majority of the constituency that is impacted by this legislation and by the laws and administration of the BLM.

So without further being said, Mr. Baca, welcome, and you have my commitment for a good faith effort to work with you. Welcome. Your statement has been made part of the record.

STATEMENT OF JIM BACA, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

Usually I wouldn't read a statement, but it is pretty short. It is pretty concise. So if you don't mind, I will go ahead and read it. I appreciate the opportunity to appear here today to discuss H.R. 1603 which relates to the appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management and to its management of the public lands.

We recognize, Mr. Chairman, that you and this subcommittee have spent considerable hours addressing BLM reauthorization legislation. We appreciate your commitment to providing a good road map for the future for the Bureau of Land Management. That is a commitment that we will share.

The administration supports a comprehensive reauthorization bill for the BLM and would like to work with you in addressing the provisions of H.R. 1603 that go beyond reauthorization. At this time, we request your consideration of a short-term reauthorization while we work with you and your staff to address a broad range of issues facing this agency. We will then submit our recommendations to you in a report.

At the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development last June in Rio, the United States and 176 other nations agreed to operate by the principle of sustainable development, to promote sound economies and protect the environment. BLM has actually had that mandate, called multiple use and sustained yield, since the Congress passed the Federal Land Policy Management Act in 1976.

But a great deal of work lies ahead before we meet that goal. The provisions of H.R. 1603 are designed to achieve better quality and more effective management of BLM administered lands. Those provisions are crafted to address issues such as how the BLM should use special designations to protect fragile and extraordinary resources; whether the Bureau's resource management plan should be updated on a specific schedule to be made more responsive to current needs; how soon we can work out equitable solutions to the problems such as R.S. 2477 right-of-way assertions; and what should be the relationship between the BLM-administered lands and other lands.

We think that these issues need to be addressed and we are eager to work with the committee to work out the best approaches and solutions. Other agencies, such as the Department of Agriculture, are also affected by this bill and will join us in addressing these and other issues raised in this bill.

For this reason, the new administration is reevaluating how the varied and valuable public lands should be managed in the balance of the twentieth century and into the twenty-first.

We expect to present to Congress in the not too distant future a proposal that would promote ecosystem-based approaches to

managing the public lands. This is especially important in the arid, semi-arid, and sub-humid landscapes of the American West. Among other issues, we are considering provisions for cost-effective partnerships with other agencies, states and nongovernmental organizations; collaborative research and monitoring projects with the proposed National Biological Survey; assistance to western communities in anticipating and adjusting to changing resource conditions and trends; development and implementation of integrated environmental and economic accounts for an ecoregion, such as the Colorado Plateau, as a collaborative effort with other Federal agencies, states and local governments; and guidance for fair pricing for the use of Federal lands and resources; and creation of a BLM foundation to provide nongovernmental support for BLM programs.

As you can see, this is a full menu and will take some time to develop. We are already working on it, listening and gathering good ideas.

Consistent with the direction given to us by the President and Secretary Babbitt, our goal is to enhance the protection and sustainability of the resources that we manage. In addition, we want to manage those resources so as to provide a fair return to the taxpayer.

We also want full public participation. We want to hear from the people who really own these lands. We know that the Chairman and the subcommittee share these goals and we look forward to working with you to develop a bill that reflects the work you have done as well as many of the suggestions that we may offer.

Mr. Chairman, that is my completed text, and I guess the only thing that I would add to it at this point is that we know that the West is changing and we know that BLM is going to have to change along with it. And we are willing to do anything it takes to get it done.

Mr. VENTO. Well, thank you very much. You obviously have articulated a significant mission and I think reframing of the vision, any one of these, would be very substantive changes. But taken together in terms of their context, I think it does hold hope for rather a full legislative program.

One of the things we are always tempted to get involved with is the discussions between the various committees in Congress, whether appropriation or authorizing. But needless to say, I just want to assure you that I think with the commitment of the Administration to resolving problems like the reauthorization, and there are other outstanding issues like R.S. 2477 or even something heated like grazing, I think that much of our jurisdictional jousting will be arrested.

We really are looking for finally resolving the policy questions. We want to play a role. The members of the Natural Resources Committee, and specifically this subcommittee, are here because they want to play a role in terms of these issues. I would just suggest that we don't expect you to take on our jurisdictional fights with the Appropriations Committee. We have a couple of tools to do that.

But I think that in moving forward on some of these policies, you want to be certain to engage the members of the committee, including myself and my staff, who have spent a lot of work on it as well.

We don't want to exclude members of the Appropriations Committee, but we certainly want to do the job that we are expected to do.

I think in the past it sort of frittered away because there hasn't been as much of a focus on some of these issues as there should have been by the administration. It was really one I think more of words than of deeds. How long do you think it will take you to evaluate, before you are to come back to us with a more comprehensive BLM reauthorization proposal or a program such as I discussed?

Mr. BACA. Senator, I put together a little group to work on it. I would assume we can get back to you probably within 60 to 90 days with our first draft.

Mr. VENTO. Well, I know that you won't be limited simply by the issues that I have raised here but will be looking at other matters as well; is that correct?

Mr. BACA. That is correct.

Mr. VENTO. You are examining some possibilities of reorganization; is that correct?

Mr. BACA. Congressman, yes, we are. And if I call you senator, and if I have, I apologize. I have been over there all morning. Mr. VENTO. It is all right. I didn't take it too seriously.

Mr. BACA. Yes, I think our whole organizational structure, that has been sort of an administrative thing, I think, has been under way for the last year. I have looked at the documents they have come up with. I think there are a lot of good things in them. As far as the reauthorization bill goes, I am not sure that that administrative function necessarily needs to be in there.

One of the things that I am looking for guidance on the reauthorization bill is perhaps expanding some of the definitions of multiple use to make it clear that the BLM can become more, and must become more, than just a development agency. Because in many respects, that is I think how people view us.

We would like very much to get into the business of recreation, of protecting special areas that may not have park status but are certainly worthy of protection. The BLM foundation is something that most of the rank and file thinks is very important to put us on a par with other public land agencies, most of whom have these foundations. We are going to need guidance and suggestions on fair market pricing, although we think we can do much administratively. And I think the list of menu items may be also too big for all we could for BLM, but I don't think there is a better time to do it.

Mr. VENTO. Well, I tend to agree that we ought to move ahead, but have to make some judgments about the impact of those things both politically and practically. One of the ways I think it would be helpful is to exercise existing administrative responsibilities. And that is with regard to both the grazing issue and the fees charged for it, as well as other controversial issues like R.S. 2477. When do you expect the final report on R.S. 2477 that was required by the appropriations conference report late last year?

Mr. BACA. Congressman, I assume that that report will be coming out in about a week, about June 1.

Mr. VENTO. So that will be guidance. Have you examined that and studied that issue enough so that you can suggest legislation, or are you reviewing the possibility of administrative actions with regards to R.S. 2477 applications and rights-of-way?

Mr. BACA. I have not reviewed the document. I just was out of town all last week and actually a draft, I think, is sitting on my desk at the office. I just did not have time to get through it in a timely way.

Mr. VENTO. Well, let me just suggest to you that I think that if there are administrative actions that you could take, I would hope that you would review it, review the authority that you have, to begin to fill in the blanks.

The problems that I run into with legislation here, as those that are present can recall, is sort of the reaction of some wondering what the intentions are, as opposed to the practical impact. Certainly it is my anticipation that even with the recordation language in the legislation, really much of this would be worked out or would be accomplished administratively in the field.

Obviously, you don't want to extinguish someone's claim without proper due process in terms of filing time and/or a proper consideration of the merits and facts to be presented and an appeal process. Apparently, some have said we have too much due process, and here at the same time of course they are insisting that there isn't enough, that we have to go until 2015 in order for all of these to be recognized.

So we have some special problems there and I think that anything that is done would hopefully be helpful to allay those concerns. The point is, you can't be a manager if you don't know what claims lie against you for rights-of-way. And for that matter, for many other issues that are in public lands, it is hard to manage them when you have got such outstanding problems that are being invented almost daily.

Another question that I raised is that of dealing with grazing. This is dealt with in a separate bill this year, but I hope you agree that Congress is going to legislate about grazing. We should do so in the authorizing committee, and I hope that we can work out the differences on that matter in an amiable way.

The bill I've introduced includes some new ideas. It doesn't include the two-tiered system that the President has spoken to or at least that Secretary Babbitt reports to me that the President is committed to.

Mr. BACA. Congressman, I think Secretary Babbitt's timetable on the grazing fees is probably August or September, to come up with his plan. There is a lot of work being done on it, even as we speak. People are meeting about it, and I feel that he has stated quite clearly that he wants to do this administratively.

Mr. VENTO. Can you relate at this time of any interest in the national conservation area designations that Congress has done for BLM in the legislation that we have before you? The bill would call for the BLM to come up with some specific commonalities between the existing national conservation areas and what the criteria might be for future reference if indeed Congress decides to des

Do you have any views with regards to the NCAs that you can share with me today, with the committee?

Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I don't have a list of criteria. I just know that there is probably going to have to be one. That is one of the things I think we would like to come back and talk to you about.

I think if we don't have a list of criteria for what an NCA is, then it is going to get to be a very sloppy process and it is going to involve a lot of staff time at BLM trying to manage areas that maybe were put into the designation that shouldn't have been, or maybe there are some areas out there that should be that weren't put in. So our staff is working very hard on coming up with some sort of criteria for this and I will present it to you. I don't know if Mr. Penfold has anything.

Mr. PENFOLD. I don't have anything.

Mr. VENTO. He can join you if you wish. One of the issues that has blossomed into a significant discussion has been the Secretary's commitment to a biological survey. Could you respond to a question concerning it?

What do you see as the impact of the biological survey proposal on the Department or on the Bureau of Land Management in terms of your scientists and/or the utilization of information from such a database or expertise?

Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, the National Biological Survey, as it stands right now, is not affecting the BLM in a large way monetarily. I think it is around 6, $7 million with nine or ten FTEs. I think we fully support the idea of a National Biological Survey, just as we support ecosystems.

We can't do anything in a vacuum in BLM without knowing what the other agencies are doing and I think Secretary Babbitt's plan is that when you have a National Biological Survey, everybody is reading off the same menu on how we are going to manage things. And so I don't think it is a hindrance. Even if it were a bigger budget implication for BLM, I don't think it would be a hindrance for us. I think it is something that has to be done.

Mr. VENTO. You know, Director Baca, maybe it is just recently, maybe it is just because of the talent that was involved in writing the Organic Act, but the BLM has on paper, I think, one of the best land management schemes and concepts, in fact, of any of the land management agencies, including the Park Service.

I just think that on paper, when you look at it, it works very well. In fact I think it is evident, too, in some of the wilderness management objectives and plans that have been put in place.

I think in some of the documents that BLM has they put forth in terms of resources, whether it is fisheries, wildlife, other types of habitats, but the thing that concerns me about it is that often there aren't the personnel on the ground.

When you look at an area like the California desert, you realize the small number of BLM personnel that are present there, it really means that the gap between what is written in law and administrative procedures becomes even greater in terms of not being able to execute or carry out that particular mission. At least that is the impression I get after having observed it in detail for many years.