    [House Hearing, 114 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                       EXAMINING INVASIVE SPECIES POLICY

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                                  THE INTERIOR

                                     OF THE

                             COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
                             AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                DECEMBER 1, 2015

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 114-58

                                   __________

    Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                    Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
                                http://www.house.gov/reform

                                   _____________

                          U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    99-595 PDF                    WASHINGTON : 2016

    ________________________________________________________________________________________
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                  COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

                         JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman
    JOHN L. MICA, Florida                ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland,
    MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio                  Ranking Minority Member
    JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee       CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
    JIM JORDAN, Ohio                     ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
    TIM WALBERG, Michigan                    Columbia
    JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan               WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
    PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona               STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
    SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee          JIM COOPER, Tennessee
    TREY GOWDY, South Carolina           GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
    BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas              MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
    CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming           TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
    MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina         BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
    RON DeSANTIS, Florida                TED LIEU, California
    MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina        BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
    KEN BUCK, Colorado                   STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
    MARK WALKER, North Carolina          MARK DeSAULNIER, California
    ROD BLUM, Iowa                       BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
    JODY B. HICE, Georgia                PETER WELCH, Vermont
    STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma              MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
    EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
    GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin
    WILL HURD, Texas
    GARY J. PALMER, Alabama

                       Jennifer Hemingway, Staff Director
                     David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
             William McGrath, Interior Subcommittee Staff Director
                Ryan Hambleton, Senior Professional Staff Member
                  Melissa Beaumont, Professional Staff Member

                           SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE INTERIOR

                      CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming, Chairman
    PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona               BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan,
    BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas                  Ranking Member
    KEN BUCK, Colorado, Vice Chair       MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
    STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma              STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
    GARY J. PALMER, Alabama

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on December 1, 2015.................................     1

                                   WITNESSES

    Jamie Reaser, Ph.D., Executive Director, National Invasive
      Species Council, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington,
      D.C.
        Oral Statement...............................................     4
        Written Statement............................................     7
    Mr. Scott J. Cameron, President, Reduce Risks from Invasive
      Species Coalition, Washington D.C.
        Oral Statement...............................................    16
        Written Statement............................................    18
    Alan D. Steinman, Ph.D., Director and Professor, Robert B. Annis
      Water Resources Institute, Grand Valley State University,
      Allendale Charter Township, Michigan
        Oral Statement...............................................    25
        Written Statement............................................    27
    K. George Beck, Ph.D., Professor of Weed Science, Colorado State
      University, Fort Collins, Colorado
        Oral Statement...............................................    35
        Written Statement............................................    37

                                    APPENDIX

    Responses prepared by Dr. Jaime Reaser to questions submitted by
      Chairman Lummis and Rep. Gosar.................................    64
    Responses prepared by Mr. Scott J. Cameron to questions submitted
      by Rep. Gosar..................................................    70
    Questions prepared by Mr. George Beck to questions submitted by
      Rep. Gosar.....................................................    72

                       EXAMINING INVASIVE SPECIES POLICY

                                  ----------

                           Tuesday, December 1, 2015

                       House of Representatives
                           Subcommittee on the Interior
                   Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
                                                       Washington, D.C.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:36 p.m., in
    Room 2154, Rayburn Office Building, Hon. Cynthia Lummis
    [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Lummis, Gosar, Buck, Palmer,
    Lawrence, and Plaskett.
        Also present: Representative Hurd.
        Ms. Lummis. The subcommittee will come to order. Without
    objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any
    time.
        Today the Subcommittee on the Interior will examine the
    problem of invasive species in the U.S., and the effectiveness
    of the Federal government's attempts to control and eradicate
    invasives. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service specifically
    defines an invasive specie as an exotic species whose
    introduction into an ecosystem in which the specie is not
    native causes or is likely to cause environmental or economic
    harm or harm to human health. There are currently almost 50,000
    such species living in the United States today. We promise
    there will not be a test on how many of those you can name.
        The impact of invasive species is hard to ignore. They are
    one of the leading causes of population decline and extinction
    in native plants and animals. They cause billions of dollars
    per year in damages across the country. Recently the Department
    of the Interior estimated that it spends $100,000 million
    annually on invasive species management.
        In response to this significant and growing problem,
    President Clinton created the National Invasive Species Council
    in 1999. This Council is co-chaired by the Secretaries of
    Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce. Its mission is to
    coordinate the work of numerous agencies to address and
    eradicate invasive species.
        Part of the Council's job is to produce a national
    management plan every two years for the treatment and
    eradication of endangered species. Since 1999, the Council has
    only released two plans, one in January 2001 and nearly 8 years
    later in 2008. A review of the 2001 plan by the Government
    Accountability Office found problems with coordination, delays,
    and setting clear long-term goals.
        In the past several years, there has been relatively little
    oversight of the Council's work and success in managing the
    invasive species problem. Questions continue to be raised about
    whether the Council and other Federal agencies are effectively
    treating certain invasive species.
        The spread of these nuisances is startling. Two years ago,
    Dr. George Beck testified before the House Committee on Natural
    Resources about the inefficiencies and ineffectiveness of the
    Council and the Federal government in treating invasive weeds.
    Dr. Beck warned that invasive weeds were spreading at a far
    faster pace than they were being eradicated. He questioned the
    government's claims about the amount of land infested with non-
    native weeds that it successfully treated in previous years. He
    also cast doubts on whether the Council was using the most
    cost-effective means of fighting invasive species. This hearing
    will allow the Council to update us on its progress.
        In addition, we will look at the impact of three invasive
    species that have caused significant and costly headaches for
    my home State of Wyoming as well as Ranking Member Lawrence's
    home State of Michigan. Mr. Hurd will also raise some issues in
    his district in Texas. The nuisance and dangers of these
    particular non-native species provides startling illustrations
    of the harmful effects of endangered species and the need for
    capable treatment efforts.
        Our witnesses today bring a broad and diverse knowledge of
    invasive species and the havoc they wreak on our country. We
    will hear from the executive director of the Council on its
    work. We will also hear from three experts who have studied the
    risks of invasive species in America, and can provide insight
    into the importance and urgency of addressing this issue.
        As the problem of invasive species in America worsens, we
    must continue to revisit and reassess the situation and our
    treatment and eradication efforts. I look forward to the
    hearing, and I look forward to our witnesses' testimony, and I
    want to thank you for being here today.
        I also want to thank the ranking member, Ms. Lawrence, for
    being the impetus and driving force behind holding this hearing
    today. And I now recognize Ms. Lawrence, the ranking member of
    the Subcommittee on the Interior, for her opening statement.
        Ms. Lawrence. I want to say that it is a pleasure, Madam
    Chairman. I thank you for helping me bring this issue forward
    and for your leadership. I want to thank all the witnesses here
    today for appearing, and I look forward to hearing your
    testimony.
        You have heard some of the statistics that I am sure, the
    witnesses, you are very familiar with. One of the concerns we
    have is that what is our plan. The amount of money that we are
    paying to address invasive species to me should not be spent
    without a comprehensive plan. I recognize that, Dr. Reaser, you
    are new, and so we are looking forward to hearing what your
    vision and what the plan is.
        Invasive species pose serious problems to our environment,
    and we understand that, but it is also a significant challenge
    to the conservation of native fish and wildlife. No habitat or
    region is immune from the threat of invasive species. As our
    chair mentioned, we spend over $125 billion each year
    controlling these plants and animals and repairing the damage
    they inflict on our property and our natural resources.
        As we talk about our environment, you cannot leave out the
    impact that invasive species has. In Michigan, I want to talk
    about that, and one of the reasons why this is so important to
    me, zebra mussels are a serious economic threat to our
    recreational fishing and commercial activity in the Great
    Lakes. And we in Michigan are passionate about our Great Lakes
    and our water, and so when you start seeing the impact of these
    invasive species, this rises to a level of being a very serious
    concern.
        The zebra mussels alone has caused more than $1 billion in
    damage by clogging the pipes and the filtration equipment of
    municipalities and industrial water systems. They have also
    damaged boats and decks, and it costs Michigan more than $250
    million a year to clean those affected pipes and machinery. We
    are also facing a threat from the Asian carp, which can
    devastate recreational fishing if not controlled.
        According to the University of Michigan Sea Grant
    Institute, recreational and commercial fisheries contribute in
    excess to $4 to $7 billion to the economy each year. Recent
    reports show that these invasive fish have already caused
    significant problems in our Ohio and Mississippi River Basins.
        Only a few weeks ago, the Michigan Department of
    Environmental Quality and the Department of Natural Resources
    confirmed the existence of two new invasive species in water,
    and in 2014 the Administration reports it allotted an estimated
    $2.3 billion across the range of Federal agencies and
    activities to control and eradicate these species. I recognize
    that this issue requires a long-term plan, and that is what I
    want to hear today. Also I understand that scientists are
    working around the clock to create a remedy for this problem.
        Since the plan has not been revised since 2008, even though
    the regulations, it is required to issue and update every 2
    years, one of the things that I am looking for is a commitment
    for compliance, and that is something that as part of this
    committee I will be looking for in the future.
        While we have not updated our plan, we know that the
    invasive species problem has worsened, and I feel strongly that
    a lack of a comprehensive plan on how to deal with this is
    contributing to the impact. I hope to get some answers today on
    this issue so that important safeguards can put into place to
    manage this ever-increasing problem of invasive species.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Lummis. I thank the ranking member. I will hold the
    record open for 5 legislative days for any member who would
    like to submit a written statement.
        Ms. Lummis. The chair also notes the presence of the
    gentleman from Texas, as I mentioned earlier, Mr. Hurd, a
    member of the full committee. We thank you very much for your
    interest in the topic today. And without objection, we welcome
    Mr. Hurd to participate fully in today's hearing.
        We now recognize our panel of witnesses. We are pleased Dr.
    Jamie Reaser, who is newly minted as the executive director of
    the National Invasive Species Council at the U.S. Department of
    the Interior. Welcome, Dr. Reaser. Mr. Scott Cameron, president
    of the Reduced Risks from the Invasive Species Coalition. Thank
    you, Mr. Cameron. Dr. Alan Steinman, you are the director as
    well as a professor at the Robert B. Annis Water Resources
    Institute at Grand Valley State University. Am I correct?
        Mr. Steinman. [Off audio.]
        Ms. Lummis. Thank you Dr. Steiman. And Dr. George Beck,
    professor of weed science at Colorado State University. I
    studied weed science at the University of Wyoming under a
    colleague of yours, probably one that was teaching me before
    you were born. But welcome today, Dr. Beck.
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Lummis. Pursuant to the committee rules, all witnesses
    will be sworn in before they testify, so please rise and raise
    your right hands.
        Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are
    about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
    but the truth?
        [A chorus of ayes.]
        Ms. Lummis. Thank you. Please be seated. Let the record
    reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative.
        Now, in order to allow time for discussions, please limit
    your oral testimony to 5 minutes. Your entire written statement
    will be made part of the record so we will have the advantage
    of it in case it is longer than 5 minutes.
        We will begin with Dr. Reaser. You are recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Ms. Lawrence. Turn your mic on.

                           WITNESS STATEMENTS

                    STATEMENT OF JAMIE REASER, PH.D.

        Ms. Reaser. Madam Chairman, members of the subcommittee,
    thank you for inviting me to participate in the hearing on
    behalf of the National Invasive Species Council, NISC. With me
    today is Ms. Anne Kinsinger, U.S. Geological Survey's associate
    director for ecosystems. I will summarize my written testimony,
    which has been provided for the record.
        NISC was created by Executive Order 13112, known as the
    Invasive Species Executive Order, on February 3rd, 1999, to
    serve as an independent coordinating body for the Federal
    government's efforts to address invasive species. As you have
    noted, the Secretary of Interior serves as a co-chair of NISC
    along with the Secretaries of Agriculture and Commerce. The
    Secretary of Interior also hosts and oversees NISC staff. At
    this time, 10 additional departments and agencies are members
    of NISC. They are listed in my written testimony.
        As you may be aware or are aware, I started as executive
    director of NISC staff just 9 weeks ago. That said, I am not
    new to the invasive species issue. My work has largely focused
    on invasive species since 1999, not coincidentally the year in
    which the executive order was signed.
        But in actuality, my interaction with the invasive species
    issue goes back much further than that. My grandmother taught
    me to fish as a young girl. I can remember being frustrated by
    the fact that I could not catch anything other than carp. I
    desperately wanted to see pretty sunfish up close. Because the
    feeding habits of the carp muddied the water, I could not even
    see a sunfish near the dock.
        I did my doctoral work in the Great Basin in Nevada,
    specifically at the southernmost extent of the species range of
    the Columbia spotted frog. During my time in the field, I
    became aware of numerous adverse shifts taking place in the
    lands and waters of the sagebrush ecosystem: the invasion of
    annual grasses, cheatgrass, and medusahead, and the
    introduction of non-native amphibians and tropical fish, to
    name a few. Invasive species clearly warranted concern and
    concerted action.
        Since that time, I have worked on various aspects of the
    invasive species issue in more than 40 countries, frequently
    helping other governments institutionalize their capacities to
    address the invasive species issue. In the course of my work, I
    have seen firsthand how invasive species can devastate the
    lives and livelihoods of people who depend on local resources.
        Invasive species impact everyone on a personal level,
    although we may not equally or fully recognize the extent to
    which they do. If we care about food security, water security,
    human health and well-being, animal welfare, employment and the
    economy--in short, national security--we need to pay
    considerably more attention to this often subtle, yet
    nevertheless pervasive and costly issue, invasive species.
        The invasive species issue is dynamic and complex.
    Coordinating activities of Federal agencies and working with
    non-Federal stakeholders to prevent, eradicate, and control
    invasive species throughout the U.S. and abroad is a
    substantial challenge. Thankfully, challenges can be overcome.
        Two examples of successes to NISC's leadership include
    provision of expert advice for more than 100 individuals who
    have served on the non-Federal Invasive Species Advisory
    Committee, also created by the executive order. This advice has
    strengthened Federal programs and initiatives, such as our work
    on biofuels. And the implementation of the two national
    invasive species management plans that together contain more
    than 170 action items. Additional examples can be found in my
    testimony.
        As you are well aware, we are operating in a resource
    constrained world, and due to limited resources, it is fair to
    say NISC has not yet actualized its full potential. With the
    support of the Department of the Interior as well as 12 other
    NISC member departments and agencies, I intend to do all I can
    to mobilize NISC's leadership and capacities to effectively
    implement the Invasive Species Executive Order from the policy
    level to the ground level and back again.
        The work includes, but is not limited to, NISC's four major
    functions: raising awareness of the linkages between invasive
    species and various aspects of national security as they relate
    to each Department; setting priorities for international action
    that actually has impact at the ground level; fostering a
    culture of collaboration, innovation, and long-term commitment
    to problem solving; and facilitating team work across
    departments and between Federal, State, tribes, and other
    stakeholders that not only results in invasive species
    prevented and eradicated, but ecosystems and ecosystem services
    restored.
        Thank you for time and for caring about this critically
    important issue. I am happy to answer questions regarding this.
    Ms. Kinsinger is available to answer technical questions on
    specific species as needed.
        [The statement of Ms. Reaser follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Lummis. Thank you, Dr. Reaser.
        The chair now recognizes Mr. Cameron for 5 minutes.

                     STATEMENT OF SCOTT J. CAMERON

        Mr. Cameron. Madam Chairman, Ranking Member Lawrence,
    members of the subcommittee, my name is Scott Cameron. I am
    president of a nonprofit organization called the Reduce Risks
    from Invasive Species Coalition, or RRISC. I appreciate the
    opportunity to testify today on opportunities to improve
    invasive species policy and programmatic implementation in the
    United States.
        RRISC is a 501(c)(3) organization incorporated in 2014. Our
    mission is to educate the public on the risks imposed by
    invasive species and to promote cost-effective strategies to
    reduce those risks. We pride ourselves on being bipartisan with
    a distinguished advisory board comprised of former senior
    government officials from the Obama, Bush, Clinton, and Bush
    Administrations. I am pleased to say that since our inception,
    we have had a close working relationship with the Congressional
    Invasive Species Caucus, co-chaired by your own
    representatives, Dan Benishek from Michigan and Mike Thompson
    from California.
        Invasive species pose serious economic and environmental
    problems across the country. They have been estimated to cost
    the American economy more than $120 billion a year and to have
    a $1.4 trillion annual impact on the global economy. There are
    significant public health impacts from invasive species. For
    instance, invasive species, like West Nile virus and fire ants,
    put many Americans in the hospital every year, and in some
    cases they do not survive. Invasive species have single-
    handedly caused 20 percent of all species extinctions since the
    1600s, and they have been implicated in up to half of all the
    species extinctions over the last four centuries.
        Indirectly, they cause increased regulatory burden on
    American society since invasives are in whole or in part
    responsible for more than 40 percent of the listings under the
    Endangered Species Act. For example, widespread distribution of
    invasive cheatgrass in Wyoming and Colorado was a key risk
    factor that almost led to the listing of the greater sage
    grouse under the Endangered Species Act earlier this year.
        If your constituents are concerned about loss of
    biodiversity and species extinctions in the United States, then
    they should also be concerned about invasive species. If your
    constituents are frustrated by the regulatory burden imposed by
    the Endangered Species Act, that is another reason to be
    concerned about invasive species because they are putting a lot
    of species on the ESA list.
        I would now like to offer a number of recommendations on
    how institutional arrangements could be improved to yield
    better results in invasive species management for our country.
        Congress should direct the National Invasive Species
    Council to present the Congress with a short annual work plan,
    5 pages in length, to include deadlines and intended outcomes
    of Council activities. This would help focus the political
    level attention in the agencies on the invasive species
    problem.
        The National Invasive Species Council should provide a
    forum for Federal interagency communication and coordination
    with regional governors associations--southern governors,
    western governors, and so on. NISC should design a national
    network of regionally-driven, early detection, and rapid
    response capabilities whose regional priorities are established
    based on the advice of the governors of those States in those
    regions.
        NISC should provide a forum for Federal agency regional
    executives, BLM State directors, regional foresters, EPA
    regional administrators, and so on, so that those regional
    officials could more easily get the attention of the
    departmental political leadership in headquarters in the Office
    of Management and Budget. And through more coordinated
    policymaking at the headquarters level, achieve better on-the-
    ground coordination at the local level.
        The Council should provide a forum for ensuring and
    expediting interagency coordination at the headquarters level
    so that time sensitive decisions involving invasive species
    policy, regulatory approvals, or research are less likely to be
    caught up in bureaucratic red tape in D.C. As an example,
    facilitating Endangered Species Act, Section 7 consultation
    between USDA and EPA on new pesticides targeting invasive
    species; working with the Council on Environmental Quality to
    streamline environmental compliance for agency on the ground
    invasive species control actions; and achieving an interagency
    bio control research agenda that would effectively leverage the
    relative scientific strengths of EPA, USGS, USDA, and the
    National Science Foundation.
        Another recommendation. NISC should seek out and evaluate
    international best practices and explore the feasibility of
    adopting those best practices in the United States.
        It looks like I am over time, so I will stop, Madam.
    Chairman, and I look forward to questions.
        [The statement of Mr. Cameron follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Buck. [Presiding] Thank you, Mr. Cameron.
        The chair recognizes Dr. Steinman for 5 minutes.

                  STATEMENT OF ALAN D. STEINMAN, PH.D.

        Mr. Steinman. Thank you, Chairman Buck, Ranking Member
    Lawrence, and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the
    opportunity to testify before you today with regard to the
    threats posed by invasive species, and, in particular, their
    impacts in the Great Lakes region.
        There are four areas that I would like to cover today. The
    first is invasive species and the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes
    serve as the poster child for aquatic invasive species. It is
    now estimated since the 1800s, over 180 non-native species have
    invaded the Great Lakes ecosystem.
        The Great Lakes are a national treasure. They hold over 20
    percent of the world's surface fresh water, and over 90 percent
    of the surface fresh water in the United States. The importance
    of this resource, both in terms of water quantity and water
    quality, cannot be overstated given the increasing concerns
    over water security in this Nation and around the world.
        Aquatic invasive species are acutely felt in the State of
    Michigan, a state which touches four of the five Great Lakes--
    our governor likes that four of the five Great Lakes favor
    Michigan--and where 1 in 5 jobs are linked to water. The second
    area I would like to talk about are the ecological impacts in
    the Great Lakes. These include habitat loss, food web
    disruption, and alterations to native fisheries.
        Two aquatic invasive species that have been particularly
    problematic in the Great Lakes are the sea lamprey and the
    Dreissena mussels, which include the quagga and zebra mussels.
    The sea lamprey, for those not familiar with it, is an eel-like
    parasite whose native habitat is the ocean. It got into the
    Great Lakes after the Welland Canal was improved, and it
    bypassed the Niagara Falls. By 1938, they had reached all of
    the Great Lakes.
        Sea lamprey parasitism is not a pretty site. They attach to
    fish with a suction cup mouth, and dig their teeth into fish
    flesh, and finally feed on fish body fluids by secreting an
    enzyme that prevents the blood from clotting. The lake trout
    harvest in the upper Great Lakes has declined from about 15
    million pounds per year before the sea lampreys to
    approximately 300,000 pounds now, a decline of 98 percent of
    this critical fish. The good news is the sea lamprey control
    program is very effective. We have to apply it every year,
    though, and it costs about $20 million per year.
        The zebra and quagga mussels also have caused extensive
    damage. They came in through ballast water discharge. The zebra
    mussel was first found in 1988 in Lake Sinclair, quickly
    followed by its larger and more aggressive cousin, the quagga
    mussel. In fact, the quagga mussel is now estimated to have
    about 950 trillion--that is with a ``T''--in Lake Michigan
    alone. That is a huge number. They are filter feeders there
    literally sucking the bioenergetic life out of Lake Michigan.
    Once you decline the algae levels--they are lower than they are
    in Lake Superior--there is no food for the zooplankton to feed
    on. When there is no zooplankton, there is no food for crayfish
    to feed on, and when there is no crayfish, there is no food for
    the top predators, the salmon and the lake trout, to feed on.
    So the devastation to the food web and the economic impacts are
    enormous.
        Which leads me to the third area I would like to talk
    about: the economic influences of invasive species in the Great
    Lakes. In Michigan, especially affected by aquatic invasive
    species, the industry has influenced or affected our power
    generation, industrial facilities, tourism, and sport and
    commercial fisheries, which account for about 30,000 jobs and
    almost $12 billion in annual sales based on 2010 data.
        As Representative Lawrence mentioned, the commercial and
    recreational fishery industry in the Great Lakes is estimated
    to be between $4 and $7 billion, and they are at critical risk
    by the presence of these invasive species.
        And finally, I would like to address the management
    implications. With the Asian carp at the entryways of the Great
    Lakes, we must be coordinated in our approaches to monitor our
    waterways to keep invasive species from getting into the Great
    Lakes, quarantine them when necessary and where possible, and
    then finally eradicate them when feasible. It is critical to
    recognize that in a hydraulically connected system like the
    Great Lakes, the program to control aquatic invasives is only
    as strong as the weakest link in that chain.
        Regardless of how vigilant or aggressive Michigan may be in
    dealing with aquatic invasive species, its waters remain
    vulnerable if any of the other seven Great Lakes States or two
    Canadian provinces are not as equally vigilant or aggressive.
    And this concept of vulnerability applies well beyond aquatic
    ecosystems. It applies to any connected ecosystem across its
    jurisdictional boundaries, whether it is water, land, or air.
        It is clear that we need a coordinated effort to tackle
    invasive species instead of jumping from one crisis to another,
    and good science is needed to make informed management
    decisions. I clearly understand the role of science having
    worked in the Everglades restoration before I came to Michigan,
    and I recognize that science does not dictate policy; it helps
    inform policy.
        But let me leave you with this one thought taken from Peter
    Glick, one of the foremost water resource scientists on the
    planet. It is very difficult to make good public policy without
    good science, and it is even harder to make good public policy
    with bad science.
        Thank you again for the invitation to appear before you
    today.
        [The statement of Mr. Steinman follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Buck. Thank you, Dr. Steinman.
        The chair recognizes Dr. Beck for a 5-minute opening.

                   STATEMENT OF K. GEORGE BECK, PH.D.

        Mr. Beck. Chairman Buck, Ranking Member Lawrence, and
    honorable members of the committee, thank you for the
    opportunity to testify before you today. I am George Beck, and
    I am a professor of weed science at Colorado State University.
    Today I represent the Healthy Habitats Coalition, and we are a
    diverse alliance dedicated to improving invasive species
    management in our country.
        In spite of almost 3 decades of efforts by many
    organizations working to persuade the Federal government to do
    a better job controlling and managing invasive species, little
    progress has been made. Zebra and quagga mussels are in the
    Great Lakes, and Asian carp is poised to invade those bodies.
    Cheatgrass, knapweeds, and tamarisk abound in the west; Burmese
    pythons, melaleuca, and hydrilla are wreaking havoc in Florida.
    Emerald ash borer and other invasive insects are invading the
    north, east, and Midwest. All of these are spreading rapidly,
    and every State has invasive species without exception.
        Cheatgrass alters habit so significantly that it is clearly
    linked to the decline of the greater sage grouse and its
    habitat. We possess, however, the knowledge and ability to
    recover cheatgrass infested safe grass habitat if we would just
    seize the initiative to do so. For example, CSU weed scientists
    just completed a comprehensive study to demonstrate such
    success, and we also have developed approaches that target and
    eliminate the cheatgrass soil seed reserve, which then will
    provide the best opportunity to recover native species habitat.
        The invasive species conundrum in the U.S. is not
    necessarily due to a lack of knowledge. Rather it is because of
    chronically poor Federal land management agency performance
    around managing invasive species. And this is a reflection of
    chronically poor administrative leadership concerning invasive
    species.
        Leadership from the National Invasive Species Council is
    practically non-existent. NISC is made up, of course, of most
    of the President's Cabinet. Most prominently, the members are
    the co-chairs, Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, and
    Interior. Frankly, NISC could be dissolved, and the funds used
    to operate that body should be spent on decreasing the
    population abundance of invasive species and recovering native
    species habitat.
        This poor Federal performance is due to at least four
    things that we have been able to identify: inconsistent budgets
    and non-transparency in the invasive species budgeting process,
    a lack of collaboration, prioritization, and on-the-ground
    performance with State and local governments, using NEPA as an
    excuse for inaction or justification to postpone making timely
    management decisions, and poor administrative leadership to
    develop appropriate invasive species public policy, management,
    and budgetary action.
        The solution to these problems has been introduced as
    bills, H.R. 1485 and S. 2240, the Federal Lands Invasive
    Species Control, Prevention, and Management Act. The bills
    focus on the Forest Service, BLM, National Park Service, and
    Fish and Wildlife Services. These are the major Federal land
    management agencies.
        The bills require agencies to develop an invasive species
    strategic plan that fosters agreements with States and local
    governments. The bill also has categorical exclusions that will
    protect high-value sites from invasive species, fully support
    and facilitate the development of early detection and rapid
    response, and then years and years of analysis to approve new
    management tools. The bills also require invasive species
    population to be decreased by 5 percent net annually to stay
    ahead of expansion rates, and change the spending parameters.
    And these would be 75 percent of invasive species funds to
    those agencies would have to be put on the ground. Not more
    than 15 percent of those funds can be spent on awareness and
    research, and up to 10 percent on administration. So the bulk
    of the money will be directed towards healing the problem.
        HHC has many supporters for these efforts, including an
    invasive species resolution from the Western Governors
    Association and direct support from Governor Butch Otter from
    Idaho, Governor Cecil Andrus, who is the former governor of
    Idaho and a former Secretary of Interior, and Governor Martinez
    from New Mexico. There is no Federal administrative leadership
    on invasive species. It is up to Congress to pass strong
    leadership and pass these bills. Doing so will place our
    country on the road to begin solving the invasive species
    problem. We must stop kicking this can down the road.
        Thank you again for this opportunity to share HHC's
    thoughts on invasive species management in the U.S.
        [The statement of Mr. Beck follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Buck. Thank you, Dr. Beck, and go Rams.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Buck. The chair will now recognize members for 5
    minutes, and will recognize himself first.
        Dr. Reaser, how does NISC coordinate its work with Federal
    agencies, and States, and local communities to combat invasive
    species?
        Ms. Reaser. Thank you for the question. NISC coordinates
    work through a series of tiers of coordination. NISC itself, as
    you are aware, are the Secretaries and administrators of the
    13-member departments. And then within the NISC structure,
    broader structure, we also have policy-level leads and more
    technical-level leads. There are interdepartmental coordination
    mechanisms throughout that structure. There are also
    coordination mechanisms between NISC and other structures
    focused on invasive species, such as the Aquatic Nuisance
    Species Task Force. And there are regular joint working groups,
    and joint committees, and joint products with that group and
    others.
        And then there are on-the-ground activities where Federal
    agency representatives are collaborating with States, and
    tribes, and other stakeholders at the ecosystem level or on a
    species-by-species specific level.
        Mr. Buck. What is the annual budget for NISC?
        Ms. Reaser. For the NISC staff?
        Mr. Buck. What is the total budget, I guess, and then if
    you want to break it down, you can explain.
        Ms. Reaser. Okay. So the approximate budget for the NISC
    staff is about a million dollars per year, and about a third of
    that 30 percent is spent on administering the Invasive Species
    Advisory Committee.
        Mr. Buck. And appropriately what percentage of the overall
    budget goes to administrative expenses?
        Ms. Reaser. So for the NISC staff just to clarify, it is
    about 65 percent would be salary, travel, basic operations. And
    then approximately 30 percent would be for the advisory
    committee's administration.
        Mr. Buck. Dr. Beck, cheatgrass continues to cause problems
    with sage grouse habitat. Could you please describe the current
    status of the cheatgrass threat and what actions have been
    taken to mitigate its spread?
        Mr. Beck. Cheatgrass is a controversial plant relative to
    how much area it occupies. I have heard data everywhere from 50
    million to over a hundred million acres, so it is really hard
    to know.
        It has not found its way everywhere. For example, 10 years
    ago was the first time cheatgrass showed up in the Gunnison
    Basin in South Central Colorado. And in the Kremmling area,
    which is, oh, 150 miles north, it has only been there for about
    5 years, or at least that is what people say.
        So it continues to find new homes. The Great Basin is
    obviously very inundated with it. It is not so bad that you can
    close your eyes and point and be looking at cheatgrass whether
    you know it or not, but we are getting close to that. It is
    there every year. I mean, I hear people talk about, well, it is
    not a bad year for cheatgrass, and I say wait until June. It is
    the same very June. And I even had a student in one of my
    classes tell me that his mother's neighbor was running around
    picking this grass from around his yard in the foothills. I
    think it was above the Estes Park area. And she wanted to know
    what he was doing, and he said, well, this does not require any
    water, I do not know what is. And he was planting cheatgrass.
    So, you know, Pogo was right when he said, we have met the
    enemy and they are us.
        So we continue to foster its spread through all kinds of
    means, some of them inadvertent, and some of them not. But the
    problem is worsening constantly.
        Mr. Buck. And what do you think NISC can do to help with
    the cheatgrass problem?
        Mr. Beck. NISC's role is to coordinate with the Federal
    agencies, and I educate a lot in the public. Half of my
    appointment is extension, and so I must give about 50 to 75
    presentations a year through Colorado alone, and I just do not
    see where any coordinating is having effect. In fact, I have
    visited with some Federal employees who do not even know NISC
    exists. So there is a transitional loss someplace between
    Washington, D.C. and the rest of the country.
        Mr. Buck. Okay. Thank you. My time is almost up, and I
    recognize the gentlelady from Michigan for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Lawrence. Thank you, Chair. Ms. Reaser, I understand
    that the one update that has been made to the management plan
    was back in 2008. Is that correct? So help me understand why
    the Council has largely not updated the management plan, and
    when will it be updated?
        Ms. Reaser. Okay. So let us step back to 2001.
        Ms. Lawrence. Okay.
        Ms. Reaser. And thank you for the question. I think it is
    an important one. As you know, in the executive order, there is
    a request for the plan to be revised every two years. The
    reasons behind that were, of course, to set priorities, raise
    visibility, and so forth, all reasonable criteria.
        When the original plan was created, there was a tremendous
    amount of enthusiasm among the departments for this new culture
    of collaboration, and the request was to bring priorities
    together in a comprehensive manner to use the word you used
    previously. The second management plan followed the pattern of
    the first management plan. It was a revision thereof, and so it
    had approximately 90 action items in it as did the first one.
    There were 170 total.
        The second management plan ran from 2008 through 2014.
    Since that time, there has been a process of moving the
    priorities forward from the first two management plans
    collectively. There has also been a process of looking at what
    items within those management plans require further work on an
    evaluation process going forward.
        There has been a delay in the process of moving it to the
    third management plan for a couple of reasons. One, there had
    been unanticipated staff turnovers and vacancies that could not
    be accounted for, and did have a significant impact on process.
    And then more recently, there was a desire to hire my position
    into place to take leadership over the third management plan,
    which I am now in the process of doing. And we are looking
    forward to having that available sometime early next year.
        Ms. Lawrence. Okay. I wanted to ask if it was achieving the
    objective of reducing the invasive species rate by 5 percent
    every year. Are you anywhere close to that goal?
        Ms. Reaser. So the Invasive Species Management Plan itself
    is a priority setting mechanism, so each item within the plan
    has different goals and objectives. Only a small percentage of
    those would be dedicated for activities related to weeds on the
    ground. As those projects move forward, each of them is going
    to have a goal that is context specific. A number of 5 percent,
    15 percent, 20 percent is not necessarily going to be fit to
    purpose for all circumstances.
        So each of the activities undertaken through the plan or
    otherwise is going to set a goal that makes sense context
    specifically.
        Ms. Lawrence. So are you reaching any of those goals?
        Ms. Reaser. Yes, many of those goals have been reached
    through this process.
        Ms. Lawrence. One of the things that the plan, it is my
    understanding that we as members of Congress should know that
    the plan is being updated, and I can tell you that has not been
    a reality. So you are saying, you are making a commitment here
    today that your plan will be updated by the spring of next
    year. And I expect that we will know that that has happened
    under your leadership. Is that correct?
        Ms. Reaser. I am willing to be personally accountable on
    that one. There are not many things that I can promise you, but
    that one I can assure you under my leadership will happen as
    soon as it is feasibly possible.
        Ms. Lawrence. I am going to have to come back for another
    round of questions, but I do want to ask this. With your
    knowledge now that you are in the position, do you have the
    funds or the resources to actively, once we get a plan, to
    implement it and to be able to state to Congress and to the
    people of the United States that we have a very proactive and
    committed plan to addressing the Invasive Species Act?
        And I love the comparison made between endangered species.
    I think we get a lot of attention and affection when we start
    talking about endangered species where you need to really talk
    about the invasive species because that is a major component of
    why we have endangered. So when you submit the plan, will you
    be able to implement it with your budget and resources?
        Ms. Reaser. That is a very good and pertinent question. We
    will make sure that where we have good alignment with current
    resources that will be well recognized. There may be cases
    where there is an action item in the plan to mobilize
    additional resources or find efficiencies with existing
    resources, and we will also work to identify that as well.
        Ms. Lawrence. You are not willing to say if you have it yet
    or not because that is what you are saying.
        Ms. Reaser. We have not finished the plan yet.
        Ms. Lawrence. Okay.
        Ms. Reaser. So it would be premature for me ----
        Ms. Lawrence. I will give you that.
        Ms. Reaser. Thank you.
        Ms. Lawrence. Thank you.
        Mr. Buck. I thank the lady from Michigan, and I recognize
    the gentleman from Arizona.
        Mr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now, Dr. Reaser, the
    Lower Colorado River is in the frontlines of battling the
    quagga mussel. So, Dr. Steinman, we join you, and the salt
    cedar. The mussels threaten the Hoover Dam, the Davis Dam,
    Parker Dam, Imperial Dam, and the Central Arizona Project, all
    of which are part of my district in Arizona. These water
    systems supply electricity and drinking water to millions
    across the Southwest.
        Now, while the problem is massive in scale, its
    implications are felt locally and require local action to
    mitigate their spread. Municipal leaders and community
    organizations in my district, such as the Lake Havasu Marine
    Association, are prepared and willing to do their part, but
    need resources to do so.
        So my first question. What specific authorizations
    currently exist for funding mitigation programs that combat
    these mussels or salt cedars on a State or local level?
        Ms. Reaser. Thank you for the question. I do not have
    specific information available on those authorities, but I
    would be happy to make that information available to you.
        Mr. Gosar. I would like to get them because I think the
    gentleman, Dr. Beck, was making this comment. We have a lot of
    surface activity, but nothing down on the local level, and it
    is imperative that we leverage those resources.
        I would also like to know what type of flexibility exists
    with matching funds from local, and States, and private
    partnerships for these authorizations. Do you have that either?
        Ms. Reaser. Thank you for the question. I am going to
    invite Anne Kinsinger to address the answer.
        Ms. Kinsinger. I do not have a comprehensive answer on
    that, but I did want to note that the Fish and Wildlife Service
    does work to coordinate the development of State wildlife
    action plans. And when a species is listed as a species of
    management concern in those plans, then grants are available.
    So I do not think that is the full answer, so I think we will
    need to get back to you with some other authorities. But that
    is a major ----
        Mr. Gosar. I would like to know that.
        Ms. Kinsinger. Yes.
        Mr. Gosar. Stay right there. I am going to jump ahead here.
    So according to Executive Order 131112, NISC is charged with
    producing a national management plan every 2 years that sets
    forth its goals for treating and eradicating invasive species.
    However, since 1999, NISC has only released two management
    plans, those in 2001 and 2008. Can you please explain why there
    has been such a delay in producing a management plan, and when
    does NISC plan to produce a national management plan?
        Ms. Reaser. Thank you for the question. To make it short
    since I have answered a version of this already, the management
    plan between 2014--that is when the second management plan
    sunsetted--sorry--between 2012, and this management plan, there
    has been a process in place to identify which items in the
    second management plan need to be moved forward to the third
    management plan. A number of items are ongoing understandably.
    Also ----
        Mr. Gosar. I get that, and I see the gentleman over here
    just wriggling, which is what I am doing, is that there is so
    much bureaucracy up here, there is nothing trickling down to
    the local levels. And this is what is frustrating about this is
    that we always have to set goals. We have to have objectives,
    and then we have to have outcomes. And if we do not have people
    on the local level included in those, we are never going
    anywhere.
        And this is what is so frustrating with these groups. I
    have got salt cedars on one side. I have got quagga mussels
    everywhere. I have bison in the Yellowstone National area in
    the Grand Canyon. This is frustrating when you are talking
    about invasive species because you have people with expertise
    and the manpower and willpower to do this, but they cannot get
    any jurisdiction or leverage coming out of your Department.
    Does that make sense to you?
        Ms. Reaser. I certainly understand and concur with your
    frustrations in terms of the priority of getting resources to
    the ground ----
        Mr. Gosar. Yes, but it is even worse than that because not
    just getting the resources. But these plans seem to get lost in
    your bureaucracy that are well intentioned and have great
    outcomes, but they cannot get any jurisdiction to say we are
    going to work with you, let us move forward with this plan. I
    mean, it is just absolutely ludicrous with the folks back home
    what is going on with this.
        Ms. Reaser. I understand your concerns, and they are
    warranted. This is a substantial issue of concern that deserves
    priority attention. I can assure you that the third management
    plan will be available early next year.
        Mr. Gosar. Well, I will have to stay. I am running out of
    time. I will stay ----
        Mr. Buck. The chair thanks the gentleman from Arizona. I
    just want to make one thing clear. Dr. Reaser, I want to make
    sure we have the correct spelling of the assisted witness in
    this matter. If you could just spell your name for the record,
    I would appreciate it.
        Ms. Kinsinger. Yes, I am Anne Kinsinger. That is Anne with
    an ``E.'' Last name K-i-n-s-i-n-g-e-r.
        Mr. Buck. Thank you very much. And the chair now recognizes
    the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Plaskett. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Ranking Member
    Lawrence. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and I am so
    appreciative of you coming here to discuss this issue. Invasive
    species affect our economy, our environment, human health in
    many instances.
        And although we have not focused on it today, and I did not
    hear it in your testimonies, invasive species, such as
    lionfish, brown tree snake, and even invasive Sargassum
    seaweed, have had a devastating effect on all aspects of the
    economic development, agricultural production, and tourism,
    particularly in my district in the United States Virgin
    Islands, and in some parts of southeastern United States.
        I note that several of my colleagues from Florida have
    introduced legislation related to the lionfish, which are an
    invasive, voracious eating species that is not native to the
    waters in which they have come, and have completely attempted
    in their eating habits to annihilate our own local fish. And
    our fishermen are up in arms. Our Department of Planning and
    Natural Resources are trying to create ways to deal with this
    invasive species both in the Virgin Island, Puerto Rico, and
    particularly in areas of Florida as well.
        And there has been success in controlling a few of the
    invasive species, but it is clear you all are completely aware
    that we need to do more. Ms. Reaser, according to the submitted
    testimony, you have taken on some really important initiatives.
    And one of those initiatives is to focus on national priorities
    and targeted outputs. I wanted to know if you could tell us
    what the national priorities are, and what do you mean by
    ``targeted outputs?'' And specifically, of course, you know, my
    interest would be if the territories are included in those
    priorities.
        Ms. Reaser. Certainly the territories are explicitly
    included in the work we are doing, and thank you for
    highlighting them. And in particular, they do face many
    challenges that are particular to island regions. As you are
    probably well aware, invasive species are one of the number one
    threats to biodiversity in island context, and that has
    certainly been the case in the U.S. territories.
        The national priorities are set within the National
    Invasive Species Management Plan in terms of how the Federal
    government is going to work together, but also with States,
    territories, tribes, and other partners. So each management
    plan sets forward a new set of priorities, and so we will have
    a new set early this next year.
        Ms. Plaskett. And how is that determined, in what way? Is
    it by population? Is it based on economic determinants? What
    sets those priorities?
        Ms. Reaser. Anne Kinsinger would like to address that.
        Ms. Kinsinger. Okay. Hi. I just wanted to say I am not
    speaking to what will be in the plan, but that there are a
    number of scientifically-based techniques that we can use. One
    of them is model the invasivity of the animal once it is
    detected and try to get a sense of how quickly it will spread,
    and try to be able to understand what kind of impacts it is
    going to have, because there are many invasive species that
    come to the country and really do not cause much damages, do
    not spread very quickly.
        So we have a variety of tools that we are trying to use
    that managers and policy makers can deploy to understand how
    quickly and how damaging from both an ecological and an
    economic perspective.
        Ms. Plaskett. Because the reason I was asking what are the
    benchmarks and how do you determine that is more often than
    not, in my area of the Virgin Islands, because it is seen that
    we are small in numbers, we are not given the priorities. And I
    just wanted to share something with the committee today, and I
    am asking that we show this picture, and I will pass this
    around.
        That this is what happens when the invasive species, the
    Sargassum seaweed, which if you think about an island economy
    that is based on fishing and tourism, if that is sitting on
    your beach, it is going to affect your tourism tremendously on
    a regular basis. And that is on every beach in the Virgin
    Islands these last couple of months. So thank you, and I would
    ask unanimous consent to include this in the record.
        And I just wanted to then close with, and I know I am
    running out of time. Mr. Beck, if you could tell us if you feel
    that there needs to be a change and improvement in controlling
    this and how we set these priorities.
        Mr. Beck. I am not familiar with the seaweed problem other
    than I am just aware that it exists, so I am not the expert to
    ask on that. But if we do not have the information, it needs to
    be dealt with immediately. That seems to be the case with
    almost every new invasive species, you know. Where are we
    scientifically on it?
        That is an excellent question to ask, and I think we need
    to address these species unfortunately one at a time, but that
    is part of the challenge in this. And they all need to be
    addressed.
        Mr. Buck. With no objection, the picture will be included
    in the record.
        Mr. Buck. And I would just mention to the gentlelady from
    the Virgin Island that Dr. Beck and I live close to each other,
    and we would be glad to go to the Virgin Islands this time of
    year to look at the seaweed and ----
        Ms. Plaskett. Immediately.
        Mr. Buck. Yes, immediately. Great. The chair recognizes the
    gentleman from Arizona for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Reaser, we are
    going to come back again to Arizona. And as you know, the
    Tamarisk salt cedar has been spread throughout the Colorado
    River Basin. It has been especially damaging to areas in
    Arizona in my district along the Gila River. These invasive and
    thirsty shrubs steal already limited water to push out native
    plants, strain agricultural resources, and disrupt economic
    activity.
        In communities where the Tamarisk invasion has developed
    into crisis, like Buckeye Arizona on the Gila River, local and
    State leaders have developed action plans to eradicate the
    shrub and restore natural habitats. However, these mitigation
    plans, like I alluded to earlier, have gotten lost in the
    complicated web of Federal invasive species policy, or have
    been flat out resisted by the Federal agencies themselves.
        So what has NISC done to engage communities and to empower
    them to leverage the local resources and expertise to address
    problems unique to their area?
        Ms. Reaser. Thank you for the question. To clarify, NISC
    itself is the Secretaries' and administrators ----
        Mr. Gosar. I understand.
        Ms. Reaser.--of the 13 member Departments. So they
    themselves would not be having a direct relationship
    coordinating with the counties. However, many of the Federal
    agency personnel working in that region have been involved in
    multi-stakeholder partnerships. You are familiar, I am sure,
    with the Tamarisk Coalition.
        Mr. Gosar. Yes.
        Ms. Reaser. And through those on the ground efforts at
    better communication and coordination, requests for assistance,
    individual priority setting, information, exercises, and so
    forth are brought up through the Federal agencies.
        Mr. Gosar. So now, is there any benefit or streamlining to
    this process in coordination with American Indian tribes?
        Ms. Reaser. Thank you for the question. Are you referring
    to the work with Tamarisk in particular or with ----
        Mr. Gosar. With any invasive species, but in this case
    Tamarisk, yes.
        Ms. Reaser. Thank you for the question. I cannot answer
    specifically with regard to Tamarisk. I can answer more broadly
    if that is of interest.
        Mr. Gosar. Sure.
        Ms. Reaser. Okay. So within the framework of the Invasive
    Species Advisory Committee that I mentioned previously, there
    are two seats dedicated for tribal representatives. There have
    been five tribal individuals who have filled those seats to
    date. The tribes are also included in numerous specific actions
    that are implemented under the National Invasive Species
    Management Plan. They may participate in specific committees,
    working groups, or task teams of particular interest to the
    tribes.
        The most recent example would be the outreach to tribes and
    inclusion of tribal representatives and the development of the
    early detection and rapid response framework that will be
    released in the near future.
        Mr. Gosar. Well, but my question is, is there any mechanism
    in which that can streamline? I mean, they have jurisdictions
    that are synonymous as a sovereign entity if it exists on their
    property. Is there is a streamlining mechanism? Not just
    representation, but is there a streamlining possibility in
    utilizing the tribes within a problem?
        Ms. Reaser. Thank you for the question. The tribes
    themselves have not brought to our attention a request for that
    process. If they did, I think we would take it into
    consideration to look at ways to coordinate better. We
    certainly would welcome more tribal participation at all levels
    of the work within the NISC and the broader NISC framework.
        Mr. Gosar. Gotcha. Dr. Beck, I mean, you have seen this
    from the ground level. How would you orchestrate something in a
    comprehensive management plan that addresses the Great Lakes
    from the Virgin Islands, to Arizona, to the Great Lakes so that
    we have all these multiple applications going on? I mean, you
    are with CSU, right?
        Mr. Beck. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Gosar. I have got ASU, U of A, NAU. I mean, they are a
    pretty good resource out there. But how would you manage a plan
    like that from your level that would address a lot of these
    things and synchronize them that may not be so bureaucratically
    top down driven?
        Mr. Beck. Well, first, I think is to involve people at the
    local level. What do they want to do? What is their land use
    vision, and then adapt from there. And then geographically you
    have to start up to the high elevation, high waters, and then
    move downstream from there rather than trying to move up. I
    have seen it go both ways, and it never works when you try to
    run upstream. But at any rate, visiting and getting input from
    the local community is absolutely essential. That is the
    starting place.
        Mr. Gosar. I know we have been chasing the mussels upstream
    up to Colorado, so we know your plight there, absolutely.
        Mr. Beck. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Gosar. One last question. Dr. Steinman, would you have
    any other comments in regards to that process?
        Mr. Steinman. Well, I think the coordination is essential.
    Without that, things are going to break down. As I mentioned in
    the oral testimony, written testimony, these invasive species
    cross jurisdictional boundaries. Any time you have these
    connected systems, the weakest link provides the problem there.
    So it is essential that people work together and have a
    coordinated effort and based on science is really going to be a
    critical element to make things successful.
        Mr. Gosar. When you empower local people, you find people
    more adaptive to be protecting, right?
        Mr. Steinman. Absolutely, and I agree with Dr. Beck in the
    sense that if you do not what their social values are at that
    local land value, you know, you are just not going to make a
    difference.
        Mr. Gosar. Thank you.
        Mr. Buck. The chair thanks the gentleman from Arizona, and
    recognizes the gentlelady from Michigan.
        Ms. Lawrence. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Cameron, I just
    want to ask a follow-up question. How do you feel the NISC,
    from your organization, how effective is it? You gave some
    recommendations. Does the plan drive the results? I would like
    to hear your opinion.
        Mr. Cameron. Thank you. Thank you, Congressman. A couple of
    thoughts. The first is a plan is ultimately just a piece of
    paper. What you really need is commitment at least at the
    assistant secretary level. More than a commitment, active
    participation. You need assistant secretaries willing to spend
    15 percent of their time worried about invasive species.
    Frankly, I do not think we have had that for quite a while. You
    need that leadership in order to drive coordination inside
    Washington in order to provide air cover, if you will, for the
    people at the regional level, at the State level who are trying
    to do the right thing. So a good plan is helpful, it is
    necessary, but it is by no means sufficient.
        What I think is really important, echoing some things we
    have heard before, is taking a lot of hints from the governors.
    Your own governor is really invested in the invasive species
    issues even with Michigan's economic problems. He has budget
    increases in the State budget for invasives. Governor
    Hickenlooper has been all over the cheatgrass issue from the
    very beginning in Colorado.
        So the Federal government needs to pay attention to where
    the governors are coming from. The Federal government can
    provide a forum for cooperation among the governors. The Great
    Lakes Restoration Initiative in your part of the country, Ms.
    Lawrence, is one example of a fairly successful model. Maybe
    WGA could do the same on cheatgrass, for instance.
        Ms. Lawrence. Well, Dr. Steinman, I introduced H.R. 1900,
    the National Sea Grant College Program. And we know it is
    administered within the National Oceanic Administration, NOAA.
    Do you believe that Congress should reauthorize it and fund new
    university research, because one of the things that I am
    hearing, and who made the quote about good science versus good
    policy. So would you please comment on that?
        Mr. Steinman. Thank you, Representative Lawrence. I am a
    strong supporter of the National Sea Grant Program administered
    under NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration. It is really where the science, education, and
    outreach all come together on a local basis. And even though
    National Sea Grant seems to have a marine name to it, it
    applies to the gentlelady as well.
        And so, whether it is fresh water, salt water, or estuarian
    systems, Sea Grant is really there at the local level making a
    difference educating people and providing the science to help
    inform those management decisions that need to be made.
        Ms. Lawrence. You know, one of the things that I really
    want to drive this point home is that we think about just fish
    in the water. But there is an additional effect of the zebra
    mussel, an increase of blue water algae, which resulted in the
    loss of drinking water to 400,000 Ohio citizens. Can you
    explain how this invasive species has an impact on our drinking
    water?
        Mr. Steinman. Yes, thank you for the question. So the zebra
    and quagga mussels, as I said, are filter feeders, so they are
    filtering out the organisms that are in the water. And by doing
    that, they are clearing the water, and as they clear the water,
    there is more opportunity for the blue-green algae or
    cyanobacteria to start to form in that system.
        Now, it also needs nutrients as well as the light that is
    getting through the water. The nutrients particularly in the
    Western Basin of Lake Erie were coming off of farm fields. You
    had that combination of fertilizer application, a big rainstorm
    that moved it all into the lake. And then you had enough light
    for the blue-greens to grow the cyanobacteria, and because they
    release a toxin, in this case microcystins, which is toxic to
    humans, potentially toxic. That is what Toledo Water Supply
    just decided to shut down.
        Now, we have had algae blooms that are actually larger than
    the one last year that shut down the water supply, but it
    turned out that they did not grow near where the water intakes
    were. So really it makes a difference where those blooms are
    forming, but that combination does create something.
        And I want to point out for Ms. Plaskett as well that
    clearing of the water by the quagga and zebra mussels also
    results in a proliferation of what we call these green algae,
    filamentous green algae called cladophora, very similar to your
    Sargassum that is washing up on the beaches of the Great Lakes
    and creating what we call muck. And nobody wants to go where
    that muck is. Just like in the Virgin Islands, we are seeing
    the same thing in the Great Lakes.
        Ms. Lawrence. I know I only have a few seconds, but, Dr.
    Reaser, this is where I want to connect your job with these
    immediate. So when we have an invasive species affecting
    drinking water, how does these issues rise to the level of you
    responding or being able to respond to this? And when you have
    a situation of Virgin Islands, and everyone sitting here are
    likely to know what is happening, how do we as a member of
    Congress know that you are actually responding in attacking
    this, not just a report.
        But what is your action? And I am sorry, sir, I know I am
    over, but this is important.
        Ms. Reaser. It is important, and thank you for the
    question. To clarify again, NISC itself is the Secretaries and
    administrators of the 13 member departments. And in many cases,
    issues such as this do not necessarily have to rise to that
    level to get action. There are hopefully mechanisms in place in
    most States now and in some territories where there are State-
    level national invasive species councils. There are also plant
    councils and aquatic councils, and they can work to bring local
    levels to State-level attention. State-level attention can then
    be brought to Federal partners and so forth.
        And hopefully at the appropriate level, we are getting
    response, whether that is a technical-level response, an
    authority-level response, or some other mechanism that needs to
    be put in place to assist. So ultimately the response comes
    through partnerships and communications on up.
        Ms. Lawrence. Thank you. Thank you for your indulgence, Mr.
    Chair.
        Mr. Buck. The chair thanks the gentlelady from Michigan,
    and recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
        Mr. Hurd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate our
    panelists being here today.
        Dr. Reaser, in your opening remarks, I appreciate how you
    brought a context to this issue in how it is a national
    security issue. That is something, you know, I know a little
    something about. I spent 9 years as an undercover officer in
    the CIA chasing al Qaeda and the Taliban, you know, Iranian and
    IRGC Quds force. And it is great being able to use those
    talents and experience, you know, going after invasive weeds
    and worms. It is an important issue to the State of Texas. In
    Texas we are dealing with the branched broomrape. We are
    dealing with the Old World boll worm. We are dealing with
    cheatgrass as well.
        And, you know, we have talked here today, and I guess my
    first question is more a philosophical question. We have talked
    here today about how invasive species pose one of the greatest
    threats to the agriculture industries in the world, yet are the
    least funded and recognized. How can we change this mentality
    to become more proactive in protecting our industries?
        Ms. Reaser. Thank you for the question. I think it is a
    really good one, and something that deserves a lot more time
    than what we have available to us. I think one of the
    challenges that has existed within this issue I the
    agricultural context is the long history of using the word
    ``pest'' and ``weeds,'' which do not galvanize the public's
    emotive response to this issue.
        A lot of people equate ``weeds'' to dandelions, which are
    in their background and they do not feel are particularly
    threatening. The invasive species issue itself, because of
    examples that have been emerging from around the world, is
    getting more of the public's perspective on the real risks
    associated with these non-native organisms, impacting them
    personally.
        And I think as we raise the profile of this issue, as we
    communicate case studies effectively, as we draw the
    relationships between these individual species and people's
    personal lives, whether that be in the agricultural context or
    otherwise, we will see additional calls for support in all
    sorts of ways--financial, technical, and otherwise.
        The human dimensions of this issue are of particular
    interest to me, and I would love to have a side conversation
    with you at another date if that is of interest to you.
        Mr. Hurd. It is of interest, and I appreciate that. And
    also in some of the specifics not only in how do we educate,
    you know, folks about how critical of an issue this is, the Old
    World boll worm poses a significant threat to corn, cotton, and
    other important crops throughout the U.S. And given that it
    reached Brazil and Puerto Rico, and that in June of this year
    one worm was found in Florida, is there a Federal protocol in
    place for an effective response to eliminate any isolated
    infestations before the pest spreads and becomes established in
    the U.S.?
        Ms. Reaser. Thank you for the question. I am not an expert
    on that species in particular. I know that USDA has been
    working on eradicating the Texas boll weevil, if, in fact, we
    are talking about the same species, and that that work has been
    mostly successful. I would like to follow up with you more
    specifically at a later date when I can get the specifics in
    front of me.
        Mr. Hurd. Great. I appreciate that and would welcome that.
    And my last question, there has been some conversations already
    on cheatgrass. The latest research suggests that targeting
    grazing and optimum times, either before the seed polyps
    develop or after they drop, produces recurrence on rangelands
    more than anything else we have tried. An given the tremendous
    wildfire issues and detrimental effects of sage grouse habitat
    associated with cheatgrass, should not research like this be a
    priority, and what are agencies doing to coordinate their
    efforts to streamline unnecessary environmental reviews for
    pilot projects and trials?
        Ms. Reaser. So, two different answers. Thank you for the
    questions. In terms of the grazing question in particular,
    there are nuances to the grazing that need to be looked at from
    a research perspective. There are a number of criteria that go
    into determining whether grazing is an effective technique in
    terms of managing cheatgrass. Those relate to the history of
    the land use, in particular, the condition of the land.
        The micro climate that you are looking at, whether you are
    talking about grazing with cattle versus sheep, the density of
    the animals, even the breed of the animals, can make a
    difference in terms of grazing habits. So there is various work
    going on to look at best possible strategies for managing
    cheatgrass, and they may vary across and likely will vary
    across the landscape.
        To get to the second part of your question, which I am
    going to ask you to repeat.
        Mr. Hurd. Sure. It is, you know, what are agencies doing to
    coordinate efforts to streamline unnecessary environmental
    reviews for pilot projects and initial trials?
        Ms. Reaser. Great. Apologies. Thank you for that. One of
    the priorities that emerged out of the Western Invasive Weed
    Summit that I attended two weeks ago was streamlining the NEPA
    process. This has been a priority for us for a number of years
    at this point in time, and we are going to continue to move
    ahead on looking at what we could do to provide better NEPA
    guidance and streamlining in the invasive species context into
    the New Year.
        Mr. Hurd. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the time I do not
    have.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Buck. The chairman thanks the gentleman from Texas, and
    recognizes the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands.
        Ms. Plaskett. Thank you. Thank you so much. I just wanted
    to go back to something that we were talking about, and that
    the ranking member, Ms. Lawrence, brought up. When you talked
    about this is layering, and the responses that come from the
    local level, to the State level, to the Federal level. You also
    talked about the management plan, and I know it is the specific
    task and the mandate of this group to really set those kind of
    guidelines and those prioritizations out.
        Can you give me an example of how this has worked in some
    of these invasive species? In your written testimony you talked
    about the Asian carp. You talked about cheatgrass. You know, we
    have given the example about the lionfish. How has this worked
    to address some of these issues on some of these specific
    invasive species issues?
        Ms. Reaser. Thank you for the question. You are
    particularly interested in the coordination mechanisms and the
    ----
        Ms. Plaskett. Well, I am just trying to find out some
    specificity because I just hear a lot of very general
    discussion about how the process works, and that the management
    plans are there to make this happen. But I have not heard--
    maybe it was done--what specific examples you have of where
    this has worked and where the organization, when this group has
    actually made it effective against some of these invasive
    species.
        Ms. Reaser. Okay. So I want to clarify once again that the
    National Invasive Species Council is itself the Secretary's and
    administrators of the 13-member Federal Department. So when we
    start moving onto discussions about impacts on the ground, we
    are looking at the engagement at the Agency level and Agency
    personnel.
        Ms. Plaskett. Right, but you set those. You set those
    priorities in that national plan and the management of how that
    is going to be done, is that not right, in your coordination of
    all of these agencies.
        Ms. Reaser. The management plan sets out a series of
    actions to be taken over the life of the management plan.
        Ms. Plaskett. And the management plan is how, in fact,
    these agencies are going to attack these invasive species
    issues, right?
        Ms. Reaser. The management plan sets out goals and
    objectives for achieving certain things. It is not prescriptive
    in telling the agencies how specifically to move forward on
    that particular action.
        Ms. Plaskett. But it sets out guidelines for these agencies
    on how this is supposed to be done? That is a yes or a no. Does
    it?
        Ms. Reaser. It sets out priority actions. It does not
    explicitly set out guidelines.
        Ms. Plaskett. So in setting the priorities for them, can
    you give me an example of how those priorities have not been
    set since this group has been made, how it has been effective
    in the invasive species fight?
        Ms. Reaser. Okay. So I can give you a specific example for
    what is happening on the ground right now within the work that
    is being done on cheatgrass. Under a second ----
        Ms. Plaskett. Is that the only way you are able to tell me
    what it is working on? You are not able to tell me what has
    been done and what has been effective in the past as yet?
        Ms. Reaser. I can go through a number of action items in
    the plan. There are 170 various action items, and I can go
    through with you at a later date ----
        Ms. Plaskett. Are there too many action items?
        Ms. Reaser. Pardon?
        Ms. Plaskett. Are there too many action items maybe? If I
    give my kids too many chores, they will never get any of them
    completed.
        Ms. Reaser. I understand your concern with the number of
    activities and the action items, and I can assure you in the
    next management plan ----
        Ms. Plaskett. I am not concerned. You just cited so many of
    them as a reason you are not able to tell me which ones they
    have completed.
        Ms. Reaser. Well, I can pull out the two management plans
    at the moment, and I could go through them with you. We do not
    have time obviously to do that right now. It is something we
    could sit down and do together.
        Ms. Plaskett. I just asked for one example.
        Ms. Reaser. So one example in the management plan was to
    provide resources to develop an international infrastructure
    for sharing information on invasive species. A number of
    activities actually have taken place to result in that. The
    Global Invasive Species Information Network was created that is
    housed by the U.S. Geological Survey.
        We have also contributed resources to setting up a global
    database. You could call it a global encyclopedia through an
    organization known as CAVI. That provides information that can
    be used in the agricultural sector, in the environmental
    sector, and otherwise to inform decision making, such as risk
    analyses and risk assessments on the invasive species issue.
        Ms. Plaskett. And any of these, have you been able to show
    where the action items, the action that has been taken, has
    actually scaled back the invasive species, or what the impact
    that those have had on the particular areas that they have
    affected?
        Ms. Reaser. At this point in time, without actually going
    to the agencies and asking for that particular data ----
        Ms. Plaskett. Can you ask? That is the ultimate goal of the
    group. Would that not be something that you would know
    immediately to be able to say that what you have been working
    on all these years, this is the outcome and this is how we have
    been able to beat back this national crisis, this national
    security issue?
        Ms. Reaser. I understand your concern, and if the
    management plan action items were specifically targeted towards
    an on the ground response, that would be feasible, and I can
    collect that information.
        Many of the items in the management plan are actually
    focused on enhancing coordination, cooperation, efficiencies,
    and resource spending, partnerships with States and tribal
    governments.
        Ms. Plaskett. And is not all of that the ultimate goal to
    eradicate the invasive species?
        Ms. Reaser. They are all creating the enabling environment
    to allow that to happen.
        Ms. Plaskett. Dr. Reaser, that is just yes or no. Is not
    that the ultimate goal of the organization is to do that?
        Ms. Reaser. The ultimate goal of ----
        Ms. Plaskett. Yes? No?
        Ms. Reaser.--the National Invasive Species Council is to
    facilitate coordination and cooperation of specific duties that
    are outlined in the executive order.
        Ms. Plaskett. To what end?
        Ms. Reaser. Ultimately to the end of preventing, and
    controlling ----
        Ms. Plaskett. So the answer would be ----
        Ms. Reaser.--and eradicating invasive species. However, the
    activities are often many steps removed from what is happening
    on the ground. So the ability to say we have created an
    invasive species database is creating an enabling environment
    to enable people on the ground, whether that is cheatgrass, or
    zebra mussels, or weevils in Texas, to make a difference.
        However, being able to say that the data in that database
    directly resulted in 300 infestations being intercepted in the
    field is understandably quite difficult.
        Ms. Plaskett. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Buck. The chair thanks the gentlelady from the Virgin
    Islands, and recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.
        Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to
    thank the witnesses for being here and for their testimony.
        I have got a question about how some of these invasive
    species enter the country, and I just want to ask, Dr. Reaser,
    I know that the Department of Agriculture and Department of
    Interior are involved. But is there an ongoing discussion
    about, for instance, sportsmen have brought in certain plants
    that they think are good for wildlife that have turned out not
    so well. This has been the case in Alabama.
        And I think as we talk about how to deal with the invasive
    species who are already here, we need to be talking about how
    we can prevent some of them from being brought into the
    country. Can you tell me what kind of activity takes place,
    what kind of discussions, what kind of strategic planning is
    going on to prevent that?
        Ms. Reaser. Thank you for the question. We generally
    discuss these in the context of pathway interdiction and
    prevention at the border. And I am sure you are well aware,
    there are numerous controls in place at our ports of entry both
    on the agricultural side and on the wildlife and human health
    side to intercept organisms before they come into the States.
    There also are mechanisms in place to interdict various
    pathways by which organisms may be introduced, whether that is
    through horticulture or other means.
        One of the ways in which we are adding value at this point
    in time is to increase our capacities for risk analysis, our
    ability to look at species before they come to the United
    States, and determining what is the likelihood of those
    organisms being harmful if they arrive here so that we can
    proactively make choices about which species to let in and
    which species to prohibit.
        Mr. Palmer. When these things are brought in, and there
    was, I think, it is an Asian version of oak trees that was
    brought in that a lot of people thought was a great idea for
    deer and wild turkey, have now decided that it is not. Is there
    any effort to limit the introduction of something like that so
    that you have got a 5-, 10-year period to determine if it is
    problematic? What is the process?
        Ms. Reaser. So ideally, risk analyses are informed by the
    best available science that you have. They also take other
    values and economic concerns into consideration. So if that or
    any organism became an issue of concern for importation into
    the United States, a risk analysis could take place, and it
    could determine based on the output of that risk analysis
    whether there were reasons to prohibit that organism, whatever
    it happened to be, and authorities in place to then follow up
    with the prohibition.
        Mr. Palmer. In the South, we have had to deal with an
    invasive species called kudzu. But we have also been dealing
    with an invasive weed called Cogan grass, and I think it came
    into the country as packing material. And, again, it gets back
    to the collaboration between the various Federal agencies and
    departments of government to make sure that if we bring
    something in, that it does not have the capacity, first of all,
    to reproduce, which I think that surprised a number of people
    when that happen.
        But in that regard, Dr. Beck, you are the weed specialist.
    What impact does the NEPA process have on the efforts to
    control the spread of invasive weeds like cheatgrass, and is it
    helping or hurting these efforts, or other things like cogon
    grass, for instance?
        Mr. Beck. My apologies. I did not hear the one word. My
    hearing is horrible. NEPA you said?
        Mr. Palmer. Right, NEPA. N-E-P-A.
        Mr. Beck. My experience personally with NEPA is with
    working with others that have had to do battle with them, and I
    guess that is the term that they would prefer to use. It can be
    an onerous process. It is by design meant to be thorough, but
    one does not have to take 10 years to make a decision.
        I think the process is good when it is used as it is
    supposed to be used, but unfortunately we run into situations
    where there seems to be a lot of misuse. In other words, the
    people who are making the assessment simply do not want
    something coming in, or they do not care, and it go could go
    either way. NEPA is a problem that needs to be addressed and
    streamlined.
        Mr. Palmer. My time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Buck. The chair thanks the gentleman from Alabama, and
    recognizes the gentlelady from Michigan.
        Ms. Lawrence. I want to thank you all for being here. For
    my last set of questions, Mr. Cameron, I agree with your
    suggestion that Congress should direct the Council to furnish
    us with a short annual work plan to help focus attention on the
    Council's work. Ms. Reaser, do you have any objection to that
    suggestion?
        Ms. Reaser. Thank you for the question, and I appreciate
    the suggestion that Scott Cameron has brought forward. My
    request would be that any reporting be tied into the National
    Invasive Species Management Plan process so that the reporting
    on that can happen concurrently with any requests so that we
    are making sure that we are being efficient in our reporting
    processes.
        The current reporting for the National Invasive Species
    Management Plan is set at the executive order for 18 months
    after each management plan. And as we move forward, we intend
    to report out on that time frame.
        Ms. Lawrence. I would strongly recommend that as you are
    working on the plan, that you look at providing us with
    updates.
        I want to ask Dr. Steinman, what can the Federal government
    do to be helpful in your effort in curbing invasive species in
    the Great Lakes? What can the Federal government do? I am a
    little concerned that we have a plan that does not really cause
    action. It is a plan. So please tell me, what can we do?
        Mr. Steinman. Well, thank you, Representative Lawrence. It
    really depends on the vector that we are talking about for
    introduction because there are so many ways that invasive
    species can get into the Great Lakes or into any ecosystem. So,
    again, that coordination is really critical if you are talking
    about species that are coming in from ballast water
    introduction. And it is critical that the EPA, the U.S. Coast
    Guard are all working together, the Canadian government as well
    as the U.S. government are working to make sure that none of
    these salties are discharging any of the ballast water
    organisms that would get in that way.
        But in many cases, some of these organisms are being
    introduced just by unintentional means or through the live
    aquaculture trade, and that is when USDA needs to come into
    play. So, again, it gets down to coordination. I know this is a
    common refrain we have been hearing, not just amongst the
    Federal government, although that is an important resource for
    us not just in terms of their management strategies, but in
    terms of resources, monetary resources. But then working with
    the State and local agencies as well to make sure that that
    plan once developed is coordinated and can be implemented in a
    rigorous way.
        Ms. Lawrence. Thank you so much. I want the panel to know,
    Dr. Reaser, that I am looking forward to that report and your
    leadership, but leadership is needed. All the members who have
    spoken here, we represent different parts of this country, and
    the issues that we are talking about, and we covered it. It is
    economic. It is our water quality. It is recreational. It is
    jobs. It is our economy. All these things are tied to this.
        And it seems like there has been this kind of whatever
    attitude, and under your leadership, and it is something that
    is going to be a priority for me as a member of Congress, is
    that we continue to put the focus and the energy. This is not a
    job to come in and just kind of sit on the side because nobody
    cares what you are doing. You have a tremendous background when
    you talk about your resume, and so you understand the impact of
    this.
        And this hearing to me is important because this is a major
    impact. You know, I am from the Great Lakes, but you heard
    Texas. You heard Florida. You heard the Islands. This is
    something that requires the commitment and the passion, and I
    am sitting here. I am looking forward to that leadership. I am
    going to be actively looking for that report.
        And this issue of coordinating the levels of government is
    extremely important, and I expect for the plan to lay out that
    process so that we have a process where at least there is a
    plan where if I am a governor, this is the layers and this is
    how we move forward, and there is a process for that. So I want
    to thank you all for you being here and your expertise.
        I yield back my time, sir.
        Mr. Buck. The chair thanks the gentlelady from Michigan.
    And in closing, I would like to thank our witnesses for taking
    the time to appear before us today.
        If there is no further business, without objection, the
    subcommittee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 4:06 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                    APPENDIX

                                  ----------

                   Material Submitted for the Hearing Record

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]