39–010 

Calendar No. 26 

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 1st Session 109–15 

SALT CEDAR AND RUSSIAN OLIVE CONTROL 

DEMONSTRATION ACT 

MARCH 7, 2005.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. DOMENICI, from the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 177] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was 

referred the bill (S. 177) to further the purposes of the Reclamation 

Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 by directing the 

Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation, to carry out an assessment and demonstration program 

to control salt cedar and Russian olive, and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE MEASURE

The purpose of S. 177 is to direct the Secretary of the Interior, 

through the Commissioner of Reclamation and in cooperation with 

the Secretaries of Agriculture and Defense, to assess the degree of 

infestation of salt cedar (Tamarix spp) and Russian olive (Eleagnus 

angustifolia), to document long-term management and funding 

strategies for addressing the infestation, to develop demonstration 

projects for effective management and control of salt cedar and 

Russian olive, and to analyze economical methods to use or dispose 

of the biomass resulting from their removal. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED

Salt cedar and Russian olive are non-indigenous species that 

have aggressively invaded a significant portion of the American 

West. These species have caused dramatic changes in the composiVerDate Aug 04 2004 13:55 Mar 08, 2005 Jkt 039010 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR015.XXX SR015
2 

tion and function of the natural communities they invade, most 

particularly the important riparian ecosystems of this arid region. 

These changes can adversely influence water flows, fire regimes, 

and sensitive species. For example, there is particular interest in 

documenting whether any particular management strategies result 

in accessible water savings. 

There is no current national assessment of either management 

approaches and assessments of the extent of infestation are incomplete. While there are several existing salt cedar and Russian olive 

control programs—including programs managed by or funded 

through the Bureau of Reclamation—the focus of these programs is 

to remove or kill salt cedar, with relatively little attention given to 

long-term management strategies including re-vegetation and their 

potential impacts on water, soils, wildfire activity, and wildlife. 

Large-scale demonstration projects that test different control mechanisms and measure the effectiveness and effects of these projects, 

as well as their cumulative costs, can be a key to formulating effective regional strategies to deal with the infestation. 

One important challenge to controlling the invasion of salt cedar 

and Russian olive has been dealing with the biomass of the vegetation that is removed. Finding economical means of using or disposing of this biomass is another key to formulating an effective regional strategy for dealing with the infestation. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

S. 177 was introduced on January 26, 2005, by Senator Domenici 

and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. 

Senators Allard, Baucus, Bennett, Bingaman and Ensign are cosponsors. No hearings were held on the measure. At the business 

meeting on February 9, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources ordered S. 177 favorably reported. 

During the 108th Congress, a similar measure, S. 1516, was introduced by Senator Domenici and Senator Campbell on July 31, 

2003, and referred to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources 

Committee. Senators Allard, Baucus, Bingaman and Burns were 

co-sponsors of the measure. The Subcommittee on Water and 

Power held a hearing on the bill on September 23, 2003. S. Hrg. 

108–211. At the business meeting on February 11, 2004, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources ordered S. 1516, as 

amended, favorably reported. S. Rept. 108–235. S. 1516 passed the 

Senate, with an amendment, by unanimous consent on May 19, 

2004. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND TABULATION OF VOTES

The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in 

open business session on February 9, 2005, by a unanimous vote 

of a quorum present, recommends that the Senate pass S. 177. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1 states the short title. 

Section 2 (a) directs the Secretary of the Interior to carry out a 

salt cedar and Russian olive assessment and demonstration program with three major components: an assessment of the extent of 

3 

infestation, the creation of demonstration projects, and an assessment of economic options for biomass disposal. 

Subsection (b) directs the Secretary to assess the extent of salt 

cedar and Russian olive infestation and lists the requirements for 

conducting the assessment. 

Subsection (c) directs the Secretary to identify and document 

long-term management and funding strategies to address the infestation, and directs the Secretary to provide grants to institutions 

of higher learning to support the development of these strategies. 

Subsection (d) provides for the establishment of a demonstration 

program where a minimum of 5 demonstration projects will be initiated and lists the requirements for the demonstration projects. 

Subsection (e) directs the Secretary to analyze economic methods 

for the use and disposal of biomass created as a result of removal 

of salt cedar and Russian olive, and lists the requirements of the 

analysis. 

Subsection (f) establishes cost limitations and formulas for carrying out the legislation. The infestation assessment is limited to 

$4,000,000; the identification and documentation of long-term management strategies is limited to $2,000,000; the demonstration 

projects are limited to $7,000,000 per project; and the biomass 

analysis is limited to $3,000,000. It establishes that the infestation 

assessment, identification and documentation of long-term management strategies, and biomass analysis, along with any portions of 

the demonstration projects carried out on Federal lands be fully 

funded with Federal appropriations; demonstration projects carried 

out on non-Federal lands are to receive no more than 75 percent 

Federal funding for the first five years, but may reach 100 percent 

Federal funding for the purposes of long-term monitoring in subsequent years. Non-Federal cost-share may take the form of in-kind 

contributions, including services. 

Subsection (g) requires the Secretary to cooperate with Federal 

agencies and others engaged in relevant research in carrying out 

the specific provisions of the legislation. 

Subsection (h) directs the Secretary to subject the infestation assessment, identification and documentation of long-term strategies, 

demonstration projects, and biomass analysis to independent review. 

Subsection (i) directs the Secretary to submit an annual report 

to Congress on the implementation of the legislation and to facilitate public access to the information resulting from carrying it out. 

Subsection (j) authorizes $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2006 and 

$15,000,000 per year thereafter. 

COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS

The following estimate of costs of this measure has been provided 

by the Congressional Budget Office: 

FEBRUARY 11, 2005. 

Hon. PETE V. DOMENICI, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 177, the Salt Cedar and 

Russian Olive Control Demonstration Act. 

4 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Julie Middleton. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN. 

Enclosure. 

S. 177—Salt Cedar and Russian Oliver Control Demonstration Act 

Summary: S. 177 would authorize the appropriation of $20 mil- lion for 2006 and $15 million for each subsequent fiscal year for a 

program to address the infestation of Salt Cedar and Russian Olive 

trees in the West. The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the 

Bureau of Reclamation, would provide grants to institutions of 

higher education to develop public policy expertise in long-term 

management strategies for these invasive species. In addition, the 

Secretary would fund at least five demonstration projects to assess 

methods for controlling Salt Cedar and Russian Olive trees. Finally, the Secretary would work with the Secretary of Agriculture 

to analyze methods of disposing of the biomass created as a result 

of the removal of these invasive species. 

Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO esti- mates that implementing S. 177 would cost $39 million over the 

2006–2010 period. Enacting S. 177 would not affect direct spending 

or revenues. S. 177 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 

mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of S. 177 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation falls within budget function 300 (natural resources and environment). 

By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars— 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Authorization Level ........................................................... 0 20 15 15 15 15 

Estimated Outlays ............................................................ 0 2 5 8 11 13 

For this estimate, CBO assumes that S. 177 will be enacted before the end of fiscal year 2005 and that the necessary amounts 

will be appropriated in each fiscal year, starting in 2006. Based on 

information from the Bureau of Reclamation and historical spending patterns for similar programs, CBO estimates that implementing this bill would cost $39 million over the 2006–2010 period. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 177 contains no 

intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA 

and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Julie Middleton; impact on 

State, local, and tribal governments: Marjorie Miller; Impact on the 

private sector: Selena Caldera. 

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

REGULATORY IMPACT EVALUATION

In compliance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee makes the following evaluation 

5 

of the regulatory impact which would be incurred in carrying out 

S. 177. The bill is not a regulatory measure in the sense of imposing Government-established standards or significant economic responsibilities on private individuals and businesses. Participation 

in the programs authorized by the bill by private individuals and 

businesses is strictly voluntary. 

No personal information would be collected in administering the 

program. Therefore, there would be no impact on personal privacy. 

Little, if any, additional paperwork would result from the enactment of S. 177, as ordered reported. 

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS

The testimony provided by the Department of the Interior during 

the Subcommittee hearing on S. 1516 in the 108th Congress follows: 

STATEMENT OF JIM TATE, SCIENCE ADVISOR TO SECRETARY OF THE

INTERIOR GALE NORTON

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Jim Tate, 

Science Advisor to Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton. I want to 

thank you for providing the Department of the Interior (Department) the opportunity to testify before you regarding these bills 

which seek to promote the control and management of the invasive 

species like salt cedar, or tamarisk, and Russian olive. The Department supports the goals of both S. 1236, the Tamarisk Control and 

Riparian Restoration Act, and S. 1516, the Salt Cedar Control 

Demonstration Act. As discussed below, the Department is currently working with our partners to develop an integrated approach 

to management of tamarisk, and we are committed to working with 

you to ensure that tamarisk control efforts are efficient and effective. We are also concerned about the cost of the proposed programs, and note that they would have to compete with existing programs for limited resources. 

Let me begin by providing you with some background on this 

issue, followed by brief comments on the legislation. 

BACKGROUND

In the late 19th century, importation of several species of the 

genus Tamarix, commonly called tamarisk, and Russian olive came 

just as the Department began efforts to mediate land speculation 

and work closely with western governors and Indian tribes during 

the settlement of the West. The scientific expeditions of John Wesley Powell (which carried out the Geographical and Geological Survey of the Rocky Mountain region in 1874) set in motion the stillevolving paradigm that wise development informed by science provides the best hope for conservation and future use of our Nation’s 

natural resources. 

The Department is one of the Nation’s principal conservation 

agencies, charged with protecting and providing access to our Nation’s natural and cultural heritage. Today, Departmental authorities provide for the management and protection of resources in an 

area of the West now increasingly under pressure as population 

densities mushroom and water resources are increasingly stressed. 

6 

This region of the country also has seen the greatest impact from 

the species addressed in this legislation. 

SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM

Russian olive is a hardy, fast-growing tree native to Europe and 

western Asia. It was introduced into the United States in the 19th 

century and was promoted as window and ornamental plantings. It 

grows along streams, in fields, and in open areas. It is shade-tolerant, and it grows well in a variety of soil and moisture conditions. 

While Russian olive is primarily found in the West, it also is 

present in the Eastern United States. 

Tamarisk comprises a suite of several species also imported to 

the United States in the 19th century for use as windbreaks and 

erosion control plantings. Several species of tamarisk and their hybrids now cover approximately 1.6 million acres of riparian lands 

within all the seventeen western states (as far north as Montana). 

The spread of tamarisk is often supported by its extreme flammability. It rapidly produces dense biomass and, absent flooding or 

heavy rains, causes deposits of salt on the soil sufficient to suppress native plant seed germination and seedling growth. 

Limited studies suggest that dense tamarisk stands can utilize 

more water on an annual basis than native cottonwood-willow 

plant communities. There can be more total surface area on the 

leaves of tamarisk plants than on cottonwood and native shrubs 

growing in a given area, and tamarisk continues to release water 

through the pores in its leaves during mid-day, whereas native cottonwoods shut this process down to conserve water. In addition, 

tamarisk growing in the streambed can also slow the water flow, 

allowing additional time for percolation of the water into the alluvium. Water released for irrigation purposes from an upstream reservoir may thus not get to its intended destination when tamarisk 

is blocking the channel. 

The growing abundance of tamarisk along western rivers has led 

resource managers to seek to control it in order to: (1) Increase the 

flow of water in streams that might otherwise be lost to 

evapotranspiration and percolation; (2) restore native vegetation 

along the banks and floodplains of rivers and shorelines of reservoirs or lakes; (3) reduce hazardous fuels; and (4) improve wildlife habitat. 

As you know, the Department, through the Bureau of Reclamation, has a significant role in the distribution of water throughout 

much of the West and Southwest. Because of its significant impact 

on water resources alone, the Department has a strong interest in 

the control of tamarisk as part of its management efforts. For this 

reason, much of the remainder of my statement will focus on control efforts for this species. 

CURRENT DEPARTMENTAL TAMARISK MANAGEMENT EFFORTS

Current Departmental programs and activities focus control and 

management efforts for tamarisk on areas with resources at risk. 

Some areas are so heavily infested that expert ‘strike’ teams have 

been used to remove the dense vegetation. For example, the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is in the process of establishing 

such ‘strike teams,’ modeled after the National Park Service’s 

(NPS) Exotic Plant Management Teams (EPMT), to combat 

7 

invasive species, including tamarisk, in the Southwest. Areas vital 

to wildlife resources are cleared using mechanical, chemical, and 

physical means. Comprehensive conservation plans are used to 

guide these efforts and to indicate the areas of highest priority for 

waterfowl, endangered species, or other wildlife habitat values. In 

some cases, resources potentially at risk from tamarisk incursion 

are spot-treated early enough to keep the plants away, thus avoiding costly control efforts. This early detection and rapid response 

model is receiving increased attention as a means of preventing the 

spread and establishment of tamarisk. 

PLACE–BASED RESEARCH AND TESTING

Departmental land management operations focus significant 

funding for tamarisk control on refuges, national parks and monuments, and along irrigation canals under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation. Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge 

has served as a demonstration laboratory for control and management of tamarisk, including research and development of innovative methods for restoring native riparian vegetation and working 

with nearby private landowners and Indian Tribes to implement 

them. Biomass removal, intermittent flooding, chemical treatments, 

and other mechanical methods have all been tested and measured 

for effectiveness and efficiency. Cooperating with researchers from 

nearby universities and other research institutions, such as the Los 

Alamos National Laboratory, scientists and land managers have 

also tested methods to reduce the likelihood of later re-infestation 

by tamarisk. 

Because of our role in the management of Western lands, we recognize the need for on the ground management of invasive species 

like tamarisk. However, we also recognize that there are areas 

where our control and restoration efforts will benefit from targeted 

research and development projects. More information is needed regarding the identification of areas or situations that would most 

likely respond to vegetative restoration projects once tamarisk removal has begun. Such information will also assist in the development of an integrated control and restoration plan—a ‘best practices’ plan that will provide land managers at all levels of government with options for removal, control, and restoration of lands infested with tamarisk. 

PROGRAMS TO PROMOTE PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

Various programs within the Department seek to promote partnerships with private landowners to address problem species like 

tamarisk. One initiative that addresses these issues is the cooperative conservation component of the challenge cost share programs 

in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), NPS and FWS. These 

programs emphasize building partnerships for the conservation of 

natural resources and provide expanded opportunities for land 

managers to work with landowners and others to form creative conservation partnerships. This initiative recognizes that nature 

knows no jurisdictional boundaries and that, through these partnerships, the Department’s land managers can work with landowners and other citizen stewards to tackle invasive species, reduce 

erosion along stream banks, or enhance habitat for threatened and 

endangered species. Among other things, in FY 2003 we have fundVerDate Aug 04 2004 13:55 Mar 08, 2005 Jkt 039010 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR015.XXX SR015
8 

ed through this initiative projects that are aimed at the eradication 

and control of tamarisk, Russian olive, and other invasive plants, 

and reclamation of impacted lands. 

Another program is the FWS’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife, 

which promotes private landowner cost-share projects for habitat 

restoration, including funds targeted for control of invasive plants 

and subsequent restoration. The Partners Program has worked 

with private landowners across the Nation to remove, burn, biologically control, and otherwise combat invasive plants on thousands of acres of wetlands and upland. Tamarisk control is a focus 

of technical and financial assistance in the Southwest. 

The control and management of tamarisk is part of the BLM’s 

Partners Against Weeds Strategy Plan, BLM’s Strategic Plan, and 

the National Fire Plan. The Partners Against Weeds program 

funds cooperative efforts with landowners to control invasive species. It also funds cooperative outreach and education projects with 

schools and local and county governments. In one important 

project, the BLM plans to work with several groups, including 

Clark County and the communities of Bunkerville and Mesquite in 

southern Nevada, to remove tamarisk along portions of the Virgin 

River floodplain. As I noted above, because of its properties, 

tamarisk poses a potential fire risk to homes, ranches, farms, and 

recreational facilities in the wildland-urban interface. 

This project involves mechanical removal of tamarisk in the 

project area. The goal of the project is to move away from the 

tamarisk-fueled, high intensity fires that are now typical of the 

area concerned and to restore native vegetation, such as the relatively inflammable grasses, sedges, shrub communities, cottonwoods, and willows: Current planning calls for 95 acres of treatment in FY 2004, with an additional 100 acres per year during the 

following 7–8 years. 

The NPS, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the Bureau of Reclamation partner with the Agriculture Research Service and the 

U.S. Forest Service, both within the Department of Agriculture, 

and university scientists to develop and test biological control 

agents, including the beetles used for biological control of tamarisk 

in the West, to conduct studies of stream flow management for 

vegetation control, and on studies of hybridization and environmental tolerances to better predict the potential future spread of 

tamarisk. 

USGS scientists can help identify site potential for water salvage, revegetation, and wildlife value, and develop protocols and 

measures for prioritizing sites for control or revegetation. The 

USGS also has partnerships with state-and county weed departments, the National Aeronautics and Space Agency (NASA), and 

the Tamarisk Coalition aimed at mapping currently invaded sites 

and identifying new invasions. The USGS also has ongoing studies 

mapping tamarisk in Western Colorado and Southern Utah, relating its distribution to environmental factors at USGS stream gauging stations throughout the West, assessing vegetation changes 

over time in tamarisk habitat on the lower Colorado River, and 

promoting restoration of native vegetation through water management. 

The Bureau of Reclamation leads, along with USDA’s Agricultural Research Service, the Saltcedar Biological Control ConsorVerDate Aug 04 2004 13:55 Mar 08, 2005 Jkt 039010 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR015.XXX SR015
9 

tium, a task force comprised of over 40 agencies. The Bureau of 

Reclamation, in collaboration with Los Alamos National Laboratory, also develops new technologies for determining the amount of 

water lost from the Rio Grande River due to tamarisk. 

CROSSCUT BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

The Administration is also working toward an interagency approach to invasive species control. The President’s Budget Request 

for Fiscal Year (FY) 2004 contains a performance budget crosscut 

on tamarisk. Agencies would work together to develop common performance measures. Under this performance umbrella, new and 

base funds will be applied in the Departments of Interior and Agriculture to control and manage the spread of tamarisk in the Southwest. Within the Department, the BLM proposes to control 2,750 

acres of tamarisk with a $500,000 funding increase. The Bureau of 

Reclamation, utilizing $600,000 in new funding, proposes to control 

22,000 acres of tamarisk. The FWS has proposed an increase of 

$640,000 for treatment of tamarisk and other species on refuge 

lands, and the NPS, utilizing $200,000 in base funding, proposes 

to treat 1,000 additional acres. A proposed funding increase of 

$100,000 will help the Bureau of Indian Affairs control tamarisk on 

4,000 acres. Finally, USGS proposes an increase of $300,000 for 

two additional research projects in direct support of land management efforts, including the development of protocols and measures 

to prioritize sites for control and revegetation efforts. 

In addition, both Interior and Agriculture agencies are working 

together with our state and local partners to develop and implement control technologies as part of an integrated approach to pest 

and weed management. New chemical and biological control methods for tamarisk are being tested under strictly controlled conditions because the endangered southwest willow flycatcher occupies 

areas now infested with tamarisk that were once occupied by 

stands of native willows and cottonwoods. The federal agencies are 

providing support for a multi-pronged approach to tamarisk control 

utilizing prevention, early detection and rapid response, and other 

control and management activities to limit the introduction and 

spread of tamarisk into new areas of the Southwest. 

COORDINATED TAMARISK CONTROL AND REVEGETATION WORKSHOP

As a means of deciding how to spend the FY 2004 funds proposed 

in the President’s Budget for tamarisk control, the Department is 

considering a strategy workshop to be held in the West sometime 

this fall. The purpose would be to gain stakeholder input for a 

roadmap containing common protocols (decision criteria) and best 

practices for tamarisk control and management. The roadmap 

would provide guidance for selecting on-the-ground projects and research efforts with the twin goals of generating increased water 

supply and restoring ecosystems through long-term tamarisk control, revegetation, and habitat recovery. 

DEPARTMENTAL VIEWS ON S. 1236 AND S. 1516

I hope that this overview has provided you with a picture of what 

the Department is doing to manage the control of tamarisk and 

10 

other harmful exotic species. With the above discussion in mind, let 

me briefly turn to the legislation. 

S. 1236 would require the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), 

through the Bureau of Reclamation, to complete an assessment of 

the extent of tamarisk invasion in the western United States. In 

addition to identifying the states affected by tamarisk, including a 

gross-scale estimation of acreage within the identified states, the 

assessment would include both past and ongoing research on 

tamarisk control methods, and the estimated costs of destruction, 

biomass removal, and restoration and maintenance. 

The Secretary would also establish a State Tamarisk Assistance 

Program to provide grants to affected states. Grants would be 

awarded to states in amounts to be determined by the Secretary 

based on infestation in a particular state. Those states would then 

be responsible for designating a lead state agency to administer the 

program and to work with listed entities, including the National 

Invasive Species Council, the Invasive Species Advisory Committee, 

representatives from relevant tribes, and others in the state, to establish priorities for awarding cost-share grants to projects to control or eradicate tamarisk. Tile bill carries a limitation (10 percent) 

on the use of grant monies for administrative expenses, and would 

require the lead state agency to provide the Secretary with a report 

at the completion of funded projects. 

S. 1516, the ‘Salt Cedar Control Demonstration Act,’ would also 

establish a two-pronged approach. First, it would require the Secretary, through the Bureau of Reclamation, to complete a detailed 

assessment of the extent of infestation by salt cedar and Russian 

Olive in western states. The assessment would include past and 

present assessments and management options to control these species; the feasibility of reducing water consumption; methods and 

challenges in land restoration; and the estimated costs of destruction, biomass removal, and restoration and maintenance. Finally, 

the assessment is to identify long-term funding strategies that 

could be implemented by federal, state, and private land managers. 

Second, S. 1516 would also require the Secretary to initiate demonstration projects to determine the most effective control methods 

for these species, and it provides criteria to be included in the 

project designs. 

We fully support the concepts advanced by these bills. In general, 

we view a comprehensive assessment positively, and believe such 

an approach helps federal land managers develop a more coordinated, long-term approach to addressing the problems associated 

with these species. We also recognize the importance of carrying 

out strictly controlled projects that will quickly provide us with 

practical control methods that can be used by land managers on 

the ground. 

As noted above, however, the Department is already working 

with our partners to develop and implement an integrated approach to management of tamarisk. Moreover, we have a concern 

about the overall cost of the proposed legislation. S. 1236 would authorize $20 million for fiscal year 2004, with additional necessary 

sums thereafter, while S. 1516 would authorize $50 million on the 

same terms. While the Administration’s cross cut budget evidences 

our commitment to control invasive species like those addressed 

here, the program established under this legislation would have to 

11 

compete with other priority activities within the context of the 

President’s Budget. Finally, the Department notes that the demonstration projects called for in S. 1516 can be achieved within existing authorities. 

CONCLUSION

In closing, I want to assure the Committee that the Department 

is prepared and committed to identifying, assessing, and acting to 

curb the economic and ecological impacts of tamarisk and Russian 

olive in the West. We will continue to work with our partners, and 

we agree with the intentions of both bills to more systematically 

develop an effective control strategy. Our goal is to ensure the protection of our water resources and the restoration of important 

wildlife habitat. 

We share the Committee’s concerns and interest in this issue, 

and offer to work with the Committee to ensure that any legislation promotes an efficient and effective control strategy. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement and I am happy to answer any 

questions that you might have. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee notes that no changes in existing law are made by the bill S. 177, as ordered reported. 

Æ