMI, $9.5 million; American Samoa, $10.1 million; Guam, $6.1
million; and Virgin Islands, $2 million.
In 2012 we are proposing legislative language that would
allow CIP funding that has languished in a territory's account
to be redistributed to other territories. When implemented, we
believe that this change will be a strong incentive for each
territory to utilize CIP funding more quickly.
The territories also receive mandatory funding under the
Compacts of Free Association in the form of Compact Impact.
Hawaii, Guam, CNMI, and Samoa share $30 million annually to
defray costs incurred as a result of increased demands placed
on health, educational, social, or public sector services, or
infrastructure related to such services, due to the residence
of immigrants from the FSM, RMI, and Republic of Palau. The
distribution of this $30 million is recalculated by the U.S.
Census Bureau once every five years.
Of the full $474 million budget request for Insular
Affairs, only $59 million is discretionary. Regarding the Guam
military buildup, the President's proposed budget includes $2.8
million for activities intended to lessen the socioeconomic
burdens on Guam, with the purchase of new public safety
equipment and technical assistance projects necessary for Guam
to cope with population pressures.
Additionally, the request includes $330,000 and two FTEs
for a Guam field office to monitor and assist Guam with
military relocation issues.
Last year the United States and Palau completed their
review of the financial provisions of the Compact of Free
Association, and signed a 15-year agreement that includes $250
million in financial assistance to Palau for the period ending
in 2024. For its part, Palau will undertake legislative,
financial, and management reforms. Palau has been a steadfast
ally of the United States and a strategic partner aiding United
States' defense interests.
The 2012 budget includes an initiative called Empowering
Encircling Communities; $4.1 million is requested. $1.1 million
would be used to purchase public safety equipment for Guam; the
remaining $3 million would be devoted to implementing
sustainable energy strategies.
The Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy
Laboratory is analyzing the territories' energy needs and
prospects, and will provide each territory with an energy
assessment plan for energy efficiency and renewable energy
deployment. The $3 million will permit follow-on implementation
of the N-Rail plans in the territories.
Another major initiative has been the gathering of data to
produce GDP statistics. For the years 2002 and 2007, the gross
domestic product for the territories was determined by the
Bureau of Economic Analysis to be as follows: Guam's economic
activity has increased 1.8 percent; American Samoa, .4 percent;
Virgin Islands has grown at 2.9 percent; and the Northern
Marianas has declined, at a 4.2 percent annually. The goal for
the Bureau of Economic Analysis is to incorporate this valuable
effort in the GDP mandate for the nation.
Mr. Chairman, I am confident that the President's 2012
budget request for the Office of Insular Affairs will empower
insular communities by improving the quality of life, creating
economic opportunity, and promoting efficient and effective
governance.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bussanich follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Thomas Bussanich, Director of Budget,
Office of Insular Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify on the President's fiscal year 2012 budget
request for Insular Affairs. The Office of Insular Affairs (OIA) is
responsible for administering the Federal Government's relationship
with the territories of Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin
Islands (USVI), and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
(CNMI). OIA also administers the financial assistance provided to the
freely associated states (FAS) of the Federated States of Micronesia
(FSM), the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), and the Republic of
Palau under the Compacts of Free Association.
Mr. Chairman, there are several island issues highlighted in this
statement, but first, below is an overview of the President's 2012
budget request for the Office of Insular Affairs.
Overview of the FY 2012 Budget Request
The proposed fiscal year 2012 Insular Affairs budget totals $474.4
million, an increase of $23.5 million and two full time equivalent
(FTE) positions from the 2010 enacted appropriation. The OIA budget
contains two major categories: current and permanent appropriations.
For 2012, mandatory commitments include an estimated $145.0 million for
fiscal payments to Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands and $232.1 million
for payments under compacts of free association to the RMI, FSM and
Palau. The request for current appropriations for 2012 is $97.2
million. This amount is a decrease of $5.3 million from the 2010
enacted appropriation. Included in this current appropriation request
are $59.5 million in discretionary funding and $27.7 million in
mandatory funding, plus $10.1 million being transferred from Defense
for vehicles and supplies for the transportation of civilian students
on Guam.
The fiscal year 2012 OIA budget will focus on strategies that
empower insular communities through programs that improve quality of
life, create economic opportunity, and promote efficient and effective
governance. Assistance to Territories programs include (1) American
Samoa Operations ($22.8 million), (2) Covenant capital improvement
projects ($27.7 million), (3) Office of Insular Affairs ($9.5 million),
(4) General Technical Assistance ($13.8 million), (5) Maintenance
Assistance ($2.2 million), (6) Brown Treesnake Control ($3.0 million),
(7) Coral Reef Initiative ($1.0 million), and (8) Empowering Insular
Communities ($4.1 million).
The three largest components of Assistance to Territories are
American Samoa Operations, General Technical Assistance, and Covenant
capital improvement project grants.
American Samoa Operations, with its budget request of $22.8
million, is the second largest budget activity in Assistance to
Territories. While it is considered a discretionary item, it is a
directed appropriation that provides essential assistance to help the
American Samoa Government provide basic services of health care,
education, and support for the judiciary.
General Technical Assistance, for which OIA requests $13.8 million
in 2012, allows OIA to provide funding for addressing needs that affect
multiple insular areas or specific needs that may require quick action.
The islands all benefit and are very supportive of the program.
The largest component of Assistance to Territories is the $27.7
million for Covenant capital improvement project grants (CIP). These
funds are divided among the United States territories of Guam, American
Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the CNMI using a competitive
allocation system designed to elicit good-government accountability in
the territories. This process uses a set of 10 objective criteria that
measure the demonstrated ability of the territorial governments to
exercise prudent financial management practices and to meet Federal
grant requirements. These criteria include compliance with the Single
Audit Act of 1984 and Federal grant project reporting requirements. The
scoring process and all 10 criteria are explained on page 28 of the
2012 budget justification. Every year OIA provides each territorial
government with the detail of their scoring for the 10 criteria and
notifies them of the resulting CIP award amount. For 2012, the $27.7
million will be divided as follows:
CNMI $ 9.5 million
American Samoa $10.1 million
Guam $ 6.1 million
U.S. Virgin Islands $ 2.0 million
Building upon our efforts to increase accountability for Covenant
CIP funds using the competitive criteria, in 2012 we are proposing
legislative language that would allow CIP funding, which has languished
in a territory's account with an expenditure rate of less than 50
percent over five years, to be the basis of withholding or
redistributing current year CIP funding to other territories. When
implemented, we believe this change in procedure will be a strong
incentive for each territory to utilize CIP funding more quickly for
its intended purpose. Expenditure rates are calculated annually and
shared with the territorial governments as part of the competitive
criteria.
The territories also receive mandatory funding under the Compacts
of Free Association in the form of Compact Impact. Section 104(e) of
Title I of the amended Compacts of Free Association provides $30.0
million annually through 2023 to aid in defraying costs incurred as a
result of increased demands placed on health, educational, social, or
public sector services, or infrastructure related to such services, due
to the residence of qualified non-immigrants from the RMI, the FSM, or
the Republic of Palau. The distribution of this $30.0 million is done
as required by law based on the size of the FAS populations in each
affected jurisdictions as calculated by the U.S. Census Bureau once
every five years.
Of the full $474.0 million budget request for Insular Affairs, only
$59.0 million is discretionary.
Highlighted 2012 Budget Changes
Guam Military Build-up
Long-term security interests of the United States in the western
Pacific call for the relocation of 8,000 Marines and 9,000 dependents
from Okinawa to Guam. This move will create major challenges for Guam's
infrastructure in 2012 and subsequent budgets. Guam's population is
expected to grow by 20 percent by 2016. In addition to inadequate port,
road, power, water, wastewater, and solid waste systems shared by the
military and the civilian community, Guam also faces a need to improve
its healthcare and educational facilities, and to improve its public
sector management. Guam will be forever changed by the military's
build-up and its increased strategic visibility. Community support for
this endeavor may be undermined if civilian facilities remain
inadequate to meet the growing resource needs of the larger population.
For this reason, the President's proposed 2012 budget for the
Office of Insular Affairs includes $2.8 million for activities intended
to lessen the socio-economic burdens on Guam that will result from the
Marines' relocation from Okinawa to Guam. The 2012 budget would fund
the purchase of new public safety equipment and technical assistance
projects necessary for Guam to cope with population pressures.
Additionally, the request includes $330,000 and two FTEs for a Guam
field office to monitor and assist Guam with military relocation
issues.
The 2012 budget also accounts for a $10.1 million appropriations
transfer from the Department of Defense to OIA for vehicles and
supplies for the transportation of civilian students on Guam.
Palau Compact of Free Association
Last year, the United States and Palau completed their review of
the financial provisions of the Compact of Free Association between the
two countries. The two nations signed a fifteen-year agreement that
includes payment by the United States of $250.0 million in financial
assistance to Palau for the period ending in 2024. For its part, Palau
is committed to undertaking economic, legislative, financial, and
management reforms. Palau has been a steadfast ally of the United
States for many years. In the western Pacific, Palau is a strategic
partner aiding United States defense interests. The President's 2012
budget includes no current appropriations for the Palau Compact. Once
approved by the Congress as proposed in S. 343, the new agreement will
be funded and a permanent appropriation of $250.0 million with a payout
to Palau of $29.3 million in 2012.
Empowering Insular Communities
The President's 2012 budget request for Insular Affairs includes an
initiative called ``Empowering Insular Communities.'' The program is
intended to strengthen the foundations for economic development and
investment in the territories, including power, water, sewer, solid
waste, healthcare and public safety. The request for this program is
$4.1 million.
In the first year of this program, $1.1 million would be used to
purchase public safety equipment for Guam to help satisfy the new
public safety needs occasioned by the military relocation to Guam.
The remaining $3.0 million would be devoted to implementing
sustainable energy strategies. All of the territories and freely
associated states suffer acutely because of their dependence on
expensive fossil fuels. Territories often are forced to pay 40 cents
per kilowatt hour for electricity--four times the rate in the
continental United States. Utilizing $750,000 in general Technical
Assistance funding last year, the Office of Insular Affairs entered
into an agreement with the Department of Energy's National Renewable
Energy Laboratory (NREL) for analyses of the territories' energy needs
and prospects. As part of the plan, the territories' governors visited
NREL facilities in Colorado. This year, NREL will provide each
territory with an energy assessment and initial plans for energy
efficiency and renewable energy implementation and deployment. The $3.0
million budgeted for Empowering Insular Communities would permit
follow-on implementation of the NREL energy plans in the territories.
Private Sector
OIA has recognized a need for ongoing continuous linkages between
private sector businesses in the territories and freely associated
states with potential investors in Hawaii and the United States
mainland. Therefore, OIA is perfecting its web-based listing of
business opportunities in the islands known as ``Island Business
Link.'' In the past, this has been accomplished through conferences,
trade missions and our Island Fellows Program. These events created
excitement and identified opportunities but previously they were not
continuously available. Now, users of ``Island Business Link'' register
by completing a form describing their business opportunities. A
business on the United States mainland or anywhere in the world can
then connect with another user through the Internet. The objective is
to initiate the connection and facilitate discussion for a possible
business relationship. It is then up to the users to communicate and
follow-up with opportunities that benefit each other and the island
community involved.
Statistics Improvement
Another major OIA initiative has been the establishment of Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) statistics for the four United States
territories. In 2008, OIA entered into a $1.6 million agreement with
the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the Department of Commerce for the
gathering of data to produce GDP statistics. For the years 2002 through
2007, the GDP for the territories was determined to be as follows:
Guam 1.8 percent annual increase
American Samoa .4 percent annual increase
Virgin Islands 2.9 percent annual increase
Northern Mariana Islands 4.2 percent annual decrease
With the basic data collected, the annual cost of maintaining the
statistics is $600,000, which is provided for in the 2012 OIA budget
request. The goal is for the Bureau of Economic Analysis to incorporate
this valuable statistics effort in its larger GDP mandate for the
Nation.
Federal Responsiveness
Mr. Chairman, while there is no direct budget implication, last
April, President Barack Obama signed Executive Order 13537, which
strengthened the Interagency Group on Insular Areas (IGIA) by
establishing IGIA co-chairs: the Assistant to the President and
Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, and the Secretary of the
Interior. Co-chair Cecilia Munoz and Assistant Secretary Anthony M.
Babauta, on behalf of the Secretary, welcomed more than twenty Federal
agencies to yesterday's IGIA meeting where numerous territorial issues
were discussed with territorial leaders. Strengthening the IGIA has
improved agency responsiveness and collaboration on Federal policy
issues with respect to the territories. The IGIA looks forward to more
direct participation of the White House as we attempt to resolve
sometimes difficult and seemingly intractable territorial issues.
Conclusion
I am confident the President's 2012 budget request for the Office
of Insular Affairs will empower insular communities by improving
quality of life, creating economic opportunity and promoting efficient
and effective governance.
______
Dr. Fleming. Well, thank you, Mr. Bussanich, for your
testimony today. Very clear and cogent; a lot of numbers, but
very important numbers for us to consider.
At this point, we will begin questions of the witnesses. To
allow all Members to participate and to ensure we can hear from
all of our witnesses today, Members are limited to five minutes
for their questions. However, if Members have additional
questions, we can have more than one round of questioning.
I now recognize myself for five minutes for questioning.
During my military career I spent time on Guam. I was
stationed there from 1979 to 1981 while in the Navy. Delivered
a lot of babies at the Navy Hospital there. But I also, Ms.
Bordallo, I worked part time in the hospital there, in the
emergency room, as well as for the drug and alcohol rehab, the
methadone program and so forth.
I have a special place in my heart for Guam still. My
eldest daughter was born there. And also, I hear what you are
saying about the brown snake, because at least once a day, if
not twice or three times, the electricity would go out, and the
brown snake always got the blame for it. I am not sure if that
was the case, but I understand it is still a problem.
The time I spent on the island afforded me the opportunity
to understand the unique attributes of the territories and
their geographic remoteness. While I understand each island
community is unique, there seems to be a common thread running
across them, which is the reliance of the local work force on
governmental jobs.
Similar situations are occurring here in the States.
However, during these tight budget times, we need to refocus
and look toward the private sector.
I would like to discuss with you both how the private
sector can be developed on each of the territories by local
entrepreneurs, not foreign investors, with the intent of making
use of the local work force.
Mr. Bussanich, how does the Office of Insular Affairs
support private-sector development in the territories?
Mr. Bussanich. Mr. Chairman, we do it in a number of ways.
One of the new initiatives that we have is the creation of a
web-based linking of business opportunities in the islands,
that we call the Island Business Link. This is on the Internet,
and allows the, it allows people with interest in doing
business and island businesses to make connections with other
business people throughout the United States, to connect and
facilitate for a discussion for business relationships.
But in large measure, a lot of our role is to provide the
basics for the private sector to operate. Certainly there are
enormous needs for the type of economic infrastructure that
underpin an appropriate environment for investing. And that is
why we do invest significant amounts into water, power, and
different physical infrastructures, so that the islands are a
place that somebody can do business.
In addition, we have also assisted in the development of
economic development plans, certainly in the area of tourism,
and have directed investments in areas related directly to
tourism, such as in the CNMI, the Plaza there, and elsewhere.
Dr. Fleming. Yes. My concern is, and we have seen this
happen before, is, other folks come in from the outside; they
set up their entrepreneurial enterprises. And then, when there
is something else that is maybe more profitable, they leave,
and then there goes the business.
We have heard this with some factories and so forth. So
certainly there is a tremendous need to have, if you will,
indigenous entrepreneurship on the islands.
Governor, a follow-up question. Has the Island Business
Opportunities shown results in terms of creating jobs?
Mr. Bussanich. I believe that it has. It is difficult to
quantify completely.
Dr. Fleming. I would love to have some specific numbers on
that, but I understand that today you may not be in a position
to provide those. So if you could get back to us with that, we
would love to have that information.
Mr. Bussanich. I would be pleased to do that, sir.
Dr. Fleming. Governor Tulafono, what actions can be taken
to further develop the American Samoan economy?
Governor Tulafono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. American Samoa,
as well as some of the insular areas, are greatly affected by
policies of our nation that apply very well for the 50 states.
But as applied, tends to create obstacles toward economic
development for the territory. At least in my case, in American
Samoa.
I can point to the effect of free trade agreements, that
affects the way we do business. Our major industry is the tuna
canning industry. And appropriately, even as long ago as maybe
30 years, when Section 936 tax credits were available, the only
two companies that were attracted to the territory by that were
the canneries. And we have tried to nurture the relationship
with the canneries since that time.
However, when the minimum wage came into effect and the
territories of American Samoa and CNMI became part of that law,
the wages increased so substantially that it affected the way
the industry was doing business. And to some degree, I would
say to a large degree, it caused the closure of the cannery
that I mentioned. And it is still threatening the future of our
main industry.
So if I were to ask for anything, I would ask that there be
some way that Congress can focus on the uniqueness of the
territories and the way they do business, and the way that they
are negatively and adversely affected by policies that are
beneficial to our states. And I think that is the main thing
that we would ask for.
Dr. Fleming. Well, thank you both for your kind responses.
So next up is the gentlelady from Virgin Islands, Dr.
Christensen. You have five minutes.
Dr. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you
both for your testimony.
Mr. Bussanich, H.R. 1, which funds the government for the
remainder of the fiscal year, and passed the House about two
weeks ago, would cut the General Technical Assistance budget by
8.33 percent. And you know how important this technical
assistance is to my colleagues and I.
Can you tell us what that cut would mean, and maybe give us
some examples of what kind of activities might not be able to
be carried out? And as you answer that, would you also include,
what has been the average level of funding for assistance for
the territories over the past 10 years? Has it increased,
decreased, or has it stayed the same?
Mr. Bussanich. In general terms, the amount of
discretionary spending that the Office has had has remained
pretty much flat. It has been in a flat range of money. There
have been some years where it has gone up and gone down.
The impact on our Technical Assistance Program I think is
really best demonstrated by the fact that under the Continuing
Resolution, we are essentially finished with making grants for
this year. And that particular program, as you may recall or as
you know, is based on input from the islands. Much of it is
generated by the Governors, based on the immediate needs of the
islands, and always a significantly larger amount is requested
than we ever have available. It certainly would be in the $30
million range, and our resources are a third of that amount.
So we basically are done for this year, and there are any
number of pending requests that cannot be considered or will
not be considered.
Dr. Christensen. Thank you. Thank you for that answer,
because I am sure that there are some from the Virgin Islands
and from every one of us that will not be able to be, would not
be able to funded if we enact H.R. 1.
Governor, again, thank you for being here; I know you are
far away from home. In reading your testimony and listening to
you, you have taken the fiscal bull by the horns and made the
really difficult decisions.
You recently announced that you and your Cabinet members
will join other territorial government employees in taking pay
cuts, as American Samoa, who tries to close a budget deficit.
And you indicated that you expect the territory to save $3.27
million a year by reducing work hours and pay for about 2500
employees, starting this month.
So we talked about the reasons that led you to take such
drastic measures. But how could the budget that we are
considering today impact future decisions you will have to make
to address American Samoa's fiscal condition? And what would
any cuts to, I guess it is the $27.7 million plus the CIP
funding, what would any cuts do to the already difficult
position you are in?
Governor Tulafono. Any further cuts to the program that the
OIA provides will further reduce our ability to reverse the
conditions that we have undertaken--as our tax base is reduced
with the loss of many jobs. And sometimes it feels strange to
say that we have lost just a little over 2,000 jobs. But when
you are talking about the economy of 68,000 to 70,000
population, that is a huge number of jobs. And especially if
you look at the economic numbers that we have provided, it is
that our employment grew from 5 percent to over 20 percent in
just a little over three years, because of the losses in
industry.
So whatever is taken away from us with any cuts, it means
that we will have to fare for ourselves from local funds, which
you have already seen the serious trend that we are
undertaking, requiring pay cuts, and the salary furloughs.
Dr. Christensen. And you are talking about salaries that
are very, very low already, by American standards. If I could
just squeeze in one last question.
Mr. Bussanich, there are no funds included in the budget
for Palau. How important is that funding to the new agreement
with Palau?
Mr. Bussanich. There is no current-year funding requested
in the budget. There is a legislative package, I believe it is
S. 343, that has been introduced in the Senate, that
incorporates the Administration's proposal for Palau. That
includes the 20-year funding period.
The Administration believes that enacting this agreement is
significant because of Palau's position in the Pacific, its
long history with the United States, its proximity to Guam, and
its continued support for the United States.
So certainly we look forward for the enactment of that
statute. Otherwise, Palau will be relying completely on its
trust fund resources established under the first Compact of
Free Association Funding.
Dr. Fleming. I am going to have to get used to flipping
this thing on and off; I apologize.
I thank our witnesses and their responses. I would like to
now recognize Mr. Flores from the great State of Texas, and
also the Congressman for my eldest daughter, the same one born
on Guam.
Mr. Flores. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. By the way,
Texas is celebrating its 175th anniversary of independence
today, so there are a lot of celebrations in Texas.
Governor Tulafono and Director Bussanich, thank you for
joining us today. As I understand it, in recent history there
was a mandated increase in the minimum wage to be paid to
employees in American Samoa, and that had some impact on the
economics of doing business in the islands.
Can you tell me what that impact was? And if that were to
be rolled back, would that help your net employment situation?
Governor Tulafono. Sir, a roll-back would be tremendously
helpful. And the increases in the minimum wage has, in our
opinion, caused devastating effects on the economy of American
Samoa. And in talking to Governor Fitial, it has done the same
for his territory. We were the only territories affected by
that law.
For us, we believe that, one, it has accelerated the
closure of one cannery, and threatening the future of the other
canneries that are attempting to do business in American Samoa.
And I think the GAO report that is forthcoming will again
support our view, that it has caused the canneries to be
unsuccessful, and for the most part, unprofitable; therefore,
threatening the losses of more jobs.
For the Government of American Samoa, it has added greatly
to its cost of operations. And we haven't been able, and having
a difficult time raising revenues to make up for it.
We have attempted to accommodate the increases by adjusting
internally, without having to raise taxes. But as you have
heard, that we are finally resorting to cutting hours, and
possibly cutting employment, if the trend does not reverse.
Because as a result of the losses of jobs, we have lost a lot
of revenue. And also a tremendous reduction in corporate income
taxes, because they have also had to lay off workers from their
own employment in the local service businesses.
Mr. Flores. Sir, thank you. Director Bussanich, do you have
anything to add to that?
Mr. Bussanich. Very little, sir. I think certainly the
Governor has explained the circumstances in American Samoa, and
made reference to the Northern Marianas.
I would note that there has been a two-year suspension in
implementing the minimum wage due to economic circumstances,
which should have some effect on the private sector. Beneficial
effect.
Mr. Flores. And Governor, is there still uncertainty
because you have a two-year delay in the implementation of
that? It is still causing the uncertainty and the lack of
private sector job growth?
Governor Tulafono. Absolutely. As a matter of fact, as we
talk to potential investors, the uncertainty of not knowing
where the policy is going to be going is causing people to
delay making investments. And we have managed to attract back
another cannery, but so far has not been able to launch any
meaningful operations. And the greater portion of their
concerns is what will happen in 2012.
Mr. Flores. OK, thank you. Director Bussanich, you
mentioned that the inadequacy of the infrastructure--by the
way, I am shifting gears to Guam for a minute. You mentioned
the inadequacy of existing infrastructure in connection with
our increased military presence in Guam.
Do you have an idea of the total infrastructure cost that
it will take to get us to where we are not inadequate any more?
Mr. Bussanich. I almost hesitate to speak about numbers
about that, because there have certainly been a number of
studies that have been looked at by, within the Executive
Branch and with the Government of Guam.
And in terms of overall just civilian infrastructure, it is
a significant amount of money. And it far exceeds the resources
available certainly through the Department of the Interior to
do that.
As I say, I hesitate to put a tag on that number, but it
has been in the hundreds of millions of dollars, by some
estimates.
Mr. Flores. Hundreds of millions, you said? OK. I was just
directionally looking, is it billions or tens of billions, but
you are talking hundreds of millions.
Mr. Bussanich. Hundreds of millions just on the civilian
side.
Mr. Flores. OK. And it looks like I am out of time. Thank
you.
Dr. Fleming. I thank the gentleman. And now I recognize Mr.
Sablan for five minutes.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bussanich, good
morning. And good morning, Governor. Thank you for being here
with us today.
I just want to let you know that I take some issues with
the proposed administrative language pursuant to the
arrangement being proposed on the distribution of Covenant 702
money. Because, in the first place, the reference to that
money, Covenant 702 is a covenant that established the
permanent relationship, political relationship, between the
United States and the Northern Mariana Islands.
And for some reason, maybe because we had no representation
here in Congress until the last Congress, that money was being
used for others who have no covenant relationship with the
United States. But it is all right, we will leave it at that.
And it is also, I take issue, you know, it is very hard,
because we are going to be dealing with the person that is
here. And you know, we have statisticians working the numbers;
sometimes it doesn't work toward my advantage. So I just want
to let you know.
I am going to ask you a question. When is the first Marine
going to land on Guam? Any idea? Because you are planning here,
you know, millions of dollars for this eventuality. And do you
know when they are landing on Guam?
Mr. Bussanich. I honestly don't know the answer to that
question.
Mr. Sablan. And you are providing all this money for that
eventuality. Public safety, school buses. I mean, no problem
with that. I just want to know when.
Mr. Bussanich. If I may just consult for a moment.
[Pause.]
Mr. Bussanich. Sir, where we are, we really don't know
exactly. I know that most of the details are still being worked
out.
Mr. Sablan. OK, thanks.
Mr. Bussanich. But it is our belief that it will take
place.
Mr. Sablan. Yes, I know it will take place. And we should
support Guam for that, no question about it. I am just
concerned that right now in my district, in the Northern
Marianas, in Saipan we have three patrol cars. Three. And lucky
if those three are operating. Because one or two of them would
be broken. And crime is climbing. And I need help. Crime is
climbing. And this is not, you know, I am not asking for
government jobs here.
But while you are proposing for $2.8 million under the Guam
buildup for public safety equipment and technical assistance,
another $1.1 million for new public safety needs occasioned by
the military under the empowering issues, so you have almost $4
million basically for public safety for Guam in anticipation of
the buildup.
Again, we should support the buildup. But we should also
understand there are needs in the other jurisdictions.
I would like to compliment OIA for taking the initiative to
help us out with the BEA analysis. For the first time we are
getting real numbers. Unfortunately, the Northern Mariana
Islands is the only one who saw a decrease in their GDP, a
serious decrease of 4.2 percent. Everyone had an increase; the
Northern Marianas have seen a decrease in GDP of almost 5
percent, Mr. Chairman. And that is how serious the situation
is.
And that is how serious it is that we need to continue to
maintain an increase in minimum wage. So that government
employees would be eventually enticed to move into the private
sector. Unfortunately, some people in this government want to
continue, want to bring back minimum wage to three dollars an
hour. I cannot imagine how a family of four could survive on
minimum wage in the Northern Mariana Islands, when I know of a
family who pays over 60 percent of their income just to
utilities. They pay over 40 cents a kilowatt hour for
utilities. Gasoline is almost five dollars a gallon. A sack of
rice is over $30. And we are going to ask people to reduce the
minimum wage? That is immoral. And I will continue to fight
that here in Congress so that it doesn't occur.
And then we are encouraging people in the government to
move to the private sector, Mr. Chairman. And for someone, I
understand that is an issue for American Samoa. But for the
Northern Mariana Islands, we are encouraging people to move
from the government to the private sector, and yet we don't
want to give these private sector employees the decent wage for
their services that contribute to the bottom line of the
businesses, of the companies that do business there? I take
issue with that.
And I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Fleming. OK. Thank you. Very interesting questions and
responses; a lot of important issues raised.
I now would like to recognize the gentleman from Florida,
Mr. Southerland.
Mr. Southerland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Governor, I thank
you for being here.
Tell me, outside, as a new member of this Committee and
really learning about the issues that you face, and your
citizens, tell me outside of the tuna canneries what type of
private sector opportunities exist. It really pertains to small
business. I am a small business owner, and so, you know, our
family has been in small business for multiple generations.
So I am interested because I don't know of your citizens
and the challenges that you face. I am learning. Could you
address that?
Governor Tulafono. I would be happy to. And most anything
is available. And the tax credit scheme that was in place
before was calculated to entice American businesses to the
territories. It was successful for some. But speaking solely
for American Samoa, we only attracted two canneries and a
couple of other businesses that came up, and only took three
years. Which caused me to change my policy that new investments
will have to partner up with local business, so that if they
choose to leave, that at least, you know, a local company can,
if they want to, they can then take over that business.
Small manufacturing is very possible. Reassembly plants are
very possible. Forward stations for mail order businesses are
very possible. All of these are possible, except that they need
to relate their investments to the cost of doing business on
the islands.
The cost of doing business on the islands is fairly
expensive, more expensive than in the States. I was hoping I
would have a chance to respond to Congressman Sablan's comments
about the minimum wage.
What we had proposed from American Samoa all along was that
there be a special way of considering wages. Before the law
changed in 2007, we had a Special Industry Committee that meets
every two years. Some people have challenged that committee as
ineffective, but we had proposed to improve on that committee
how it was organized, what its work, and how the Federal laws
may change that makes the hearings more meaningful.
For example, we pointed to a law prior to 1998, 1992, that
required the canneries to provide full financial statements and
even proprietary information, so that wages can adequately be
considered. That was changed, and it was taken away from the
law. And from that time, it was difficult to really determine
where exactly the cannery's position was.
So it became an exercise in futility, because no one really
knows. So they ended up with increases of two cents a year, two
cents every two years. And we had been upset about that.
And trying to maintain those interests, we need to
correlate how wages increase in conjunction with economic
activity, economic growth and jobs and things like that.
Mr. Southerland. Well, one thing I found interesting, that
you have had a suspension of the implementation of the minimum
wage for two years, because you say, or your statement was that
it still, that two years still creates, it doesn't eliminate
the uncertainty, in your testimony.
Governor Tulafono. That is correct.
Mr. Southerland. OK. And I agree with you. As a small
business owner, we don't plan our business on two-year cycles.
And yet, we just got through going through I think a tax
battle, prior to this Congress, to extension of tax rights for
two years.
So I find that you agree with a small business owner. To
invest millions upon millions of dollars into a community and
think that you can get a return on your investment in two years
in order to repay that back, that is not realistic.
I am a multi-generational business. We plan for 30, 40, 50
years on your investment. So I agree with you. I think you
understand that very well. I appreciate you being here today.
Uncertainty is something that we face not just in the islands,
but also here in the States. And we have to do a better job I
think of creating that certainty going forward. Thank you.
I see my time is up. Mr. Chairman, I apologize. I yield
back the time I don't have.
Dr. Fleming. Thank you. No, you did an excellent job.
Excellent job. I thank the gentleman from Florida.
Next up we have questions from Mr. Faleomavaega. You are
up, sir, for five minutes.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it is
great that we have two physicians that make up our
Subcommittee, and I certainly want to congratulate you, Mr.
Chairman, for attaining the Chairmanship of this very important
Subcommittee. And Dr. Christensen, as well.
It is somewhat ironic that we have three Members who have
experience not only of living in Guam, but understanding the
appreciation of the good people of Guam, the Chamorros, who are
ably represented by our colleague from Guam, The Honorable
Delegate Madeleine Bordallo.
It is unfortunate that our colleague, Mr. Flores, had to
leave. I wanted to give him a little perspective about the
minimum wage issue, as we have discussed it earlier this
morning.
The minimum wage issue did not just start with American
Samoa the past couple of years. We did a little review on how
this whole thing came about. It became a national issue. And
the fact of the matter is that in the early 1900s, the people
working in the South, in the Southern States, were paid poor
wages: 10 cents an hour, 15 cents an hour.
And it got to the point where the Senators and the Members
of Congress debated the issue. Should there be a national
minimum wage? Because our fellow Americans living in the South
were poorly paid by a lot of these corporate types that came
from the Northern States, set up factories and all of this, and
that is what happened.
So in 1938, a minimum wage law was established to give our
working people some sense of justice in terms of the challenges
that they were confronted with.
Now, the irony of all this is that the territory of
American Samoa was included as part of the minimum wage
standards that we had set up. But something happened.
In the mid-1950s we had the CEO and the top executives of
these tuna canneries that came and testified before the
Congress, and said it takes three to five Samoans to do the
work of one person from the mainland. Which I felt, after
reading the transcripts, was very insulting.
And so what happened, the Congress set up this special Wage
Committee, supposedly to measure exactly what the economic
standing is of this territory. So that way the so-called
minimum wage could have been adjusted.
So we set up this committee that every two years, they
meet. But the problem here, and I wanted to share this with my
colleague from Texas, is that it isn't the small businesses
that were running the operations. There were companies like
Purina Foods, Van de Kamp, Heinz Corporation that owns
Starkist, Del Monte that also owns Starkist. So it was the big
corporations.
And as the government had said earlier, we had minimum wage
increases as a result of this because of the pressures brought
forth by these canneries. Two-cents-an-hour increases, three-
cents-an-hour increases. What can you possibly do with an
increase of 24 cents a day, and you are working your butt off,
and exporting tens of billions of dollars of canned tuna from
this little territory of American Samoa?
So the issues that we were confronted with is that to say
that the cost of living is less in the territory, but the fact
of the matter is we never knew what is the cost of living. And
I think this has been one of the most difficult issues that I
have tried, for all these years, in trying to figure out what
is the real economic standing of the territory. And that has
been the problem that we have had dealing with the minimum wage
issue for all this time.
So I just wanted to share that with my colleagues in
understanding the issue a little more.
I wanted to again thank Governor Tulafono for his, for his
statement, and just wanted to ask him, what is the current
status of the new cannery now that is brought forth in the
territory, Tri-Marine? What is the approximate investment that
Tri-Marine has now made in coming in as the second cannery to
operate in the territory?
Governor Tulafono. So far Tri-Marine has spent
approximately $2.5 to $3 million to purchase the old plant from
Chicken of the Sea International.
As we speak, there is a team at home now inspecting and
retrofitting a portion of the plant, to split it off to do a
new kind of fish processing. This will be the fresh-frozen fish
exported to, to mostly to Japan. And some of the skipjack tuna
will be coming to the East Coast, the United States.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I am sorry, Governor, my time is running.
But just one more question, Mr. Chairman.
In bringing this new cannery now to the territory, we are
looking at ultimately, how many jobs are we looking at? When
this new cannery starts its operations and getting everything
set up.
Governor Tulafono. Initially it will be between 80 and 150
jobs, depending on how fast the fresh-frozen will grow. And
that portion can grow to as many as 200 jobs.
For the cannery, they are expecting to add 800 jobs.
Mr. Faleomavaega. OK, thank you. Thank you, Governor. I
want to wait for the second round. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Fleming. Yes, excellent questions, very interesting
issue, this whole idea of where minimum wage should be.
I now recognize Mr. Pierluisi for five minutes, sir.
Mr. Pierluisi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Christensen, for convening this hearing. I will have a brief
statement. And I thank the witnesses, by the way, but I will
have no questions.
With respect to the Insular Affairs budget, I want to
associate myself with the views admitted for the record by
Governor de Jongh from the U.S. Virgin Islands regarding the
unfunded Insular Energy Program.
Our economic development is dependent on reliable,
affordable energy. Yet, the cost of energy for Americans
residing in Puerto Rico and the other territories is
extraordinarily high as compared to their fellow Americans in
the mainland.
The program authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 2005
would advance work toward the deployment of renewable energy
technology. Regrettably, the recent update to the 1982
Territorial Energy Assessments omitted Puerto Rico, despite the
fact that the underlying organization encompasses the island.
I ask that officials of the Interior Department remain
cognizant and supportive of extending these energy solutions to
all of the territories. It is worth noting that Puerto Rico and
the U.S. Virgin Islands have already begun work to study the
feasibility of grid interconnection, which is laying the
groundwork for implementing these energy solutions.
I would also like to speak briefly about the work of the
Bureau of Economic Analysis, which is supported by the Insular
Affairs budget. The bureau's measurements produce GDP
statistics for the territories, which help inform policy
decisions and gauge economic activity. It is important that
Puerto Rico not be overlooked by the bureau in the execution of
its mission. GDP statistics produced for the 50 states, D.C.,
and now the territories, should also extend to Puerto Rico. So
please, just keep that in mind.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Governor de Jongh follows:]
Statement submitted for the record by Honorable John P. de Jongh, Jr.,
Governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands
Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Christensen, and Distinguished
Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to have the opportunity to
present the views of the Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands
(``Government'' or ``GVI'') on the Department of the Interior's
(``DOI'') Office of Insular Affairs (``OIA'') spending and the
President's FY 2012 budget request for OIA. I understand that the
Subcommittee at this hearing will also consider comments regarding
other federal programs and issues of concern to the Insular Areas. My
comments accordingly will address not only funding under OIA Technical
Assistance, Covenant Grant, and Wastewater programs, which are in
urgent need of increased funding, but also the energy-related program
for Insular Areas administered by the Department of Energy that merits
funding but for which Congress has not yet provided the necessary
appropriations. Collectively, these comments are intended to strengthen
and enhance programs which help improve the lives of our U.S. citizens
in the Virgin Islands and the other Insular Areas.
But first, I would like to thank the Chairman for his leadership
and efforts to ensure that this country responds vigorously and
appropriately to the critical challenges the Insular Areas face. Under
his leadership, we believe that the Committee on Natural Resources and
the 112th Congress will reaffirm, and abide by, the principle that
Congress has an important responsibility to ensure that the U.S.
Insular Areas are treated fairly and equitably in all federal programs
and economic policies.
My comments today will focus on three specific DOI programs,
including the Technical Assistance, Covenant Grant, and Wastewater
programs, and what we hope will be an effective Department of Energy
program to implement the Insular Energy provisions of the Energy Policy
Act of 2005.
OIA Technical Assistance Program
In the past, OIA has used the Technical Assistance Program
(``TAP'') largely to provide federal assistance to address the unique
economic and other needs of the Insular Areas. In particular, TAP
grants have been awarded to improve the productivity and efficiency of
Territorial governments (e.g., by funding training programs), as well
as to address specific requests of Territorial Governors for financial
support for critical projects not otherwise funded through, or
addressed by, other OIA programs such as, most recently, the study of
the uninsured in the Virgin Islands.
The Technical Assistance Program has been--and continues to be--an
essential program that has not only enhanced institutional and
governmental capacity in the Insular Areas, but has also resulted in
practical and tangible benefits for our people. For example, the study
of the uninsureds in the Virgin Islands, which could only have been
funded by the TAP, has produced essential data which will enable the
Government to make better informed and strategic decisions in the
implementation of healthcare reform in the Territory. While the funding
for this study was relatively modest, it will have enormous impact over
the next several years as the Government develops its reform strategies
and plans. Thus, while the needs of the Insular Areas continue to be
great, especially during the current economic crisis, the ability of
Territorial governments to respond would undoubtedly be lessened in the
absence of the Program. Accordingly, I urge the Subcommittee to
continue to support, and, if possible, increase funding for, this vital
Program.
In particular, I respectfully request that Congress consider
increasing funding for the Program in order to address identified, but
under-resourced, needs in the Insular Areas. In prior years,
approximately $12 million in TAP funds has been awarded annually to the
Insular Areas. In more recent years we have seen a modest increase in
funding, including $13.3 million in FY 2009 and $15.3 million in FY
2010, but the administration has reduced its requested funding for TAP
in FY 2012 to $13.8 million, which represents a decrease of about 10%
from FY 2010. In light of the fact that TAP requests by Insular
governors historically far exceed appropriated amounts, I respectfully
request that Congress at least maintain current funding for this
essential Program.
In addition, I would request that this Subcommittee take measures
to ensure the funds are equitably allocated among each of the Insular
Areas. Indeed, it would appear that, in the absence of equitable rules
or guidelines, the Virgin Islands in prior years has been receiving
significantly less, on a proportional basis, than our sister
jurisdictions in the Pacific.
More specifically, in FY 2010, approximately half (about $7.5
million) of the total annual TAP grants was distributed to the Insular
Areas in the form of direct grants. The Virgin Islands received about
$1.5 million of that $7.5 million, or approximately 20 percent.
However, in prior years the Virgin Islands received a much smaller
share of such direct grants. For example, in FY 2008, the Virgin
Islands received only $252,373 in direct grant funds--less than seven
percent of the total direct grants awarded. While the direct grant
amounts for the Virgin Islands in 2009 were higher ($901,252) than in
2008, these amounts represented less than 14 percent of the total
direct grants awarded.
Moreover, OIA awarded approximately two-thirds of the total amount
of Program funds in non-direct grants, none of which was allocated to
the Virgin Islands.
As these numbers demonstrate, the Virgin Islands has not received
its fair share of Program funds in recent years. I am sensitive to the
compelling needs of all of the Insular Areas, including those in the
Pacific. In order to provide for more equitable distribution of the
Program funds, however, while also protecting any Insular Area from a
significant reduction in the amount it receives, I would respectfully
propose that TAP funding be allocated as follows: 50 percent of the
total amount appropriated each year should be allocated on an equal or
proportionate (by population) basis among the Insular Areas (with a
reallocation provision for any unused amounts), and the balance (the
remaining 50 percent) should be allocated on a competitive needs basis
(perhaps with statutory criteria). Not only would this allocation
formula be more equitable, it would also provide a reasonably
predictable stream of funding for each Insular Area and thereby
minimize and mitigate the effect of any year-to-year changes in the
amount of competitive grants received by each Insular Area.
I also would like to comment on a recent OIA initiative in the
Program that will, in conjunction with the changes discussed above,
help lead to more equitable distribution of TAP funds. We understand
that, in FY 2009, OIA changed the manner in which TAP grant requests
are processed in order to encourage advance planning and more efficient
use of Program funds. OIA now requires the Governor of each Territory
and the President (or appointee) of each Freely Associated State
(``FAS'') to submit a consolidated Technical Assistance request on an
annual basis. This is intended to facilitate a comprehensive review and
comparative analysis of all TAP project applications, while helping
Insular Area governments to better plan, implement, and track projects
funded through the Program. We believe that this process will promote
greater transparency regarding the award of Technical Assistance
grants, and more efficient monitoring and oversight of funded projects.
OIA Covenant Grant Program
Covenant Grants provide an important source of funding for capital
improvement projects (``CIP'') in the Territories and Freely Associated
States. The mandatory funding for CIP Grants in the President's budget
is $27.72 million, the same as in past fiscal years. The CIP base
amount for each Territory and FAS is subject to adjustment (plus or
minus up to $2 million) based upon competitive criteria that are
intended to measure the ability of each eligible government to exercise
prudent financial management practices and to meet Federal grant
requirements. While laudable in intent, the criteria, as a practical
matter, do not adequately take into account the actual, or even
comparative, infrastructure needs of each Territory. For example, the
Virgin Islands has been under several EPA administrative orders
requiring the Territory to expend resources it does not have to improve
its solid waste facilities. Further, in 2010 the United States filed on
behalf of EPA a complaint in U.S. District Court against the Virgin
Islands Government and other entities seeking civil penalties and
injunctive relief which would require the Territory to expend even more
resources it does not have to address EPA's concerns.
We are also very concerned about the proposed recalculation of base
amounts for FY 2012 and beyond. In a May 28, 2010 letter from Anthony
M. Babauta, Assistant Secretary for Insular Affairs, we were notified
that the base amount for the Virgin Islands will be reduced from the
existing $3.36 million to $2.48 million starting in FY 2012. The
recalculated base amounts are reportedly derived from the average of
the previous five annual allocations. Because those five annual
allocations resulted from the use of the overly restrictive competitive
criteria, the Virgin Islands' recalculated base amount for FY 2012 and
beyond is substantially understated. We believe that using a broader
range of competitive criteria, including a needs assessment, the Virgin
Islands' base amount would be, and should be, substantially greater
than $2.48 million.
Indeed, Covenant Grant funding is essential for financing the
improvements required to comply with the EPA orders and to protect
human health and the environment. Yet, the President's FY 2012 Budget
proposes that the Virgin Islands receive only $2.02 million, an amount
substantially less than even its FY 2012 base amount of $2.48 million
and, in any event, far less than what is needed to address our pressing
solid waste problems and comply with the EPA orders and litigation.
Accordingly, I respectfully urge that the Subcommittee recommend to OIA
that it expand its competitive criteria to include actual needs
assessment and request that the Virgin Islands CIP allocation for FY
2012 be increased to no less than our original base allocation.
OIA Water and Wastewater Program
Total water and wastewater funding was $1.9 million in FY 2010 and
is currently being funded under the Continuing Resolution for FY 2011
at the same level. The Virgin Islands received, for the first time,
$900,000 in FY 2010 funding for wastewater infrastructure improvements.
However, the President's Budget proposes to eliminate OIA Water and
Wastewater Program funding for the Territories.
This funding, however, is critically needed for water and
wastewater infrastructure in the Territories, including the Virgin
Islands. The Territory remains under consent decree, EPA administrative
orders, and a pending EPA complaint requiring us to increase
expenditures to improve our wastewater and solid waste facilities.
While my Administration has made significant progress in recent years,
DOI water and wastewater funding is necessary to finance continued
improvements. Accordingly, I respectfully request that, at a minimum,
DOI water and wastewater funding in FY 2012 should be funded at levels
no less than the current level.
Insular Energy Program
In 1980, Congress determined in the Omnibus Territories Act, Pub.
L. No. 96-597, that (1) the Insular Areas are virtually completely
dependent on imported sources of energy; (2) that dependence, coupled
with the increasing cost and uncertain availability and supply of such
energy sources, will continue to frustrate the political, social, and
economic development of the Insular Areas and place increasingly severe
fiscal burdens on the Insular Area governments; (3) the Insular Areas
``are endowed with a variety of renewable sources of energy which, if
developed, would alleviate their dependence on imported sources of
energy, relieve the fiscal burden on local governments imposed by the
costs of imported fuel, and strengthen the base for political, social,
and economic development''; and (4) appropriate technologies are
available to develop these renewable energy resources. See P.L. 96-597,
Sec. 604(a), 48 U.S.C. Sec. 1492(a). Congress further declared that it
is the policy of the Federal Government to ``develop the renewable
energy resources'' of the Virgin Islands and the other Insular Areas.
48 U.S.C. Sec. 1492(b).
That law further directed the Secretary of Energy to prepare and
submit to Congress a comprehensive energy plan for the Insular Areas
that emphasized indigenous renewable energy sources. An initial plan
was completed in 1982, but to our knowledge the plan was never acted
upon. Two decades later, Congress revisited Insular Area energy issues.
In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress reaffirmed its earlier
findings on the energy needs in the Insular Areas. Further, Congress
determined that electric power transmission and distribution lines in
Insular Areas are inadequate to withstand damage caused by the frequent
hurricanes or typhoons and that such infrastructure required hardening.
Most significantly, Congress found that the 1982 plan was outdated and
needed to be updated to reflect significant developments since 1982 in
energy production, consumption, infrastructure requirements, reliance
on imported energy, opportunities for energy conservation and increased
energy efficiency, and indigenous renewable energy sources in the
Insular Areas. In response to Congress' directive, the Secretary of the
Interior updated the plan for each insular area in 2006. Those updated
plans included recommendations for reducing imports of fossil fuels and
energy costs, increasing the use of renewable energy sources and
alternative technologies, and hardening of local power infrastructure.
In addition, the 2005 law authorizes the Secretary of Energy to
implement demonstration projects and other programs contained in
recommendations in the plan. Congress also authorized appropriations
for DOE to carry out the purposes of the law, including providing
financial assistance grants to Insular Area governments for
demonstration and other projects and programs totaling up to $6 million
annually starting in FY 2006. To our knowledge, the Administration has
never requested funding under the Insular Energy Program, nor has
Congress specifically appropriated such funding. However, in an
important first step, in FY 2009 Congress appropriated $475,000 in
designated funding for a technical feasibility study for a possible
power grid interconnection between Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
And, the Virgin Islands is an active participant, along with the U.S.
Department of Energy, in Energy Development in Island Nations
(``EDIN''), which is an international partnership to advance the
deployment of renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies in
islands across the globe. But much more needs to be done to help reduce
our reliance on imported fossil fuels and our energy costs, which are,
because of our small size and geographic isolation, among the highest
in the nation. Investments now to increase the use of renewable energy
and other alternative technologies, as well as to harden our local
power infrastructure to better withstand hurricanes and other natural
disasters, will in the end save the federal government money.
Accordingly, because of the importance of clean, renewable, and
affordable energy to the economic future, and environmental
sustainability, of not only the Insular Areas, but the nation at large,
I would respectfully urge this Subcommittee to work closely with the
House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development to
appropriate necessary funds under the Insular Energy Program in FY 2012
and beyond.
* * *
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the critical budget issues confronting
our country. I understand that difficult choices must be made. But I
would also like to remind you that our U.S. citizens living in the
offshore Territories of the United States face unique challenges posed
by our geographic isolation, our historic under development, and our
constitutional status.
Congress has played a critical role over the years in assisting the
U.S. Territories develop our economies and provide opportunity for our
people. I look forward to working with you and the other distinguished
Members of the Subcommittee in developing effective measures to foster
the social, economic, and institutional development of the U.S. Virgin
Islands and other Insular Areas of the United States. I would be
pleased to answer any questions or provide any further information on
these important and beneficial programs.
Thank you very much.
______
Dr. Fleming. Well, I thank the gentleman for his questions.
Next up is the gentlelady from Guam, Ms. Bordallo.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I had no
idea we were so closely connected, through Guam. And you know,
if you look at our culture, Guam and the Northern Marianas,
American Samoa, and all the territories there in the Pacific,
and even Puerto Rico, you and I would almost be related. You
have a daughter, did you say, that was born there?
And so I would extend an invitation to you, Mr. Chairman,
that you come out to Guam and see how we have grown over the
years.
Dr. Fleming. I would love to. I haven't been there since
1981, and I am just itching to have a codel to go out there.
Ms. Bordallo. Well, we will have to arrange that. And also,
I want to say good morning to Governor Tulafono. We go back a
long ways. We both served as Lieutenant Governors, you of
American Samoa, and me of Guam.
And there was one question I wanted to ask you, Governor.
Eni, my good friend here, began to inquire about, you know, the
unemployment. What is unemployment statistics right now in
American Samoa?
Governor Tulafono. It grew from 5 percent in 2007 to
approximately 22 percent now.
Ms. Bordallo. Twenty-two percent. I know we visited
American Samoa with a codel about the time that the canneries
were closing. And I am certainly pleased to know that now there
is a new company that is interested in setting up their
operation there. So I wish you well. I always think about all
the unemployment, you know, when those canneries closed.
So we will keep an eye. And of course, we support you in
everything we do.
I said yesterday at the IGI meeting that the territories
are very closely--we work together on the Hill. Because many
times our other colleagues just forget about us, you know. We
are not in the mainland, and so we have to work a little bit
harder than some of the other Members of Congress to get what
we want.
it is my, in my eight years in Congress, I have invited
about, over 100 Members of Congress to visit Guam. And now they
have a different look, you know. They realize we are U.S.
citizens, we are out there. And as my colleagues have all said,
it is very difficult to make a living out there; expenses are
high. And of course my good friend here, Donna Christensen.
And I would say, too, that we are in good position here
health-wise. We have two doctors heading this committee. So if
you have any problems or----
[Laughter.]
Ms. Bordallo. All right. Now, seriously, good morning,
Director Bussanich. I thank the Department, first of all, for
its request to increase the Capital Improvement Project budget
for Guam for the Fiscal Year 2012. And as you are well aware,
and as the Department stated in its budget justification, the
military buildup on Guam will not be successful without
improvements to our infrastructure.
The CIP has assisted the Government of Guam over the past
few years. However, will the Governor have any flexibility as
to eligible CIP projects for Fiscal Year 2012?
Mr. Bussanich. Yes, ma'am. I mean, certainly the Governor
should make his needs known to the Department, and certainly
they will be considered.
We do have to plan out some years ahead, but the capital
improvement process and the selection of projects has a lot to
do with the establishment, established priorities by the local
governments and the Governors. So that----
Ms. Bordallo. So there will be flexibility there.
Mr. Bussanich. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. And another question I have. I am
concerned that project proposals for Fiscal Year 2011, water
and wastewater funding, have yet to be received.
Would the Government of Guam be able to leverage
unobligated water and wastewater program funds toward loans
from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Agriculture's Rural
Development Program?
Mr. Bussanich. There is existing authorization to allow
grants from the Department of the Interior to be used in
conjunction with USDA programs. And I believe that also applies
to the water and wastewater. It certainly applies to the
capital improvement projects. So that is a distinct
possibility.
Ms. Bordallo. So could we then, my staff and my office, be
able to work with you to find out if it is definite or not?
Mr. Bussanich. Certainly. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. And Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Dr. Fleming. Thank you, gentlelady from Guam. Next up we
have Mr. Duncan. Sir, you are recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And as a freshman
member of this Subcommittee and of Congress, just learning all
the issues with American territories. And I want to thank you
for having this hearing.
In just reading through some of the materials, I notice
that the U.S. Virgin Islands recommended, in its written
testimony, that 50 percent of the technical assistance should
be allocated on an equal or proportionate-by-population basis
to create reasonably predictable funding for the territories.
Have you all delved into that? Is that in your assessment,
as well? Or recommendation as well?
Mr. Bussanich. Sir, I just saw that yesterday, and we
certainly have to consider that.
I do know that within our technical assistance program
there are certain sort of ongoing programs that provide
assistance to all the territories that are sort of built into
the program. These include some of our training programs and
certain other things.
But an amount of money, and generally speaking, an
equivalent amount of money is set aside from that for each of
the islands to apply for. But it is about half of the total
that is available for each territory.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you for that.
Mr. Bussanich. but in terms of 50 percent, we have not
considered that fully. The first time we saw that was
yesterday.
Mr. Duncan. Just on a little different line of questioning,
just because it is a personal interest of mine, is that, you
know, American energy independence and security is something
that I feel like we have to strive for. And I can only imagine
the logistical concerns of getting available fossil fuels to
you.
I guess the first question is, is rising oil prices a
concern? And then how to, just for my edification, how do you
all deal with fossil fuel and energy sources and shortages at
times?
Governor Tulafono. As an island jurisdiction, fossil fuel
is a challenge. And it is very expensive. There are no sources
close enough to us to make it reasonable. And sometimes we also
have issues of conflicting requirements and national law,
because the best we can do is draw from supplies in the Far
East. And yet we have to comply with our national laws, and it
creates those conflicts for us.
There is no doubt that if we can do away with it tomorrow,
we would. But I know we cannot. And even with the advent of the
programs for renewable energy and all those good programs, I
don't think an island jurisdiction could ever be independent of
fossil fuels.
So there is going to have to be some level of usage of
fossil fuels. So we will always be dealing with the cost of it.
How much we can reduce with the adoption of a program, as we
are doing now, of renewable and alternative fuels, it is going
to be slow and painful. But I hope that for American Samoa,
that by the year 2020, that we will achieve at least 20 percent
to 25 percent of our energy being produced from renewables and
alternatives.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the
balance.
Dr. Fleming. OK, thank you. We are right on time here, and
we are about to close our first panel. But we have two Members
who requested a final comment or question. So first I am going
to recognize Mr. Faleomavaega for a comment or question.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I didn't have a
chance to ask Mr. Bussanich, but I do want to carry, pass this
message on to Secretary Salazar and Assistant Secretary
Babauta.
The State of Hawaii has had to absorb some $120 million of
its own funds to take care of the Micronesians who are
immigrating or migrating to the State of Hawaii: Marshallese,
Palauans, and FSM. And I wanted to know if the Administration
is doing anything about this problem.
Because this wasn't something that the State of Hawaii had
anticipated. The fact that the government-to-government
relationship between the Compact States and the Federal
Government, we have thousands of our Micronesian brothers and
sisters who are homeless. And their healthcare needs and all of
this had to be taken care of by the State of Hawaii.
And I just wanted to pass that message on to you, Mr.
Bussanich, and to the Department of the Interior, whether or
not the Administration is doing anything about this. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Fleming. And I now recognize Mr. Southerland for a
comment or question.
Mr. Southerland. I know earlier on, and my comment is
directed toward the Director, and thank you. I didn't get to
speak to you earlier, but thank you for being here today.
You know, some of the details that we talked about as far
as employment and the technical assistance programs, one thing
that would be very helpful--and I would ask if your office
could perhaps provide for me--is some quantifiable data, you
know, in order to evaluate the programs that are currently
there. I believe if you don't evaluate, you can't elevate. And
I think that just in a desire to do that, to get a handle on
the unemployment numbers, the business opportunities that
currently exist, that need to exist, and then how proper
programs are put in place to maximize the dollar, as well as
maximize the potential future of people that want to take
advantage of these programs.
So I would just ask if that is something that could be
provided for us going forward. That would be helpful.
Mr. Bussanich. We will certainly do what we can do, sir.
Mr. Southerland. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Dr. Fleming. And we are now out of time for panel one. I
want to thank our witnesses for very thoughtful statements and
responses.
Members of the Subcommittee may have additional questions
for the witnesses. And we ask you to respond to these in
writing. The hearing record will be open for 10 days to receive
these responses.
And with that, I thank you. And we will ask panel two to
step up.
[Pause.]
Dr. Fleming. Well, I want to thank our second panel, which
consists of one witness, for coming forward. I would now like
to welcome the Acting Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Dr. Rowan Gould, who has had a distinguished 35-year
career in the Service.
Among the highlights of his career, Dr. Gould was the
coordinator of the Service's response to the Exxon Valdez oil
spill in 1989, and more recently the Deepwater Horizon accident
in the Gulf of Mexico.
Dr. Gould, you are reminded that your complete written
testimony will appear in the hearing record, and you have five
minutes to summarize it. And before I recognize you, Mr. Gould,
I want to recognize another Member, Mr. Runyan from New Jersey.
And welcome today, sir, and we look forward to your questions.
Mr. Gould, you have five minutes. And we are very anxious
to hear from you today.
STATEMENT OF ROWAN GOULD, ACTING DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH AND
WILDLIFE SERVICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Gould. Good morning, Chairman Fleming and members of
the Subcommittee. I am Rowan Gould, Acting Director of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, and I appreciate the opportunity to
testify before you today on the Service's Fiscal Year 2012
budget request.
I would also like to thank the Subcommittee for its
continued support of our mission to conserve, protect, and
enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats, for the
continuing benefit of the American people.
The total request for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
for Fiscal Year 2012 is $1.7 billion, a net increase of $47.9
million when compared to Fiscal Year 2010 enacted budget.
During these difficult budget times, the Service's budget
reflects the priority that this Administration places on
conservation, and acknowledges that for every Federal dollar
spent, the Service supports job creation and economic
development at the local level.
According to our 2006 Banking on Nature report,
recreational activities on national wildlife refuges generated
$1.7 billion in total economic activity. According to the
study, nearly 35 million people visited national wildlife
refuges, supporting almost 27,000 private sector jobs, and
producing about $543 million in employment income.
In addition, recreational spending on refuges generated
nearly $185.3 billion in tax revenue at the local, county,
state, and Federal level.
In addition, 2010 Service economists published a peer-
reviewed report of the economic contribution of the Fisheries
Program, that attributed $3.6 billion per year to the economy
from aquatic habitat conservation subsistence fisheries,
invasive species management, and most importantly, public use.
The total number of jobs associated with this economic
output is over 68,000 jobs. The Federal investment in the
Service supports economic development and job creation
throughout the United States.
The Fiscal Year 2012 budget request focuses on the agency's
highest-priority conservation initiatives, while containing
costs through management efficiencies and other savings. The
budget proposes an increase for the North American Wetlands
Conservation Act of $50 million, as well as an increase of $4
million for activities supporting renewable energy development,
including $2 million for the Endangered Species Consultation
Program and $2 million for conservation planning assistance.
The budget will also support large-scale ecosystem
restoration projects, such as Chesapeake Bay, as examples of
the Service's commitment to a science-driven partner-engaged
approach to conservation.
The Service has requested $140 million from the Land and
Water Conservation Fund for Service-identified Federal land
acquisitions; $15.7 million to provide support for Youth in the
Great Outdoors, an initiative to demonstrate the importance of
fish and wildlife conservation and encourage careers in the
natural sciences.
Recognizing the need to make difficult choices during
challenging economic times, the Service is participating in an
aggressive, Department-wide effort to curb non-essential
administrative spending. In accordance with this initiative,
the Service's Fiscal Year 2012 budget assumes $26.5 million in
savings. Savings will be realized in several areas, including
travel, employee relocation costs, and supplies.
In 2009, the Service received $280 million for construction
and resource management after the President signed the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of February 17, 2009. In the
months leading up to the bill's passage the Service worked with
the Office of Management and Budget and Congress to identify
potential construction, maintenance, and restoration projects
that could be started quickly in an effort to help create jobs
and stimulate the economy.
The funds received by the Service supported 713 projects.
Of this funding, $115 million was for construction projects,
and $165 million was for resource management projects. By the
end of Fiscal Year 2010, all Service funds were obligated and
projects mobilized, resulting in 1,072 contracts awarded and
371 grants or cooperative agreements. In total, Service
recovery funding led to the creation or retention of 4,020
jobs.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning. I am
happy to answer any questions the Subcommittee may have, and
look forward to working with you through the appropriations
process.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gould follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Rowan Gould, Acting Director,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior
Good morning Chairman Fleming, and Members of the Subcommittee. I
am Rowan Gould, Acting Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service). I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today on
the Service's Fiscal Year 2012 budget request. I would also like to
thank the Subcommittee for its continued support of our mission to
conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their
habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.
The President's FY 2012 budget request of $1.7 billion for the
Service will focus funding on the agency's highest priority
conservation initiatives, such as the America's Great Outdoors
initiative, while containing costs through management efficiencies and
other savings. The requested $1.7 billion is a net increase of $47.9
million compared to the FY 2010 enacted budget. The budget also
includes approximately $1 billion available under permanent
appropriations, most of which will be provided directly to States for
fish and wildlife restoration and conservation.
The budget principally focuses on large-scale, conservation efforts
by supporting the President's America's Great Outdoors initiative.
Additionally, an increase in Cooperative Landscape Conservation will
enable the Service to continue working with partners to conduct
collaborative landscape-scale biological planning and information
gathering by completing a national network of Landscape Conservation
Cooperatives (LCCs) initiated in FY 2010.
The President's America's Great Outdoors initiative provides the
Service with $140 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for
Federal land acquisitions the Service has identified as having the
greatest conservation benefits, and $15.7 million, an increase of $2.5
million to support Youth in the Great Outdoors by providing a platform
and programs to orient children and young adults to the importance of
fish and wildlife conservation and encourage careers in natural
science.
The budget proposes an increase of $4 million for activities
associated with renewable energy development, including $2.0 million
for the Endangered Species Consultation program to support development
of renewable energy projects and $2.0 million for Conservation Planning
Assistance (CPA). The increase for the CPA program will enable the
Service to participate more fully in priority landscape level planning
to assist industry and State fish and wildlife agencies' siting of
renewable energy projects and transmission corridor infrastructure,
aiding in the President's mission for increased renewable energy
development.
The budget will also support large-scale ecosystem restoration
projects as examples of the Service's commitment to a landscape-scale,
science-driven, partner-engaged approach to conservation. Some of these
projects include efforts in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and the
California Bay-Delta region, where water supply, healthy watershed and
sustainable populations of fish and wildlife are being addressed.
The Service recognizes the need to make difficult choices during
challenging economic times. In support of the President's commitment to
fiscal discipline and spending restraint, the Service is participating
in an aggressive Department-wide effort to curb non-essential
administrative spending. In accordance with this initiative, the
Service's FY 2012 budget assumes $26.5 million in savings, built upon
management efficiencies the Service began implementing in FY 2011.
Savings will be realized in several areas, including travel, employee
relocation, and supplies.
Cooperative Landscape Conservation
The requested funding increase of $10.2 million will enable the
Service to continue working with partners to conduct collaborative
landscape-scale biological planning and information gathering by
completing the network of Landscape Conservation Cooperatives initiated
in FY 2010.
LCCs will continue to act as a focal point for collaborative work
with partners to disseminate applied science products and tools for
resource management decisions across landscapes. This collaboration
provides partners the scientific information to target resources on
activities that will produce the greatest benefits for fish and
wildlife for the American people. Within the Service, LCCs help support
and augment many ongoing programs, including Endangered Species
Recovery Plans, Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plans, fish passage
programs and habitat restoration.
Adaptive Science
With an additional $7.2 million in funding, the Service will be
able to acquire the necessary science to make better conservation
decisions. The funding will be used to acquire risk and vulnerability
assessments, conduct inventory and monitoring, develop population and
habitat assessments and models, design conservation measures, evaluate
management options for LCC partners, and increase our understanding of
conservation genetics.
National Wildlife Refuge System
Funding for the operation and maintenance of the national wildlife
refuge system is requested at $502.9 million. The request includes an
increase of $6.5 million, for National Wildlife Refuges (Refuges)
operations, enabling Refuges to complete additional habitat improvement
projects. An additional $2.0 million will be used for the Service's
youth program to engage young Americans in conservation by offering
public service opportunities, science-based education, and outdoor
learning laboratories. The request includes an increase of $1.5 million
for Chesapeake Bay restoration and $750,000 for Gulf Coast restoration
activities at Refuges. With 10 National Wildlife Refuges along the Gulf
coast line, protecting more than 300,000 acres, the Service is
committed to working towards repairing the damage caused by the
unprecedented Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill. Additionally,
an increase of $2.0 million is also requested for deferred maintenance
at Refuges.
In support of LCC development and adaptive science management, the
requested increase of $8.0 million within the Refuge program will be
used to continue building the landscape scale, long-term inventory and
monitoring network the Service began in FY 2010.
National Wildlife Refuge Fund
The Service proposes the elimination of the entire appropriated
portion ($14.5 million) of the National Wildlife Refuge Fund. The Fund
was originally conceived to assist communities in lieu of taxes for
lands acquired and managed by the Service. Over time, Refuges have been
found to generate tax revenue for communities far in excess of tax
losses from Federal land ownership. Refuge lands provide many public
services, such as watershed protection, and place few demands on local
infrastructure when compared to development that is more intensive.
Importantly, Refuges bring a multitude of visitors to nearby
communities, providing substantial economic benefits. Recreational
spending on Refuges generates millions of dollars in tax revenue at the
local, county, State and Federal levels. The mandatory receipts
collected and allocated to States under the program would remain.
Law Enforcement
The Service budget request provides $62.6 million for the law
enforcement program to investigate wildlife crimes and enforce the laws
that govern the Nation's wildlife trade. The request is $3.1 million
below the 2010 enacted level, which reflects the elimination of funding
for a new class of agents who were hired in 2010.
Endangered Species
The FY 2012 budget includes $182.7 million to administer the
Endangered Species Act (ESA), a net increase of $3.3 million over the
2010 enacted level. This includes a $2.0 million increase for renewable
energy consultation and $3.4 million for ecosystem-specific
consultation and recovery.
The Service also is requesting an increase in funding for the
Endangered Species Listing Program, to reflect the increasingly large
number of ESA petitions being received. Between 1994 and 2006, the
Service received an average of 17 petitions annually, covering an
average of 20 species per year. In contrast, since 2007, the Service
has been petitioned to add more than 1,230 species to the list of
threatened and endangered species, more species than the Service listed
during the previous 30 years of administering the Act. With additional
funding, the Service projects to complete 39 additional 90-day and 12-
month petition findings, while also initiating proposed listing
determinations for 93 species.
Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Conservation
The budget request includes a total of $136.0 million for the
Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Conservation program, a decrease of
$12.2 million from the 2010 enacted level. Facilitating the Service's
role and responsibility in promoting ecosystem health, fisheries, and
aquatic resource conservation, the budget includes increases for the
Chesapeake Bay and California Bay-Delta program as well as an
additional $2.9 million for Asian carp activities in the Great Lakes.
Moreover, the budget proposes an increase of $380,000 to protect polar
bears in compliance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
National Fish Hatchery Operations--Mitigation
The FY 2012 request contains a reduction of funding for National
Fish Hatchery general program activities of nearly $6.8 million. At
several of its hatcheries, the Service produces fish to mitigate the
adverse effects of Federal water development projects constructed by
other Federal agencies. States depend on these activities to stock
fisheries which provide economic benefit to local communities. At the
direction of Congress, the Service is working to recover costs from the
Federal agencies that built and operate these water infrastructure
projects. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), is the largest
customer for these mitigation fish, and it has $3.8 million in its 2012
request to fund mitigation fish production. The Service will continue
ongoing discussions with the Corps as well as the Tennessee Valley
Authority, Central Utah Project Completion Act, and the Bonneville
Power Administration to seek reimbursement and negotiate reimbursable
agreements for the operation of mitigation fish hatcheries.
Migratory Birds
The Migratory Birds program is funded at $54.4 million, just
slightly below FY 2010 enacted level. The North American Wetlands
Conservation Fund is funded at $50 million, $2.4 million over the FY
2010 enacted level. The North American Wetlands Conservation grant
program plays a vital role addressing wetland habitat loss, with every
grant dollar matched 1:1, and in some programs as much as 4:1.
International Affairs
The budget request provides the International Affairs program with
just under $13.0 million, a net decrease of $1.4 million from the 2010
enacted level. The Multinational Species Conservation Fund is funded at
$9.8 million, a decrease of $1.8 million.
Coastal Impact Assistance Program
Under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Secretary of the Interior
is authorized to distribute $250 million for each of the fiscal years
2007 through 2010 to states and their coastal political subdivisions
(CPS) with oil production in the OCS off their shores. This money is
available to Alabama, Alaska, California, Louisiana, Mississippi, and
Texas by formula for ecosystem restoration projects.
This program has been implemented from its inception by the Bureau
of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE),
formally the Minerals Management Service (MMS). However, in FY 2012,
the Coastal Impact Assistance Program will be transferred to the
Service as the purpose of the CIAP aligns more directly with the
mission of the Service. The two bureaus are working together to
implement the transfer as quickly and smoothly as possible. The
transfer will allow BOEMRE to focus on programs more directly aligned
with its regulatory and enforcement mission.
Recovery Act Funds
The President signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(Recovery Act) on February 17, 2009. Of the $280 million the Service
received in Recovery Act funding for 839 projects, $115 million was for
construction projects and $165 million was for resource management
projects. The Service awarded 1,072 contracts and 371 grants or
cooperative agreements that led to the creation or retention of 4,020
jobs, according to award recipient reports as of December 31, 2010.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning. I am happy
to answer any questions the Subcommittee may have and look forward to
working with you through the appropriations process.
______
Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Mr. Gould, for your opening
comments. Now I would like to recognize myself for five minutes
for questioning.
Let us look at the budget. For Fiscal Year 2008, the land
acquisition budget for your agency was $35 million. The budget
that President Obama just proposed, and is before our
Subcommittee today, is $140 million, or a 300 percent increase.
Let me repeat that. You are here today asking for a 300 percent
increase in a budget, when of course we are doing nothing if we
are not cutting the budget, as you well understand.
Land acquisition budget compared to what we spent in 2008.
This, mind you, is on top of the $280 million the Service
received from the 2009 Stimulus Act, as well.
Together with this year's current expenditure of $86.3
million, the Obama Administration will have spent, in just two
years, more than in the last five years of the previous
administration.
While I favor appropriate land conservation and habitat
protection, I am not sure how any agency can propose such a
budget increase in the light of our nation's huge deficits. But
you have been invited here to do just that. So I want to start
off by having you explain to the American public why a $105
million increase--that is, 300 percent--is needed for this
program.
Mr. Gould. Well, first of all, I would like to point out
that that increase that we are asking in land acquisition isn't
just the titled land acquisition. A significant portion of that
land acquisition funding is in easements for conservation.
The Service has, in the last few years, recognized the
importance of working with working landowners, large plots of
land, in cattle ranching and other such agricultural
activities, the importance of them staying on the land, and
them being a vital part of the land program of the Fish and
Wildlife Service.
There is only one new refuge, new acquisition, in the
proposed land acquisition budget for this fiscal year, and that
is for the Flint Hills. In that case, there is literally no
money there for fee acquisition; it is all for conservation
easements. And there is a lot of money there. I don't know the
exact amount, but that is the place where the Farm Bureau, the
local landowners, the ranching community has come together and
recognized the importance of the Tall Grass Prairie for
conservation and their livelihood. And we are working together
to create a conservation unit that will do both great things
for ducks and wildlife and other kinds of critters, at the same
time recognizing the importance of the working landscape and
the importance of family farms and large ranches to the culture
and economy of this country.
Dr. Fleming. OK. Well, I thank you for that. But you know,
your predecessor always indicated to me that it was better to
maintain what you have before you go purchasing others.
This budget calls for an acquisition of 70,000 new acres
for inclusion within the system. Now, why is this acquisition
and new construction a priority over maintenance and upkeep,
which is, we have really gotten behind?
Mr. Gould. While we appreciate all the work we need to do
for maintenance and upkeep, the ARA funds did us a favor in
taking a good whack out of our list. In terms of the
acquisition, we are talking about specific acquisitions. You
will find that those acquisitions are all acquisitions within
an existing refuge boundary.
And we have found that in working with willing sellers, and
when we can put lands within the existing refuge boundaries, we
actually save money in terms of maintenance and oversight and
public access, and all of the good things that come from
running a national wildlife refuge, if we have a contiguous
block of land.
Dr. Fleming. Well, let me follow up. During a briefing last
month, a representative of the Department of the Interior
candidly responded that one of the motivations for increasing
the request for land acquisition was the fact that land values
in this country have plummeted in the last three years. Isn't
this an example of big government exploiting the private sector
once again?
Mr. Gould. I would submit that with the emphasis on
easements, and actually letting the land managers out there
actually be--the refugee managers could be those ranchers. They
could be very good refuge managers.
And what they need to be is paid for conserving their
lands, for multiple benefits, including conservation, fish and
wildlife conservation. And we value the fact that those land
managers, those private-citizen refuge managers, are going to
be paid for what they are doing. And at the same time, it
codifies economically their way of life, keeps their land
intact, keeps it in the family. There is all kinds of economic
benefit that----
Dr. Fleming. Let me interrupt you. I apologize, because I
am running out of time. But why do we have to pay them? Why do
taxpayers, in times of a $14 trillion--going on $15 trillion--
debt, why do we have to pay them to do the right thing?
Mr. Gould. We need to pay them for doing the right thing
because they are locking out potential other uses of their
land, given other economic opportunities in the future, which
we can't foresee. But we do know right now that the American
public values the fish and wildlife of this country, both
economically, culturally, for the future generations; values
that important aspect of the American psyche. And they are
giving up their rights to make a change, with an easement
payment, and it accomplishes all kinds of good things.
Dr. Fleming. Well, I thank you for that. I would just end
my five minutes, going over, to say that those are all great
platitudes. But again, in our fiscal situation, it really
doesn't, the priorities really don't make it, as far as I am
concerned.
With that, I want to recognize the Ranking Member. Dr.
Christensen, you have five minutes.
Dr. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
Mr. Gould. And I want to compliment the Service for the $26.5
million in savings. It is a good amount of savings, and we
really appreciate your addressing the fiscal crisis by trying
to rein in your costs.
I have a question specifically related to my district, to
begin with. In the Caribbean we are facing a severe lionfish
invasion. They are causing harm to our native fish, our coral
reef ecosystems, which support important components of our
coastal economy, including jobs, fishing, and tourism.
And while I realize we can't eliminate these lionfish
entirely, we have to keep them, their levels as low as we can.
So Dr. Gould, can the funds from the Pittman-Robertson or
Dingell-Johnson Programs be used to educate my constituents
about this invasion, and be used to capture and remove these
invaders? You know, our divers, our fishing community, our
boaters are doing what they can. But if we cannot use those
funds--well, I hope we can. But if not, what other sources of
funding would be available?
Mr. Gould. We recognize lionfish are a significant problem,
an invasive species that are a problem not only in your area,
but in the Gulf. They are spreading everywhere.
Dr. Christensen. From North Carolina down.
Mr. Gould. We can't really focus any efforts on making them
injurious species, because all that does is regulates the
transport of these species. And quite frankly, they are already
there, so we really can't spend money to do that sort of thing.
However, the concept of using Pittman-Robertson and
Dingell-Johnson money, I would have to check into it, but it
seems like a reasonable approach that is driven by a state or
territory, depending on their specific needs. And the whole
system is designed to recognize that each area has specific
both responsibilities and prerogatives.
So I will work with you in the future, and work with our
Wildlife Sports Fish Restoration Program. And I am fairly sure
you can use the money for that sort of thing, but we will check
on it.
Dr. Christensen. Well, thank you, and we will be in contact
with your office on that.
H.R. 1, the Continuing Resolution that passed the House
February 19, zeroed funding for the State and Tribal Wildlife
Grants Program. So Dr. Gould, what impact, could you tell us
what impact this will have on the Service's ability to help
states and tribes implement their wildlife action plans, which
really go to preventing our nation's wildlife from becoming
endangered and having to be put on the endangered species list?
Mr. Gould. As you have indicated, the goal of state
wildlife SWIG money, state wildlife grant money, is to
implement a plan that will keep species from going onto the
endangered species list.
Dr. Christensen. Right.
Mr. Gould. And it is done in such a way in solid
partnership with the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Our relationship with the states and the territories has
got to be strong if we are, as a group, conservation regulators
and managers, is going to be effective. It is literally going
to cut down the non-game programs of all states and
territories, because that is where they are getting the money
from.
Now, they are in a world of economic hurt right now.
Obviously, they don't want to lose that support, and we don't
want to lose the strong partnership.
Dr. Christensen. Well, thank you. The states are in a world
of hurt, as are the territories, and we need the support for
this program.
Another question about the National Wildlife Refuge System.
I was really impressed with the amount of funds, revenue that
it generates. They are really economic engines in local
communities, returning an average of four dollars in economic
activity for every one dollar appropriated by Congress.
So can you describe for us the ramification on jobs and
visitor services, on hunting programs and the refuge system
inventory and monitoring program, if the funding for the refuge
system reverted to 2008 levels?
Mr. Gould. There would be a significant reduction in
outdoor-related both consumptive and non-consumptive use of
resources. It would really revolve around a reduction in the
ability to provide access for folks.
The Refuge System is an incredible economic generator. And
in fact, as you indicated, the amount of money resulting from
their operations dwarfs the amount of money going into
operating them.
And so I can't give you an exact amount of reduction, but I
can tell you it would be significant.
Dr. Christensen. And it would hurt the states.
Mr. Gould. Oh, it would hurt----
Dr. Christensen. And the local areas.
Mr. Gould.--the local economies, mostly.
Dr. Christensen. Thank you.
Dr. Fleming. Well, time is up for that question. Next we
have Mr. Southerland from Florida.
Mr. Southerland. Thank you very much for being here. I
wanted to follow up on some of the stimulus spending money from
2009.
How many of the 713 projects that were ultimately approved
by the Office of Management and Budget were shovel-ready in
2009?
Mr. Gould. I don't have that specific number for you,
Congressman, but I will work with you to get that information
to you as soon as I can.
Mr. Southerland. Do we know the status of the projects that
were, that those funds were designed for? I mean, do we know if
the taxpayers can be satisfied that their hardworking dollars
have been spent being maximized?
Mr. Gould. Yes. We have continual IG oversight of what we
are doing in terms of implementation, and in terms of
documentation of our progress on those ARA projects. So far,
Fish and Wildlife Service has been held up as an example of how
to do it right, both in contracting efficiency and the ability
to get the money obligated quickly, and get the jobs and
activities on the ground. And we are very proud of that.
Mr. Southerland. I mean, are these projects, do you have
any projects that have been completed? Totally done?
Mr. Gould. Yes. And we, in fact, we are rolling out several
projects as they--very large projects. Visitor centers, some
progress on maintenance projects. We have several restoration
projects that are completed. In fact, it is a favorite activity
of mine to go out and cut ribbons, and demonstrate to folks
that we can get the job done.
Fish and Wildlife Service is very proud of our, as I
indicated, very proud of our progress and our performance in
spending that money efficiently.
Mr. Southerland. One of the things that I found interesting
in your comments earlier, I know the Chairman made some
comments about paying landowners to do the right thing with
their properties.
I mean, I appreciate that, but that sounds a little
ludicrous, to be just very blunt with you. For someone to pay
me to do what they want me to do with property that I pay for,
property taxes that I pay for, and also--I mean, I think it is
sad that we have gotten to the point that the government feels
that it is its responsibility to inject its opinion on what I
should do with the property that I own, that I pay for, and
that I want to use not just in my lifetime, but if I want to
perpetuate that to my children.
You take great pride, it seems like, in being able to do
that very thing that I think that is a key problem to the
swelling budget. Because I look at the dollars, you talk about
the easements. I mean, we are broke. And I mean really broke.
And the American people and our small businesses that we
operate, we can't spend more money than we have.
And for me to--and I can't just raise my prices. I can't go
out there and find dollars that I don't have. And I find that
it is bothersome, quite honestly, that the budget has swelled
some 300 percent, as the Chairman so duly noted.
That kind of action is not available to the American
people. And I just, I am amazed that you would ask for such
monies, when there is such pain out there in this country. I am
astonished, really.
Mr. Gould. And I understand your point of view. But I also
understand----
Mr. Southerland. No, no, that is reality, OK. It is not a
point of view. It is a reality that we are broke.
And so for the Department to ask for an increase of such
cataclysmic numbers, that does not apply to small businesses
around this country, which represent 85 percent of our economy.
And 40 percent of the unemployed have come from small business.
I don't understand the rationale. And if that is how we go
about handling and getting fiscal responsibility implemented
into the Department, you are going in the opposite direction of
what the American family budget is going. Do you see that?
Mr. Gould. I understand what you are saying. But also
remember that that money results in a multi-fold economic
benefit to the American public, in terms of hunting, fishing,
bird-watching, the existence of that land out there that is
part of your states.
Mr. Southerland. But I appreciate that, and I live in
Panama City, Florida.
Mr. Gould. So it is an economic driver.
Mr. Southerland. We can fish two months a year now to catch
the two fish, and we have five-dollar gas at the pump, OK, at
the marina. So, I mean, there is a movement to turn the Gulf of
Mexico into an aquarium, sir.
And so if you want me to thank you for the economic
benefit, OK, of running our family business and working 70, 80
hours a week, and having that one Saturday a month that I could
go offshore, paying $600 to put gas in my boat, to pay the
fees, to go offshore, only to catch the two fish that people in
lab coats say that I can catch, I am not going to thank you for
that. I am not going to feel that I should be appreciative of
that.
What I don't appreciate is asking for this unbelievable
amount of money at a time when the American families are
hurting so much. It is just bothersome. And Mr. Chairman, I
apologize.
Dr. Fleming. Thank you. And next recognized is Mr. Sablan.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Gould, thank you
for being here. I support many of the programs of Fish and
Wildlife. I come from the Northern Mariana Islands, island
units that are surrounded by water.
But I have also some issues with--and I actually, short of
joining the other side of the dais, let me give you an example.
On the island of Rota, 32 square miles, a growing
population obviously, people, some people cannot build homes.
Not businesses, homes. Because of the restrictions imposed by
Fish and Wildlife regulations.
At the same time, I also am conscious, and I appreciate
that we need to strike a balance here between preserving what
we have, the small--but regulations that were meant for large
land areas in the United States are hindering people from
building homes for their families.
And so some of these people remain living with their
parents. And so you have two families in a home, or three
families. And we live with that, because we are extended
family.
I would like to work with your office and find a way to
resolve some of this, or maybe start planning to resolve some
of this, short of striking out an entire regulation.
Another thing, and let me ask this. Last year, I mean in
2009, and despite the strong opposition of my good former
Chairman, Mrs. Bordallo, and Governor Bush went ahead and
declared the Mariana Trench Marine Monument. The size of that
monument is the equivalent of the State of Arizona. And no, not
one penny was paid for it, despite the three island units and
some volcanic units. Not one penny was paid for it in the
establishment of this marine monument reserve.
But there were promises made. There were promises made. And
I am concerned that there is no thought, in Fiscal Year 2012
budget proposal, to support the Mariana Trench Marine National
Monument.
At the same time, NOAA just solicited proposals for the
preparation of management plans to address, among several
things, the examination of the creation of outreach and
educational films to develop the monument.
Is your office or your agency, does it intend to support
the monument? Is it anywhere in the radar in the next decade?
And are you working with NOAA on----
Mr. Gould. Yes, Congressman, we are collectively working
out the details of each of us individually putting out notice
of intent to start the management planning process for it. And
based on the information I have right now, we should have that
notice of intent out and start the process very shortly. We
should, in fact, in the matter of the next few weeks we should
have, we should start the management process.
I want to point out that for the Remote Islands Unit, there
is significant funding in our base funding, which we want to
continue to use. I was just looking at, if it is $1.485
million, $1,485,000, for working out there in a very remote and
a very large area, as you indicate. But we need to get an
advisory panel in place, which we are making progress on; and
we have to start our planning process, which we are going to
start, I promise you, very, very shortly.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you. But could we also, your office and
my office, work together on trying to look into these
regulations?
Mr. Gould. Absolutely.
Mr. Sablan. That actually prohibits people from building
homes, not businesses, now; homes on their property because of
regulations. Again----
Mr. Gould. We are very willing to sit down and work with
you on that.
Mr. Sablan. We heard Mr. Southerland on this issue, that
sometimes the regulations are--but then again, I appreciate
that the regulations also provide some protection for the areas
around the Northern Mariana Islands. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
Dr. Fleming. I thank the gentleman from the Marianas. Next
we are going to recognize Mr. Duncan from South Carolina.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr.
Gould, for being here today.
Let me just preface my comments by saying a couple of
things. I asked to be on this Subcommittee because I am an avid
outdoorsman, and I don't think you are going to find a Member
of Congress that spends more days afield enjoying hunting and
fishing, whether it is offshore or whether it is shooting
waterfowl.
And during the course of my adult life I have had the
opportunity to visit a number of national wildlife refuges,
whether it is down at the bayou meet in Arkansas or the
Congaree Swamp in the Santee National Wildlife Refuge in my
home State of South Carolina. I understand your mission. And I
have been the benefactor of higher waterfowl numbers, OK.
So having prefaced that, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you
for, in your opening statement, where you point out the
extraordinary times that we are living in today, with the
amount of national debt. And we can rehash the numbers, $14
trillion in national debt; we are spending a trillion and a
half more than we are bringing in. Steve Southerland was right:
We are broke in this country, and we have to make some hard
decisions about what we spend money on.
And so it saddens me when I see the President's request is
145 percent higher than when he took office, and I see where
some of the money has been spent to purchase land. And I think
about, as a small business owner and owning rental property,
when times are good, you can go out and acquire more property.
But when times are tough, and it is taking everything that your
rental property is bringing in just to maintain that property,
you don't go out and purchase more. Because you don't have the
maintenance budget to continue maintaining what you have got,
much less the additional property.
And so when I see that you all have not only, let us see if
I can find the data, but Fish and Wildlife Service built 15 new
headquarters and visitor centers with the stimulus money? It is
hard for me to justify that.
You indicate in your statement that you guys had to make
tough choices. That doesn't look like tough choices to me; that
looks like wish-list desires, when you build new offices in
tough economic times. When money is good, I understand the need
to do that. But the times are tough.
So the question I have for you is when you talk about
making tough choices, and you indicate that the cut in law
enforcement was one of the tough choices; and I review your
budget, and it is clear that tough choices are also made,
refuge operations, maintenance, construction, fisheries,
National Wildlife Refuge Fund, et cetera. Couldn't the Service
have avoided these tough choices by requesting more realistic
amounts or being a little more frugal with your spending?
And I am going to let you answer that question in just a
second. But Mr. Chairman, we had a hearing yesterday on BLM, on
what I perceive as a land grab in the Western States. And I see
this as falling in a similar pattern, of acquiring land at a
time when we don't have a lot of money to do that with.
So the question is, back to the tough choices that you said
you made when you built 15 new offices, and you continue to
acquire more land, but yet you are going to cut law enforcement
officers. Rationalize that decision for me, please.
Mr. Gould. Well, first of all, we are not cutting law
enforcement officers; we are maintaining the number we have.
The actual reduction in law enforcement budget was an add-on in
2010 to fund a new class to go through. We now have those
people through. We do have the money to support those people,
and we will continue to fund the high-priority law enforcement
actions that are important to this country.
In terms of the land acquisition, as opposed to that hard
decision. Again, all I can say is we are trying to focus on
easements, willing sellers. Whether you believe in the concept
of a conservation easement or not, in land acquisition itself,
it actually saves us operating money by buying land within the
existing boundaries of a refuge.
Mr. Duncan. He was just sharing with me the ARA new visitor
centers, and $91 billion.
Mr. Gould. Ninety-one million, yes.
Mr. Duncan. That is a large number. I am just going to
yield back my time, because I am afraid I will get as
passionate as Mr. Southerland. Thank you.
Dr. Fleming. I thank the gentleman and the witness. Next I
would like to recognize Mr. Faleomavaega for five minutes, sir.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to
thank Mr. Gould for his testimony this morning.
I don't think there is anyone here, Members of Congress,
who are more conscious of the fact that we do have a very
serious deficit problem in our national debt, and the situation
where I am sure not only the Administration, but both Houses of
the Congress, are very conscious of this reality and this fact.
I want to ask Mr. Gould, when was the National Fish and
Wildlife Service, when did it start? How many years have we had
this service?
Mr. Gould. We started back in 1872. And we actually started
as the Fishery Service, and evolved over time into a much
broader program.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Now, I notice that our current budget
proposal now for the Service, for continuing the service that
was enacted by law by the Congress in the 1800s, and you now
have a budget of $1.7 billion. Can you help me if we could
translate this in some kind of a leveraging? That we are going
to expend $1.7 billion to establish what? What benefit are we
going to get? Or disincentives, I suppose, in terms of what
some of my colleagues on the other side have argued I am sure
for waste and corruption and fraud and all of this. We all are
very much aware of this.
But I want to ask you, Mr. Gould, we are going to expend
$1.7 billion as proposed by the Administration. But as a result
of this expenditure, what benefits are we going to get as a
country, and to the American people?
Mr. Gould. All Americans, in my view, have a shared
responsibility to protect wildlife and habitats for future
generations. Conserving our natural resources at this time will
ensure that we have places to hike, boat, fish, hunt, see
wildlife, or just enjoy the quiet and peace of nature.
Mr. Faleomavaega. In other words, you have commercial
fishing, you have all these other things that are----
Mr. Gould. All these other things.
Mr. Faleomavaega.--related to these things that you
regulate.
Mr. Gould. And not only that, it is a trust we pass on to
future generations. If we let that go now, it won't be
available. It goes away, it is gone.
And one thing everybody has to realize is the Fish and
Wildlife Service is an incredible economic generator.
Incredible economic generator.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, that is what I am trying to get at,
Mr. Gould.
Mr. Gould. It is the point.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Tell us exactly what economic benefits
that we are going to get from this.
Mr. Gould. Well, I can give you some examples. Since I had
a feeling that question would come up.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I realize that $1.7 billion is not
peanuts, as I am sure that we are very much conscious of the
fact.
Mr. Gould. According to, and this is my old program, the
National Survey of Fish and Hunting and Wildlife-Associated
Recreation that comes out every five years found that more than
87 million Americans, or 38 percent of the United States
population aged 16 and older, pursued outdoor recreation in
2006. They spent $120 billion that year pursuing those
activities. About 71 million observed wildlife, while 30
million people fished, and 12.5 million people hunted.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And I am also aware of the fact that some
150 million of our fellow Americans live on the coasts, coastal
states of our country.
Mr. Gould. They do.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And of that 150 million, does that relate
also to the fact that by you expending $1.7 billion, and you
just noted earlier how much are we benefitting from this?
Mr. Gould. Oh, according to that study, $120 billion.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Is that just one aspect of it? Or are
there other factors?
Mr. Gould. That is just the hunting, fishing, and wildlife
utilization. That doesn't include some of the economic benefits
driven by guiding industry and----
Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, with the $120 billion that you are
getting on this as a benefit, you are talking about how many
people are employed?
Mr. Gould. Let us see. I don't have that figure, but I can
get it for you.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Can you submit that for the record?
Mr. Gould. I will try to find that for you.
Mr. Faleomavaega. The National Wildlife Refuge System, I
think you are proposing about a $500 million budget. Why is
this so important and critical, as far as having to expend this
amount of money for the refuge system?
Mr. Gould. Well, it is part of that larger benefit that I
indicated, in terms of conserving fish and wildlife for our
future generations, both for economic benefit, just the
existence value of that, of that land.
It is amazing, when I was doing the Exxon Valdez oil spill
we did an intrinsic value study on just the value of fish,
wildlife, and habitat.
Mr. Faleomavaega. My time is up, Mr. Gould. But I just want
to say this. We are expending $1.7 billion for the services of
your agency that produces over $120 billion benefit, not only
for employment, but for all different services that are related
to your function.
Mr. Gould. That is true.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
Gould.
Dr. Fleming. I thank the gentleman. Let us see, I now
recognize Mr. Runyan from New Jersey.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Gould, I am
honored to actually represent New Jersey's Third Congressional
District, which has a beautiful section of shoreline. And when
I say New Jersey shore, yes, ``Jersey Shore'' is filmed in my
district.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Runyan. But kind of leading off at the last line of
questioning, you know, it is my understanding that Fisheries
budget has been cut by $12 million under Fiscal Year 2010's
levels, and land acquisition has increased by over $50 million
over Fiscal Year 2010's levels. And we just talked about the
amount of money recreational fishing costs. I mean, it accounts
for nearly $38 billion annually.
So with Fisheries spending being cut, and you just said
yourself that it spurs the economy, how are we really, what is
the rationale behind this shift from moving fish from
fisheries, which we admit, you know, the fishing industry I
have--recreational, commercial, charter boat--they are all
struggling because of that. And we are not supporting the
fisheries aspect of it. What is the rationale behind that and
that job loss?
And how is the land acquisition, you know, the additional
$56 million that we are going to spend on land acquisition, how
many jobs is that really going to create?
Mr. Gould. Well, I will start with the fisheries. There was
a $12.2 million decrease; of that, $4.2 million were one-time
Congressional add-ons.
There was a one-time expenditure for ecosystem restoration
in the Bay Delta ecosystem, which had to do with water issues,
that was also a one-time addition to our budget.
Approximately, remember I indicated that there was going to
be somewhere around, from now until the end of Fiscal Year
2012, a reduction of $26 million in administrative
efficiencies. For the Fisheries program, approximately--that is
their share, $1.9 million.
The rest of it has to do with mitigation hatcheries. And
there is no specific mitigation hatchery in your district, but
that is our attempt to implement a user-pay concept for
mitigation hatcheries that we actually operate, that actually
do work for lost services that result from Corps of Engineers
dams, Central Utah Project TVA. And we have been trying for
years, and now are making significant progress, in actually the
people that we are doing that mitigation work for, instead of
it coming out of our resource management money, it is going to
come out of their budgets.
And in fact, 2012, we have made almost $4 million of that
$6.3 million, we have actually got agreements for that they
will continue that work. We agree those hatcheries are
incredibly important to the economy. We agree those hatcheries
are incredibly important to the, to hunting and--well, fishing.
And we agree that they are really important to tribal
interests, too. The only difference is that somebody else is
going to be paying for the responsibility we are carrying out
for them.
Mr. Runyan. And with that being said, Mr. Duncan touched on
it earlier. You have $91 million being spent on new visitor
centers. And within the Hatchery Program, many of those
facilities are nearing 100 years old. And you are in a budget
crisis. Isn't there a better way to really, quite frankly, you
know, mission-critical projects? A better use of our money,
especially in the budget crisis that we are in.
Mr. Gould. Well, we have found that those visitor centers
do a lot in terms of creating awareness of the outdoors and the
importance of a natural environment, hunting and fishing and
the like, through those visitor centers. Those visitor centers
were developed using ARA funds, as was indicated, and we are
making significant progress in getting them done.
We picked those visitor centers in high, in areas where we
would have a lot of people coming through, so that they would
have a better appreciation for fish, wildlife, and their
habitats. And we would create a lot of jobs.
We have a very standard format that we have for creating
these visitor centers, so they are very efficiently built. We
got quite a few of them for the $91 million that we spent. And
ultimately, after all is said and done, maybe in the years to
come they are going to pay off in terms of understanding of
wildlife, understanding of the importance of the environment,
understanding of conservation, and understanding that the
people of this country have both an economic and a cultural
responsibility to maintain our fish and wildlife habitat in
good order.
Mr. Runyan. Well, with that being said, I just hope every
department in the U.S. Government--I know this Congress is
making a valiant effort at tightening their belts, like other
Americans are doing. I hope your Department goes down that path
with us as we move toward fiscal sanity.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Fleming. Thank you. We have been joined by another
Member this morning, and so I would like to recognize Mr.
Markey of Massachusetts. Five minutes, sir.
Mr. Markey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Gould,
just to clarify, the money that is used for land acquisitions
through the Land and Water Conservation Fund comes from funds
paid to the United States by oil companies, and for their oil
and gas production, on the public lands owned by people of our
country?
Mr. Gould. From the public lands, yes.
Mr. Markey. And it does not come from general tax revenues
from our struggling families and small businesses, but from
extremely profitable oil companies that are drilling on the
lands of those families. Is that correct?
Mr. Gould. Yes, yes, that is correct. But the lands
obviously we are purchasing through conservation easements, and
that does come from the public coffers.
Mr. Markey. It comes from the public coffers.
Mr. Gould. Yes.
Mr. Markey. Not from the money that comes from the oil and
gas production on public lands?
Voice. No, he is correct.
Mr. Gould. No, it does. You are correct
Mr. Markey. Want me to revise that again?
Mr. Gould. Yes. You are correct, sir.
Mr. Markey. OK, good, that is a good answer.
Mr. Gould. Yes.
Mr. Markey. As I answer with my wife, you are right, I am
wrong. That is the correct answer.
Now, can you describe the workload you are anticipating in
the coming years for the Endangered Species Act consultations
on renewable energy projects? How will the $2 million increase
for these consultations in Fiscal Year 2012 request help to
move these projects forward? It is very important that we get
these renewable energy projects up on public lands, while
ensuring that we protect our environmental values.
Mr. Gould. Right. For the last three years we have been
proposing, and have received to date, increases of $2 million
in 2010, and we are proposing a $2 million increase in 2011,
another $2 million in 2012. And the reason is we are ramping
up. Because as you indicated, us working with the renewable
energy industries in terms of being effective stewards of the
land, as well as providing renewable energy to our country, we
see this as a big need. So that is why we have been ramping up
over time. And we will continue to ramp up as we see the need,
and not only on public lands. The Endangered Species Act has
some responsibility to deal with renewable energy on private
lands. And so we are also going to be looking in the future at
the possibility of a need there.
Mr. Markey. OK, great. Thank you. Section 704 of H.R. 501,
which is my bill, along with many other Members, to implement
the recommendations of the BP Oil Spill Commission, would allow
the Secretary to recover response costs and damages for injury
to units of the National Wildlife Refuge System, such as the
Delta National Wildlife Refuge in Louisiana. Does the Service
support that provision?
Mr. Gould. I am not aware that we have actually taken a
position on the bill. I don't know, sir. I will check on it.
Mr. Markey. OK, please. I would like a recommendation from
the Department.
Mr. Gould. Yes, sir.
Mr. Markey. One of the most powerful arguments made in the
course of trying to get a fair settlement from Exxon after the
Exxon Valdez spill was an economic study conducted by the State
of Alaska. This study estimated the willingness of Americans to
pay to prevent another Exxon Valdez to be approximately $2.8
billion. Is the Service carrying out similar or better studies
today for the Deepwater Horizon disaster?
Mr. Gould. First of all, I was on the management team for
the Exxon Valdez that set up those intrinsic values. They were
incredibly powerful tools. And yes, we are doing that for the
Deepwater Horizon in our DA process.
Mr. Markey. And what is your schedule for the completion of
that project?
Mr. Gould. It is being managed by NOAA at this time, and I
don't have the specific date of when that project will be
completed.
Mr. Markey. Can you report that back to the Committee,
please?
Mr. Gould. Yes, sir.
Mr. Markey. Thank you. The EPA is required to consult with
the Service on the effects of pesticides on endangered and
threatened species. However, the programs responsible for this
consultation are in need of additional expert biologists to
address the backlog of more than 1100 pesticide reregistration
and other water-quality criteria consultations under the
Endangered Species Act.
Can you tell me how your budget request addresses this
need?
Mr. Gould. Within our existing budget, we are working right
now very closely with EPA to assess the--scientifically, using
best science, to determine how that consultation will proceed.
We are right now just working with EPA, and I don't know
exactly when we are going to complete that process.
Mr. Markey. So you don't know how many FTEs will be
dedicated to addressing the backlog?
Mr. Gould. No, sir, I don't. I will find out for you.
Mr. Markey. OK, thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, I appreciate it.
Dr. Fleming. I thank the Ranking Member of the Full
Committee. I now recognize Mr. Pierluisi.
Mr. Pierluisi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Gould, I am
encouraged by the work the Service is undertaking in the
Caribbean region, particularly across the seven wildlife
refuges within Puerto Rico, and through the efforts of the
Ecological Services to recover the endangered Puerto Rican
parrot. I am also interested in the Service's research to
conserve manatees in both Florida and Puerto Rico.
And I hope the budget before us for the coming year will
provide resources sufficient to protect the progress that has
been gained through these programs, and to support overall
ecosystem-based habitat management in Puerto Rico.
In general, I support the emphasis the President's budget
places on youth, and I am pleased by an increase proposed for
initiatives to educate young people across the country about
fish and wildlife conservation. These initiatives help instill
civic responsibility, and ensure future generations of
Americans are engaged citizens and wise stewards of our
environment.
I will note that I am concerned, however, about reductions
to law enforcement that are contained in the Service's budget.
Specifically, a 2005 analysis by an international association
of Chiefs of Police detailed the need for 845 full-time law
enforcement officers to protect visitors and respond to illegal
activities across the refuge system. Yet, in 2010, the refuge
system reportedly had about 200 officers on patrol, roughly 24
percent of the professional recommended level.
In general, Doctor, what percentage of refuges in the
system with established visitor services today lack dedicated
law enforcement officers assigned to the staff?
Mr. Gould. I am going to look to the back here, but I
believe we have about 55 percent that have refuge officers. Is
that, 55?
Voice. That is right.
Mr. Gould. We have 55 percent that have refuge officers. We
have zone officers that cover other areas where we don't have
specific law enforcement presence. We have somewhere on the
order of between 250 and 300 refugee law enforcement, and that
is not our special agents. It is not our LE budget. That is the
refuge law enforcement.
Mr. Pierluisi. That would be including part-time officers?
Mr. Gould. No. That would be, we have a few part-time
officers, but not very many. The 300 number I gave you,
approximately 300, includes some part-time officers.
Mr. Pierluisi. See, one thing that troubles me is that even
if you, if I take that, I mean, at face value, and I don't have
any reason to doubt it really, I see that back in 2003 you had
238 officers. And all I can tell is that whatever need you had
back then, you must have now even more. It must have increased.
Because the refuge system itself has expanded in the last eight
years. So by just logic and common sense, I would have to
believe that the law enforcement component or need should have
also increased.
What is the right level of law enforcement personnel, in
your view? You know, keep your mission and do what you are
supposed to do.
Mr. Gould. I just checked with my folks in the refuge
system. We indicated that at some point in time, we would like
to see somewhere around 400 officers. And we are getting there.
We value that, that function a lot.
But what we are doing is we are slowly ramping up into that
number, given the fiscal realities we have to deal with, and
understanding that we have to spread our people around a little
bit. But we are covering the most important areas.
Mr. Pierluisi. Thank you, Director. My time, I yield back
the seconds I have left, Mr. Chairman, on my time. I yield
back.
Dr. Fleming. OK, I thank the gentleman. And next, the
Chairman would like to recognize Chairwoman Emeritus, Ms.
Bordallo.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and also for the new
title.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Bordallo. Good morning, or good afternoon, Director
Gould. I am going to follow up some of the questions that the
Representative from the Northern Marianas asked earlier. I
really wasn't satisfied with some of the answers. And I am sure
as Director of the agency, Acting Director, you must have some
kind of an idea on the timeline.
The National Wildlife Refuge System is the only Federal
land system dedicated first and foremost to wildlife
conservation. So in 2009 the system's management jurisdiction
grew by over 50 million acres, with the designation of three
new marine national monuments in the Pacific Ocean, one of them
being the Rose Atoll in American Samoa; the PRIA, Pacific
Remote Island Areas; and the Marianas Trench, Guam, in the
Marianas Island.
These monuments, Director, they provide critical habitat
and spawning areas for many species of fish, coral, birds, and
other wildlife.
So my question is the same question that the Representative
from Northern Marianas asked. I understand you may internally
budget these within your base budget for the refuge system.
What are the proposed operating budgets for these three sites
in Fiscal Year 2012? Can you answer that more specifically?
Mr. Gould. Well, specifically for the Remote Islands Unit,
it is $1,485,000. And that includes the Marianas Trench,
Palmyra, Rose Island, and all of those areas.
In terms of the, you had indicated some concern about the
notice of intent to get a management plan. We have already
released the management plan for Rose Island. That is because
there is no shared jurisdiction in that area with NOAA. And so
that has already gone out. I was just looking here to see
exactly; it went out in November of 2009. It is just we are--
and I would like to give you a specific date when the new
proposed management plan notice of intent will go out. I will
have to find out for you; I do not know the answer to that.
Ms. Bordallo. You have absolutely no idea.
Mr. Gould. Any day. I don't know.
Ms. Bordallo. Any day. Well, I guess, because you know, the
timeline has gone by.
Mr. Gould. Right.
Ms. Bordallo. So this is the management plan. What about
the advisory council?
Mr. Gould. Well, as you are aware, we at one time had
submitted all the names for the advisory council. There was,
unfortunately, a change of one name, because one individual had
to drop off. And I don't believe we have the name from, I don't
know where it came----
Voice. We are waiting on the names from the Commonwealth of
the Marianas.
Mr. Gould. Commonwealth of the Marianas, we are waiting for
a name.
Ms. Bordallo. A name.
Mr. Gould. So that we can resubmit. And we just haven't
received it yet.
Ms. Bordallo. And for the record, you know, I will speak to
the delegate from the Northern Marianas. And that is the only--
--
Mr. Gould. That is the only thing that is holding us up.
Ms. Bordallo. All right. Otherwise, well, thank you.
Because that gives us a little more assurance of--now, I have a
few more questions here to ask.
The North American Wetlands Conservation Act has been very
successful in building durable partnerships between the Federal
Government and non-Federal stakeholders, to support grant
projects, to protect and serve, recover, or restore wetland
habitat important for migratory waterfowl and other wildlife.
H.R. 1 zeroed funding for the North American Wetlands
Conservation Fund. Can you please explain what impact this will
have? Especially since this matching-grant program usually
leverages three times the amount of the Federal grant in non-
Federal matching contributions.
Mr. Gould. Yes. Currently, NAWCA generates an average of
2.1 non-Federal dollars in match for every grant dollar. In the
U.S., where over 90 percent of the NAWCA money is spent, the
ratio is 2.7-to-1. As you are aware, NAWCA money can be spent
in Canada and in Mexico.
And ultimately, it is our estimate that that $50 million
would result in actual $150 million, so almost twice. That is a
conservative estimate of money that will not go to wetlands
protection and ducks.
Ms. Bordallo. All right. And has the Service assembled
information on the economic benefits to committees of refuges?
Specifically, to property values and from tourism and ecosystem
services.
Mr. Gould. Yes, we have. I don't have that information
directly in front of me, but we will provide that information
for the record.
Ms. Bordallo. All right. And then my final question is--I
know my time is up, Mr. Chairman, one more quick--what is the
value of volunteerism on refuges and fish hatcheries? Will the
cuts in H.R. 1 to the refuge program and to conservation
programs, like the Land and the Water Conservation Fund and the
North American Wetlands Conservation Fund, have an impact on
this value? The volunteers.
Mr. Gould. The volunteers? Likely not. We still have an
incredible number of volunteers, somewhere on the order of 40
million volunteers a year.
Ms. Bordallo. Very good.
Mr. Gould. And there are 1.5 million hours, volunteer
hours, a year. And so we expect that to continue.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, my time is up. And I
thank you for the extension.
Dr. Fleming. I thank the gentlelady from Guam. That
completes round 1. And Mr. Gould, I appreciate your patience
with us. This is very important topics. We do have an interest
in a second round; I think it will be much briefer.
But before going to that, Chairman Hastings of the Full
Committee asked me to read into the record a statement, and
then a question for you. And we would like to have your
response for the record, as well. So it goes as follows.
``Because of other commitments, I regretfully am not able
to participate at this hearing today, but have requested that
Chairman Fleming specifically raise one issue of very great
concern. And that is, the Fish and Wildlife Service's draft
recovery plan for the Northern Spotted Owl.
``As you know, last fall I and several House colleagues
requested an extension of the public comment period on the Fish
and Wildlife Service's release of this sweeping proposal that
would impact a huge amount of private forest lands in the
Northwest. I was deeply disappointed that the Service extended
that period for only 30 days.
``However, since then I have made aware that the Forest
Service and the Bureau of Land Management, both Federal land
management agencies directly affected by the proposal, have
raised serious concerns about the lack of science and
transparency on the plan's provisions. Most concerning is that
according to the BLM's Director, Bob Abbey, the plan as written
could reduce Northwest commercial timber harvests by as much as
50 percent. This would severely impact Northwest forest jobs
and local economies.
``I will be sending another letter to you and Secretary
Salazar in the near future elaborating on my concerns. But in
the meantime, I would like your commitment today, for the
record, that the Service will reopen the public comment period
to allow a much more robust opportunity for those most affected
to comment and review your proposals. Can I have your
commitment on that today?''
[Pause.]
Mr. Gould. In appreciation of the need in this very complex
issue to move forward with some speed, we have extended the
comment period because of the need to move very quickly, in
recognition of the fact that BLM has to move forward quickly
with their planning process.
As you are aware, we were in this game because we had,
there was legal concerns about the efficiency of the WORP, or
the Western Oregon Resource Plan. And so, at this time I can't
make that commitment.
But what I can commit to is that we will work, we are
working very closely with the Forest Service and BLM to resolve
any issues that might exist regarding the science and the
content of the Recovery Plan itself.
I have had conversations with our Regional Director, we
have had conversations with the Forest Service not any later
than a week and a half ago. And I think the Forest Service is
pretty good with where we are right now. We still are working
with BLM, and in fact we are doing that this week, and should
have more information next week or the week after regarding a
direction we are going to go for in terms of the recovery plan.
Dr. Fleming. Well, I hear what you are saying. But you are
saying that you are not willing to--apparently there hasn't
been adequate public comment. I hear a lot of administrative
discussion agency to agency, and we will work things out. But
Chairman Hastings and I cannot have your commitment today that
you will open this up for further comment to those who are
affected?
Mr. Gould. What we can do is commit that we will meet with
Congressman Hastings and discuss the effort and the ongoing
coordination, to see if what is going on might be in keeping
with what he has in mind.
Dr. Fleming. Well, that is not the commitment we would like
to have.
Mr. Gould. OK.
Dr. Fleming. But certainly Chairman Hastings will look
forward to further discussion, and hopefully working something
out with you.
Well, thank you. That concludes the first round for the
second panel. And I would like to now recognize the Ranking
Member for five minutes. And then we will go to Mr. Duncan, and
then I will conclude.
T1Dr. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
Dr. Gould.
I have a question sort of relating to one of my other
committees. In 2009, the Department of Homeland Security agreed
to provide $50 million to the Department of the Interior to
mitigate damages to natural resources from border
infrastructure.
It is my understanding that the Department of the Interior
has only received about $7 million of this $50 million. So what
action is the Department of the Interior taking to ensure that
the remaining $43 million is provided by the Department of
Homeland Security?
Mr. Gould. As you indicated, there is approximately $7
million that had been spent of the $50 million. And our working
relationship with Customs and Border Patrol is very good, and
we are in constant dialogue.
And in fact, there is a list of land acquisition projects
that exists right now that relates to that particular
commitment with Customs and Border Patrol that is now being
evaluated by Customs and Border Patrol of the $20 million. So
we are making significant progress, effective progress, to get
that $50 million spent.
Dr. Christensen. Great. And another question about the
Wildlife Refuge System. The Fiscal Year 2012 budget request for
operations and maintenance of the National Wildlife Refuge
System is essentially the same as the Fiscal Year 2010 enacted
level. Will the Service be able to maintain management
capabilities for the Refuge System with no increase, while at
the same time standing up a national network of landscape
conservation cooperatives?
Mr. Gould. Yes, we will, mostly because conservation
easements require little, if any, maintenance requirements. So
we will be in good shape.
We have a backlog list, and ARA funds was very useful to us
to produce that backlog list. But we will be able to move
forward effectively with what we have proposed in the budget.
Dr. Christensen. Great. And the Service has received
petitions to list the bluefin tuna and the salt marsh top
minnow populations. What are you doing to determine whether
these populations of either of those species, whether they face
or do not face a higher risk of extinction? And if they do, how
will you evaluate the costs? And which would be the responsible
parties to pay for this, of a new endangered species listing in
the Gulf? Do you understand that question?
Mr. Gould. I believe the bluefin tuna is the responsibility
of National Marine Fisheries Service, so I can't specifically
give you an answer there.
In terms of the minnow, I don't know the answer regarding
the top minnow. And we will provide you that answer in the
record.
Dr. Christensen. OK. But both of these species are maybe at
risk for extinction in the Gulf Coast. And would you expect
that maybe BP or one of the companies involved in the Deepwater
Horizon would be responsible for paying?
Mr. Gould. I really don't have an answer to that question.
Dr. Christensen. OK. We will await a response from the
Service. Last question. I was really distressed to hear that
the white-nose syndrome has now been confirmed in Indiana and
North Carolina for the threatening Eastern bat populations. I
am sure that Ms. Bordallo would even be more upset about this.
But given the increase in transmission of this disease,
will the Department continue to view this as a high priority?
And what funding, if any, would be allocated to further develop
and implement state response plans?
Mr. Gould. We have hired a coordinator. It is a very high
priority of the Service; it is a big concern of the Service.
You will see, in the 2012 budget, a reduction, but that was for
a specific add-on. Our base budget continues to be the same.
What is also important to note is that other agencies that
are supporting us, like USGS and some of the state agencies,
are also coming forward with some funding to help us better
understand the problem and move forward.
But we also share your concern about both the enormity and
the potential disastrous outcome of us not paying attention to
this huge problem.
Dr. Fleming. I thank the Ranking Member. I now recognize
the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr.
Gould, for bearing with us for one final bit of questioning.
Just some clarification on a couple of items. At the end of
Fiscal Year 2011, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will have
9,236 full-time employees. And you have stated that, or some
information that I provided stated that during the Recovery
Act, the Service was awarded 1,072 contracts, 371 grants or
cooperative agreements that led to the creation or retention of
4,020 jobs. That is according to the Award Recipient Reports as
of this past December 31.
Can you explain to me what is meant by the creation or
retention of 4,020 jobs? Because I think for $280 million, that
is pretty expensive per job.
Mr. Gould. Those were private sector jobs, contractors,
4,000.
Mr. Duncan. Private sector? So you created, you are saying
that with $280 million, you created 4,000 private sector jobs.
Mr. Gould. That is what the recipients reported. Yes, sir.
Mr. Duncan. OK. I am going to delve into that a little bit,
because I want some further clarification on it. But I am not
going to delve into it with you right now.
Second question is, the Service had indicated that it will
request $997 million to be allocated from its permanently
appropriated account, such as the Sport Fish Restoration
Account, Federal Aid and Wildlife Restoration, and Migratory
Bird Conservation Account.
I went through in South Carolina as Chairman of the South
Carolina House of Representatives Agriculture, Natural
Resource, and Environmental Affairs Committee, and then through
my active role with some other groups, such as Shimano and Bass
Pro and others that follow recreational fishing. Last year we
had the Atlantic Coast Fisheries management recommendation to
close bottom-fishing for grouper and snapper in an area off of
South Carolina and other states.
So it concerns me that you are asking for $997 million to
be taken from the Sport Fish Restoration Account, when we are
closing sport fishing along the coast of South Carolina.
Mr. Gould. Congressman, that money is a pot of permanently
appropriated money that is, we just administer. We pass that
money through to the states. Approximately a little over half
that amount is in the Fisheries Account, while somewhat less
than half is the Pittman-Robertson Act, which is the kind of
hunting, the guns and that sort----
Mr. Duncan. Fees on ammunition and----
Mr. Gould. Yes. So when we say we are disbursing it, what
we are doing is sending it to the states to support the fish
and game agencies in the states.
Mr. Duncan. So when you say you are requesting it be
allocated, you are going to pass it on to the states.
Mr. Gould. Yes, sir.
Mr. Duncan. Why is it being passed on to the states now?
Why are you having them make a specific allocation?
Mr. Gould. We do it every year. It is an allocation that
comes through the taxation system. Those are excise tax money.
And the money goes from Treasury to us, to allocate to the
states. All we do is administer it through allocated formulas,
allocation formulas, to the states.
Mr. Duncan. There is not an automatic trigger there based
on collections at the state level, under Pittman-Robertson?
Mr. Gould. I don't know what you mean by an automatic
trigger.
Mr. Duncan. OK, let us say South Carolina sells X number of
dollars. And I am asking for clarification.
Mr. Gould. Oh, oh, OK.
Mr. Duncan. They are not automatic----
Mr. Gould. The amount that is going to South Carolina is
based on, in the case of the amount of water and the amount of
licenses sold in the state itself. So the proportion that goes
to any given state is based on an allocation formula. Hunting
licenses, fishing licenses, availability, how much water there
is, how much hunting opportunity there is. And it is a system
that has been working, in the case of Pittman-Robertson, since
1934.
Mr. Duncan. And that money is automatically triggered to go
to the states?
Mr. Gould. Yes, sir.
Mr. Duncan. OK. So why are you having them make a separate
request for monies out of that fund to send to the states?
Mr. Gould. It is just a matter of protocol. It is pre-
appropriated money.
Voice. You are not making a request, then.
Mr. Gould. No, we are not making a request at all.
Mr. Duncan. I mean, you just said that you are making an
allocation request so that you can send more money to the
states. That is what I interpreted you to say.
Mr. Gould. The total budget for the Fish and Wildlife
Service isn't $1.7 billion, it is $2.7 billion. About a billion
of it, approximately--I don't know exactly what that is--is
non-appropriated funds that come through the Pittman-Robertson
and Dingell-Johnson pot.
What we are talking about in terms of money for the Service
is $1.7 million. What you are talking about is that non-
appropriated money that is the result of excise taxes on the
hunters and fishermen of this country. They literally fund
conservation in this country, to the states. And every year we
get an allocation of money that comes from the excise taxes,
both on the hunting side and the fishing side. And then we have
an allocation formula, and we just run through the system, and
we just send it straight to the states. And then they use that
money for their purposes.
Dr. Fleming. OK, the gentleman's period is completed. And I
do have the last few questions before we end the session today.
And I am sure stomachs are growling and everyone is anxious to
get some good, hot food today.
OK. First question is, in its Fiscal Year 2010
appropriations bills, the House Appropriations Committee noted
in its report, ``The Committee believes that Refuge visitor
centers are appropriate in limited locations.''
Was the Service aware of that language?
Mr. Gould. Yes, we were. I am looking back at our Refuge
guys so I can get you a straight answer.
Dr. Fleming. I appreciate that. I have to have staff
surrounding me to make sure I get very lucid and correct
answers, so I appreciate that.
Why did the Service choose to not only ignore that advice,
but in fact spend more than one third of the $280 million on
the construction of new headquarters/visitor centers?
Mr. Gould. Seven of those visitor centers/admin offices
were to replace old and unsafe existing buildings. Six were to
replace existing leased-space buildings, because they were very
expensive to run and inadequately configured. One was a new
space, as you indicated, and it was mostly funded by DOD funds,
at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal in Colorado. It is being a shared
space with other agencies, too.
Dr. Fleming. Yes, I understand. Well, it seems like such a
large chunk of the $280 million. The question is, if you didn't
have that $280 million, would you have necessarily gone forward
with those expenditures?
Mr. Gould. They would have been on our construction
priority list. I don't know exactly where they would have been
on the list; I presume high, because of the condition of the
buildings. But we have a construction priority list and a
construction, that goes with our budget. And you will indicate
it is there. And you just would have seen a longer list.
Dr. Fleming. One of the projects funded by the stimulus
bill was the construction of a visitor and environmental
education center at Mammoth Spring National Fish Hatchery in
Arkansas, at a cost of $1.2 million. The little town in which
this national fish hatchery is located has a population of
about 1200 people. Was this really the best expenditure of
taxpayer money for a facility that is more than 100 years old?
What is the status of the construction? And how many jobs were
created?
Mr. Gould. I don't have a specific answer for that, but we
will submit answers to the record.
Dr. Fleming. OK, I thank you. And finally, how many people
visit the Mammoth Spring National Fish Hatchery each year?
Mr. Gould. I will also have to submit that to the record. I
don't have that information with me right now.
Dr. Fleming. OK, very good. Well, I thank you. That
concludes my questions. And I certainly thank you, Dr. Gould,
and our other witnesses as well, for your testimony today.
And I would also like to thank you, sir, for your service
to our country. And I thank members of the Subcommittee, the
staff, even the audience, for their patience and interest
today.
Members of the Subcommittee will have additional questions,
and we ask that you respond to these in writing, if you would,
please, sir. The hearing record will be open for 10 days to
receive these responses.
So with that, business is concluded today. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]