Alaska Region's Operating Costs

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning. We will call to order the meeting of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, relative to an oversight hearing on the Tongass National Forest.

We have votes starting at 10 o'clock, so we will have to play this as best we can, recognizing that there may be two votes as well. But anyway, it is pretty hard to second-guess this place.

I want to welcome you this morning. This is the fourteenth oversight hearing on the management of the Tongass and it is not going to be the last. I guess we are keeping score somewhat to respond to the concerns that, whatever we legislate, it has adequate oversight. By any measure, our oversight of the Tongass has been quite extensive, to say the least.

Last year, as part of our hearings on the development and implementation of the final TLMP, we reviewed the Forest Service's plans, the organization, the structure, the budget requirements for administering the programs in the Alaska Region in implementing the final TLMP. During that oversight we discovered-and I emphasize, discovered-regional budget trends that were unsettling, to say the least.

Specifically, we discovered that the percentage of Alaska Region expenditures consumed by either the regional office budget or an account labeled "Centralized Field Costs" had increased dramatically between fiscal year 1993 and 1997. This raised real questions about whether field units were adequately funded to assure effective implementation of the Tongass Land Management Plan. So that is one question, whether field units were adequately funded to assure effective implementation. I contend by the performance of the Forest Service so far that they were not. So I hope you will enlighten me to the contrary.

Consequently, the fiscal year 1998 appropriations bill restricted expenditures for regional office operations and Centralized Field Costs to $17.5 million-that was about the 1993 level-unless Con

gress is given 60 day notice prior. Simultaneously, we asked the General Accounting Office to review:

One, the region's allocation of funds for fiscal year 1993 through 1997, and estimated allocations for fiscal year 1998, and the nature, the purpose, and allocation of Centralized Field Costs;

Further, the rationale for and distribution of regional reserve funds and whether the appropriations for the National Forest Service System and for Forest Service rangeland research station were used appropriately-I want to emphasize, appropriately, because if they were not used appropriately then the connotation is they were used inappropriately to pay for work performed by the Pacific Northwest Research Station and to revise the TLMP plan and for post-plan studies.

Well, today we will receive the results of the GAO's audit and, after reviewing the audit, we will express our concerns as noted by our questions. First, I note with considerable interest the GAO's findings concerning the increase in Centralized Field Costs from fiscal year 1993 through 1997. GAO notes that the field officials cited both advantages and disadvantages with growth of the Centralized Field Costs account.

Field officials stated that the major disadvantage of using Centralized Field Costs was that those costs were selected and funded before the field units had received their regular program budget allocations. GAO also noted, however, that the officials interviewed could not-and I emphasize, could not-identify examples of additional work that they would have performed at the field level had moneys not been withheld from their budgets. So expect some questions on that.

At the same time, GAO spoke only to the forest supervisors. These four individuals were all part of the leadership team that identified the Centralized Field Costs in the first place. Thus it would have been useful had the GAO expanded its inquiry to talk to individuals at the ranger district level to verify whether or not there were specific activities that could have occurred had the funding been provided. So you can probably anticipate a question in that area.

This is an area which may warrant additional inquiry. I am struck by the fact that just this past Friday the Forest Service announced that it will fall woefully short, woefully short, of the timber sales level promised in the fiscal year 1998 budget proposal. One must wonder whether this shortfall is not the result of the region holding onto funds too late into the fiscal year to allow the field units to do their job. So expect a question on that.

Second, I am concerned with the Forest Service's response to the fiscal year 1998 appropriations direction to reduce the Centralized Field Costs account. It appears that the agency simply—and I underline, "simply"-transferred money to reserve accounts; it did not provide this money to the field units.

Additionally, I am somewhat dumbfounded by GAO's finding that the Forest Service decided to reduce the timber allocation to the Alaska Region by 3.9 million in January of this year. We were never apprised of this decision. I view it as bad faith on the part of the agency, given the commitments that were made regarding a substantial and ongoing timber sale program.

Finally and most egregiously, the rationale for the funding_split for the work for the research scientists on the Tongass Land Management Plan was not and has not to this day been documented. GAO asked the regional research station officials to justify the charges to the National Forest Service and the forest research appropriations for the work of the research scientists. They asked for their criteria used to make this determination. According to GAO: "These officials said that such a determination was not made and that they could not provide information on the types of tasks performed by the scientists with the National Forest Service funds. They also could not provide any criteria, such as agency guidance or procedures, that were available in 1995 to make such a determination."

The GAO report concludes: "When the research station scientists requested National Forest Service funds for work on the Tongass Land Management Plan, the Alaska Region provided the funds requested, but it did not determine that the activities funded were a proper charge to the appropriation."

Well, the legitimate question is why. Where was the Chief? Did he approve?

We are going to find out who individually bears this responsibility. We are not going to buy off on the premise that it was done by the agency. We are going to hold somebody accountable.

Even worse, the Department of Agriculture's Office of Inspector General concluded in 1995 that the Forest Service did not have adequate procedures for reviewing internal projects referred to the research stations. According to the Inspector General's report, this situation resulted in the unauthorized augmentation of the Forest Service's forest and rangeland research appropriation.

On August 28, 1997, the Forest Service issued an interim directive to its Appropriation Use Handbook that provides direction on jointly funded projects. However, notwithstanding both the OIG report and the 1997 Forest Service handbook revisions, the lack of documentation, according to the GAO testimony, continues today. I want to emphasize that this is an extremely serious, serious problem. The use of one appropriation to accomplish the purposes of another is an improper procedure. Who bears the responsibility? That is the purpose of this hearing.

But this problem, including its continuation to this day, is not necessarily surprising. Today will be the third time this year that the General Accounting Office and the Office of Inspector General have testified before Congress about accountability with the Forest Service. Unfortunately, due to the agency's lack of response, Congress is forced to respond.

Just last week the House of Representatives passed a provision introduced by Congressman George Miller prohibiting the use of Knutson-Vandenburg Restoration Trust Funds to cover the Forest Service overhead expenses. This amendment is the result of yet another GAO audit that described an alarming increase in the use of Knutson-Vandenburg Trust Funds, as well as four other trust funds, to cover Forest Service overhead expense.

This could be one of the few times in legislative history that I may agree with George Miller. Unless we can get some greater degree of accountability, I am inclined to recommend to our Appro

« Înapoi Continuă »

Cărți

Alaska Region's Operating Costs: Hearing Before the Committee on ..., Volumul 4