Objectives: This activity will provide support for the work of the Endangered Species Committee to include:

All logistical and administrative support for the operations of the
Committee and any related review boards.

Preparation of all reports for the Committee and any review boards.

Base Program: The 1978 amendments to the Endangered Species Act establish a process for consideration of exemptions to the Act. Exemption applications are considered by a review board before applications are acted upon by the Endangered Species Committee. Staff support for the Committee, and any review boards established to consider project exemption applications, will be provided by a small staff detailed to the Office of the Secretary. These costs will be reimbursed to the lending agency/office. Contracting resources will be used to draw on expertise in a rapid fashion to address particular exemption applications pending before the Endangered Species Committee.

Increase for FY 1979:

Members of the Committee and review board will be reimbursed for travel and transportation while attending meetings or reviewing sites for exemption. Any person appointed to the review board who is not a federal employee is authorized to receive an amount not to exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay in effect for a GS 18 for each day which they were engaged in the performance of duties of the Board.

Committee decisions have been made on the Tellico and Grayrocks Dam and Reservoir Projects. An additional application for exemption has been received for the Pittston Marine Terminal and Refinery, in Eastport, Maine. It is estimated that at least two more applications will be filed this fiscal year.

It will take approximately nine months to prepare and review a report prior to a decision by the Committee.

Estimated costs for the remainder of FY 1979 are $200,000 detailed as follows.

Salary costs include Administrative Law Judge, technical expertise and other support personnel detailed to work on the project.

NEW PROGRAMS

Senator STEVENS. Funding for the Secretary's office comes to about $1 million above the 1979 level and yet nearly all the other offices and agencies of the Department have been cut back. Could you tell us why the Secretary's office shouldn't have the same funding cutback that the rest of the agencies have received?

Mr. MEIEROTTO. Mr. Chairman, we feel that it is necessary for the departmental direction to have this increase. The items that we are seeking to increase are items that we feel would be helpful from the departmental standpoint. Without these increases, I think the bureaus as well as the Office of the Secretary will be hurt. For example, in the procurement policy area, the increase we have asked for there is to assist in establishing departmental regulation and in the review of new regulations that come out and to provide departmentwide support. The Endangered Species Review Committee is an increase that would have shown up had we placed it anywhere in the budget. It's a requirement that was passed by Congress.

Senator STEVENS. That's the only really new program initiative you have in your portion of this budget, isn't it?

Mr. MEIEROTTO. That, in addition to the Federal procurement policy review functions, and also the increase in the data base and computer information capability.

Senator STEVENS. But none of those are new.

Mr. MEIEROTTO. I think the functions that we're trying to do there represent an increase from what we have had before. For example, in data processing, the picture is changing considerably from hardware procurement to the software procurement area. What we are supplying in terms of data assistance which was at one time about 60 percent hardware procurements in the Department, has gone down to about 40 percent. The picture is changing considerably in the data processing procurement area so we are doing that within an existing function but it is a new requirement that's come upon us.

INDIAN AFFAIRS

Senator STEVENS. I notice, Secretary Gerard, your staff is being increased to 53 positions in the Assistant Secretary's Office. Don't these duplicate positions in the Bureau?

Mr. GERARD. Mr. Chairman, we don't view that as a duplication. If I might just provide the committee with a little perspective, when the Assistant Secretary's position was created by Secretary Andrus to oversee Indian Affairs and I was appointed to that post, in reality for about 1 year I served in a dual capacity as both Assistant Secretary and Commissioner.

We recommended to the Secretary that a more effective operation could be conducted by separating out the Assistant Secretary from the day-to-day management of the Bureau and fill the Commissioner's post. What the transfer represents is a number of positions that were formerly assigned to the old Commissioner's office. We identified those and transferred them up to the Office of the Secretary.

In addition, we propose that two new staff offices be created to give the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs some additional capacity and forward planning as well as management oversight. This will involve about 27 positions in my immediate office. Those are mostly categorical specialists who assist me on policy as well as internal and external demands. For the Office of Planning and Evaluation, we have allocated nine positions, and for the Office of Management Oversight we have allocated seven positions.

In addition, we show under our management improvement program 10 additional positions and I would underscore that we view those 10 as transitional. The purpose of this unit is to oversee a range of management improvement activities that we have currently ongoing, such as the updating of our automated data processing. We are undertaking extensive review of our central area and field operations, looking towards some very major changes. We envision that those 10 positions would remain in existence for a period of 18 months to 3 years while the management improvement is moving forward and that function would then ultimately be picked up by the management oversight office.

POSITION TRANSFERS

Senator STEVENS. Well, now let me see. We show 52 positions that are transferred.

Mr. GERARD. There's a total of 53, including my position which was already in existence.

Senator STEVENS. And they were transferred from the Bureau? Mr. GERARD. That's correct.

Senator STEVENS. From the Commissioner's Office or from throughout the Bureau?

Mr. GERARD. From throughout the Bureau.

Senator STEVENS. Will you give us a new organizational chart so that we can see how this has come about including the names of those positions which are filled, please?

Mr. GERARD. We will be glad to provide that for the record. [The information follows:]