recently eliminated in the Music Program where there was some concern that high quality orchestras with smaller budgets were being arbitrarily excluded from grant consideration. The Endowment responds to the applications it receives and Panels and the National Council on the Arts make grant recommendations based on quality. A large percentage of the Endowment's grant applications do come from major cities in large states where there is a concentration of cultural institutions of repute. But nothing in the Endowment's guidelines or procedures limits the access of high quality groups, whether they be in big cities or smaller communities, to Endowment funding, nor is access in any way limited for smaller communities wishing to apply in those few categories where funding to communities (rather than groups) is appropriate. - One Endowment program Expansion Arts was specifically designed, in part, to encourage arts activity in small communities and rural areas, and the program makes a special effort to find panelists from these areas. Panelists to the Arts Exposure category of the Expansion Arts Program at their most recent meeting decided to give priority to all applications from rural states and smaller communities. Mention should also be made of a special effort to reach and encourage small groups of high quality. A concern for these groups was expressed in the Congress two years ago, and the Endowment has since made a coordinated effort with the states to reach these groups that previously had not enjoyed Endowment support or support from their State Arts Agencies. QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR TED STEVENS Federal-State Partnership Question: You mention in your statement that you will be allocating additional funds in Fiscal Year 1980 for the Federal-State Partnership Program beyond the minimum requirement of 20 percent. Could you be more specific and give us some idea about how much additional funding you anticipate? What is your current estimate for additional expenditures beyond the 20 percent for Fiscal Year 1979? (Last year he estimated $1.8 million.) Answer: By law, we are required to provide 20 percent of our Definite/Program Fund appropriation to the State Arts Agency. With our Fiscal Year 1979 appropriation of $102,160,000 in Definite/Program Funds, we were required to provide a minimum of $20,432,000. However, the Arts Endowment made available $22,721,000 to the states; or $2,289,000 above the required 20 percent. With our request for Fiscal Year 1980, we would be required to provide 20 percent of $97,000,000 to the states; or $19,400,000. However, the Arts Endowment is requesting that $23,000,000 go to the states; or $3,600,000 above the required 20 percent. Question: What was the money used for? Could you provide for the record a detailed breakdown of the allocation of that money? (The total amount is $792,000). How much of that money has been obligated to date? Answer: The initial Fiscal Year 1979 figure of $23,513,000 included support for activities now supported within the Intergovernmental Office; the Regional Representatives (at approximately $646,000); and the Community Task Force (at approximately $146,000). With the establishment of an Intergovernmental Office in Fiscal Year 1979, approximately $792,000 was transferred from the Federal-State Program to the Intergovernmental Office. Thus, the estimated obligation level of $22,721,000 for Federal-State in Fiscal Year 1979. The requested Fiscal Year 1980 level for Federal-State, $23,000,000 does not include support for the Regional Representatives. Therefore, what appears to be a decrease when comparing last year's Fiscal Year 1979 request to the present Fiscal Year 1980 request, is in reality a $279,000 increase. To date, all of the $792,000 has been obligated. Intergovernmental Program Question: What is the nature of the so-called "Intergovernmental" program which appears to be new for this year? Answer: The new Intergovernmental office acts merely as an umbrella for a variety of activities which deal with and affect the relationship between and among Federal, state and local governments. In Fiscal Year 1979, support for the Regional Representatives comprised the bulk of the funds allocated to the Intergovernmental office. This will also be true of the Fiscal Year 1980 request. It should be noted that the activities housed within the Intergovernmental office are not new initiatives. Regional Activities Question: I also notice you are increasing your regional activities. Please elaborate on plans in this area. Is this effort related to the "basic regional operating grants" you mention on page 20 of your justifications for this year? You indicate you have new guidelines for allocating additional funds in the Federal-State area. Would you please provide a copy of those guidelines for the record? Answer: The Arts Endowment, in Fiscal Year 1980, will be providing the same level of support for regional activities as it did in Fiscal Year 1979. However, it is the method of distribution, referred to on page 20, which differs. The new method gives the states a greater decision-making role with respect to where and how funds designated for regional activities should be obligated. Attached is a draft copy of the Federal-State Program's Fiscal Year 1980 Guidelines, which includes a discussion on the regional activities. However, please note that neither the Federal-State Panel nor the National Council on the Arts have approved in final the new guidelines. Question: Are these guidelines the criteria that will be used to provide the states with additional money based on need and the quality of the application, which you mention in your statement of page 5? Answer: Yes. These are the guidelines that will be used to provide the states with additional money based on need and the quality of the application. (Staff Note: The draft guidelines were adopted for the record by reference.) SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS Senator HATFIELD. I am sorry that we have this vote going at this time, but we will recess this session of the subcommittee until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. Thank you very much. [Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., Tuesday, March 13, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, March 14.] The subcommittee met at 10:05 a.m., in room 1224, Everett McKinley Dirksen Office Building, Hon. Mark O. Hatfield presiding. Present: Senators Hatfield, McClure, and Stevens. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE STATEMENTS OF: M. RUPERT CUTLER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR CONSERVATION, RESEARCH, AND EDUCATION JOHN R. MCGUIRE, CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE ACCOMPANIED BY: DOUGLAS R. LEISZ, ASSOCIATE CHIEF R. MAX PETERSON, DEPUTY CHIEF, PROGRAMS AND LEGISLATION ROBERT E. BUCKMAN, DEPUTY CHIEF, FOREST RESEARCH THOMAS C. NELSON, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM PHILIP L. THORNTON, DEPUTY CHIEF, STATE AND PRIVATE FORESTRY JEROME A. MILES, DEPUTY CHIEF, ADMINISTRATION WILLIAM A. CAMPBELL, STAFF DIRECTOR, PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND BUDGET LAWRENCE WACHS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR PROGRAM REVIEW PONDEROSA PINE SEEDLINGS Senator HATFIELD. The committee will come to order. First, we would like to take note of the seedling ponderosa pine which has been made available this morning by Senator McClure of Idaho as part of the visual aids for this committee hearing. Senator MCCLURE. This is show and tell. Senator STEVENS. Will that grow in Washington, Senator? Senator MCCLURE. In a dry, sunny site it will. Senator STEVENS. Slope or side? Senator MCCLURE. Slope is fine, if it is dry. Senator HATFIELD. I am sorry you have a tag on it, Senator, because I have commented on occasion that, in my opinion, the Secretaries of Agriculture, since Orville Freeman's days, didn't know the difference between a ponderosa pine and a sequoia. [Laughter.] I would like to have tested Dr. Cutler to see if he could identify this. [Laughter.] PREPARED STATEMENTS Today has been scheduled for hearings of the fiscal 1980 budget estimates of the U.S. Forest Service. These estimates total $1.2 billion, which is a reduction of $188 million from appropriations to date for fiscal 1979. If we include supplemental pay cost which permit a more realistic comparison, we see that the 1980 request is down more than $266 million. This year there are also certain changes in the budget structure of the Forest Service, particularly in the consolidation of the roads and facilities construction accounts. These changes are detailed in the justifications which have been printed in the hearing record. Secretary Cutler and Chief McGuire, we welcome you back before the committee. We have your prepared statements and they will be printed in full in the record. If you would be good enough to introduce your associates, you may proceed to highlight your statements for the committee at this time. I am hopeful that you will take this approach so that we can get into the questions as soon as possible. I just might further observe that the Forest Service budget is, indeed, an austere one. We must look at it in terms of not only the dollars but certainly its impact upon the programs within the Forest Service. We will ask you now to proceed as you will. [The statements follow:] STATEMENT OF M. R. CUTLER Thank you for the opportunity of appearing before you today to discuss the budget of the Forest Service, how it was developed, and how it fits into the Administration's overall policy on natural resources. The Secretary and the Department's top policy staff spent literally hundreds of hours developing the budget recommendations for fiscal year 1980. It was an especially difficult job. The President's basic decision to develop a lean and austere budget was made early enough so that he could rely on the Department and Agencies to make the difficult choices that had to be made if a budget was to be brought in within his overall targets. For Agriculture, we developed a budget for our discretionary programs that was actually less than our fiscal year 1979 Budget. No exceptions to this overall target were made for the Forest Service. So this is the basic setting in which we were operating when we developed our budget estimates for fiscal year 1980. The Chief of the Forest Service, Mr. McGuire, will discuss the specifics of the Forest Service estimates. I would like to make some general comments and discuss some of the more important choices that we have made. In the National Forest System our requests for minerals management, wildlife management, protection of endangered species and management of wilderness are all up from fiscal year 1979. Given the tight budget constraints, we have emphasized a reasonable balance of programs among all the National Forest System resources. The proposal for timber sale offerings calls for a program of 11.7 billion board feet. This is the maximum volume of National Forest System timber that, in our judgment, can be sold in an economically and environmentally acceptable manner. We realize that this is a reduction from the program proposed for current years, and we considered the opportunities that are available to carry out a higher program in fiscal year 1980. The forests in the Pacific Northwest and in other areas where timber can be managed most efficiently are programed at maximum levels. Opportunities for additional sales fall into two classes. There are those where at present prices and costs the returns for timber management, in terms of expected sales proceeds and other benefits, are simply not sufficient to justify the expenditure of funds for sales administration, roading, stand reestablishment, and other things needed to prepare and administer a timber sale. There are also areas that, if roaded, would be attractive to manage for timber. In these areas the question of building access roads and preparing timber sales is an investment decision that should be considered in terms of costs and returns for managing the accessed area over a period of time longer than a single year. Because we have taken a relatively conservative approach to investment decisions in general in the proposals in this budget, we are recommending that road building for access to timber stands be programed in a carefully selected way, confined to those cases where we expect the long-run returns for timber management to be most attractive. We are proposing funding for reforestation of 187,000 acres, and for timber stand improvement on 179,000 acres. This is in addition to the reforestation and timber stand improvement which is needed after timber is harvested, and which is financed with funds received from timber purchasers. Reforestation and timber stand improvement are capital investment. Judgments on annual funding levels for these programs 60-400 0 80 21 |