I know that we have asked for a $13 million increase in the marine transportation area to deal more specifically with this issue that you are talking about in terms of updating our mapping.

I also know that we have got $20 million in the budget to work with private contractors to get them to facilitate this problem that we have, or issue that we have, in terms of getting these maps updated and current.

In terms of working with long-term contractors, I am not familiar with that at all but I will sure take a hard look at it.

I know this is an interest and should be a great interest of yours, because it is important to many of your constituents, which I clearly understand having spent a fair amount of my time on the Gulf Coast and in the waters down there.

So what I would like to do is just to make sure that our staff is talking to your staff and you are comfortable with the plan that we have in place to get the maps current and updated.

I have not heard the percentages that you have mentioned in terms of, we are only doing 1.3 percent and it is going to take a long time to get it all done. If we are talking years and years to get this accomplished that is something that I would like to know about.

So I am not familiar with that, either. But, let's say that I read your concerns loud and clear. They are ours.

I know that our staff and team is focused on it.

We tried to provide some additional funding, including the $13 million increase in the budget to focus on this specific issue, this specific concern. And so is that enough money to get the job done in an adequate way? I am not sure.

But what I think we ought to do is have our team talking to your staff, and I want to see that you are comfortable with that, and, if you are not, I want to know why.

Mr. VITTER. We will certainly follow up with your office.

But just to briefly reiterate, the dollar figure is one thing. And in the perfect world, you know, my dollar figure would be more and I would take it from other parts of the budget, and even have the same overall budget number.

And maybe we can try to do some of that through this Subcommittee. But apart from the dollar figure, I think there is a separate issue of how we spend the money.

I honestly think, as in all parts of the federal government, that there is a lot of fiefdom protection and there are very innovative ways to spend the money more effectively that the bureaucracy is tilted against.

Secretary EVANS. Yes.

Mr. VITTER. And private contractor surveys is one of those ways you do some of that. I think we do not do enough of that.

Secretary EVANS. Yes.

Mr. VITTER. And an even more cutting-edge idea, which I do not think you do any of that I think we really need to look at, is this long-term time-charter, where you do not just build government ships and have to maintain a fleet and that is complicated, and that is costly.

Secretary EVANS. Right.

Mr. VITTER. A contractor builds, owns, operates the ship

Secretary EVANS. Right.

Mr. VITTER [continuing]. And does your mission with a mixture of your personnel and other folks, whatever is appropriate.

And in other areas, including scientific research, that has proved extremely efficient compared to the old model of the government having to own the fleet, and I really encourage you to look at that new business model, and we will follow up

Secretary EVANS. Good.

Mr. VITTER [continuing]. At the staff level.

APPOINTMENT OF NOAA ADMINISTRATOR

This is a final question related to NOAA also. I believe the NOAA Administrator has not been appointed yet. Is that right? Secretary EVANS. That is correct.

Mr. VITTER. Okay. I know in the past those folks have tended to come from academic and research backgrounds.

In my opinion, that has created somewhat of a bias toward research work versus the day-in/day-out sort of nautical charting I am talking about.

Secretary EVANS. Yes.

Mr. VITTER. I want to suggest to you that that is an inappropriate bias; that, as boring as the nautical charting may be, it is awfully important to the maritime industry.

We are way behind the curve in our current pace, as I laid out to you. And I think you can ask your staff and they will verify that the figures are slow to even chart the critical areas, which is less than two percent of all the areas to be charted.

So I hope as a NOAA Administrator is appointed, and as that person comes on board, more focus can be given to this boring but necessary mission of NOAA that is absolutely crucial to coastal areas and the maritime industry.

Secretary EVANS. Thank you, Congressman.

The only other comment I think I would like to make is that I think this is an area that requires a lot more attention, maybe, than it has been given in the past.

I am heartened that there is the Ocean Policy Commission that the President will soon announce that will report to the President in the fall of 2002 and really bring some focus as to the oceans and the issues related to the oceans, including the issues that you have raised here this morning.

So, anyway, I take your thoughts very seriously. I will make sure that we follow up, and we will have another discussion about this in the not-too-distant future.

Mr. VITTER. Thank you.

Secretary EVANS. Thank you.

Mr. WOLF. Ms. Roybal-Allard.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just by way of comment on the side, I was very pleased, Mr. Secretary, to hear your recognition of the importance of small business and minority and women-owned businesses in this country.

Perhaps you can use your influence to dissuade the Administration's proposal of a 43-percent cut to the Small Business Administration and also some of the fees that they are proposing to charge for some of the services that the SBA now is offering.

TECHNOLOGY OPPORTUNITIES PROGRAM (TOPS)

By way of clarification, I would like to go back to the question that was asked by Mr. Serrano with regards to the TOP Program, because I too was very concerned by the severe cuts to this program, especially in light of the fact that many community-based public and nonprofit organizations who serve underserved communities are going to be impacted.

Was it my understanding that the reason that you have proposed these cuts is because through your research you see that there is going to be no impact in terms of these community-based organizations to meet, or to close that Digital Divide? That it is going to be filled?

Secretary EVANS. No, ma'am. I do not believe I said that. I hope I did not. If I did, I misspoke.

Again, going through the budgeting process, it is priorities. And as I said at the outset, I think there is nothing more important than focusing on the core mission of our agencies and of our bu

reaus.

You know, when I look at all of the needs of Commerce and I consider the resources that we have available to take care of those needs, you have to make some tough choices along the way.

When I looked at TOP, obviously I was looking at this back several months ago, I saw a program that had been funded at a level of about $15 million a year. And then in one year it was increased by three times and it was moved to $45 million.

I thought it was appropriate to roll that program back, reduce it back to where it had been funded in 2000, take a hard look at it, see what kind of performance we had, see what kind of results we had.

I know there are lots of other programs throughout government that are dealing with digital empowerment, digital opportunity, Digital Divide, however you want to describe it. I mean, you can take the E-Rate program, and that raises $2.4 billion a year.

And then you take a program that is in HUD that is another $60 million program.

So I think it is just important to make sure the results are there, the performance is there. I often have trouble when I see programs triple in one year. I am not sure you can manage that kind of growth in one year effectively.

So, I felt like let's take a good, hard look at it this year, see what the performance has been, see what the results are, and then again just look at it against all the priorities that we have at Commerce.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. I guess the concern is, if I am understanding you correctly, is that there may in fact be a need there but the cuts are being made without fully understanding whether or not there is the need.

And so you make the cut. You find that there is a need, but in the meantime these organizations and nonprofits and communitybased organizations are going to be obviously disadvantaged if the resources are not there for them in order to catch up.

Am I understanding you correctly that a decision was made

Secretary EVANS. Well, I think maybe it is a slightly larger picture. I think that what I am trying to say to you is that we have lots of very, very important needs in this country.

One of the most important needs is making sure every child can read. As you have heard the President mention many times, we do not want to leave any child behind in this country. It starts with making sure every child can read and funding that at a level and taking the steps there that you need to take to make sure every child can read.

So you go through the needs of this country and the priorities in this country, and then you look at the resources that you have to fund those priorities.

As I look through the Department of Commerce and try to weigh the funds we had available in the Department of Commerce, as well as the needs that we had, and trying to prioritize those needs, I felt like it was appropriate to consider again reducing the program to its 2000 level. I have looked at some of the larger programs we have in government like the E-Rate Program which is raising $2.4 billion a year.

I mean, it would dwarf, obviously, a TOP Program. HUD has got the Community Technology Center, which is doing the same type of thing, trying to get technology out into the communities across America.

And then, yes, in Commerce, we had this TOP Program. So I said let's take it back to the approximate level it had been funded for four or five years in a row and look at it diligently and thoroughly and see what kind of results we are receiving from this, and then make a determination in 2003 whether or not we ought to consider increasing it then.

So, Congresswoman, it is just a matter of, the tough choices that you have to make.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. I understand that. And when you have tough choices, there are winners and losers.

My concern is that among the losers may be these communitybased organizations and nonprofits that are going to be put at even a greater disadvantage than they have been in the past.

Secretary EVANS. Excuse me, if I might say, the other point I would try to make, too, is that I want to make sure we are doing everything we can in engaging the private sector in this.

Now there was some effort, and I have not looked at it in great detail yet, but there was effort for these grants to be matching grants, that the private sector should be playing a very, very large role in this.

It is in their interest to play a large role in this, not only because it is the right thing to do from a corporate-responsibility standpoint, but it is the right thing to do to make sure that this society is going to have the kind of workforce that it needs in the years ahead to run these companies and to work in these companies.

So, as I look at it again that will be a big focus of mine to make sure that the private sector is very engaged in this program and I am not sure that had been done adequately, but I am going to look at that hard.

PUBLIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES FUNDING

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Yesterday I met with the Chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

We discussed the fact that many of the small public broadcasting stations are very concerned about their ability to meet the 2003 deadline for converting to digital.

One of the things that I was pleased about was that you have at least provided, essentially, sustained funding for the public telecommunications facilities program.

Could you tell me what your estimate is of the total needs to convert these stations to digital and where will these additional funds come from?

Secretary EVANS. Well I do not know what the total needs are. I know we are way behind schedule. I know that in 2000 the requests were for $98 million in funding and we received $14 million. I know that in 2001 again the requests were some $93 million and I think we had some $30 million to spend.

In the budget this year we are requesting $43.5 million, I believe. And so just in terms of funding this will be the largest funding request for this ongoing conversion, but the total number I am not sure of.

Barbara, do you know the number?

Ms. RETZLAFF. No.

Secretary EVANS. I do not know the total number that is really left to make this full conversion. I know that we are behind schedule by a significant amount but I also know that the requests were significantly underfunded in the year 2000 and again in the year 2001.

So, if the money is not there to make the conversion, then it is not going to happen.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. So are you anticipating, then, that the deadlines will not be met?

Secretary EVANS. I am anticipating that the deadlines will not be

met.

I think that is what I am anticipating. I do not even know exactly what the deadline is-2003.

So, I do not see how we can meet it with the funding that has been provided over the past couple of years.

Then, again, we have asked for a pretty substantial increase, but I think it is going to be very difficult to meet the deadline.

[The following clarifying statement was subsequently submitted:] The Office of Management and Budget has estimated that over $700 million is needed for the nation's approximately 350 public television stations to meet the FCC's minimum digital broadcast requirements. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting has estimated the total need at $1.8 billion. This estimate includes the transition of radio to digital broadcasting and operating and production costs.

The amount requested in the President's 2002 Budget is equal to the largest appropriations the program has received, which was $43.5 million for this fiscal year, prior to a rescission of $96,000. The 2002 request holds this figure steady. For 2001, the President's Budget requested $110 million dollars for public broadcasting's digital conversion.

Congress appropriated $26.5 million for the PTFP in 2000. The program received applications for $98 million for digital conversion. NTIA could only award $14.4 million of those requests. The remainder of the funds were awarded for equipment replacement projects and for distance learning and public telecommunications services for the disabled.